W3C

– DRAFT –
WoT-WG - TD-TF - Slot 2

24 April 2025

Attendees

Present
Cristiano_Aguzzi, Ege_Korkan, Kaz_Ashimura, Kunihiko_Toumura, Michael_Koster, Tomoaki_Mizushima
Regrets
-
Chair
Ege, Koster
Scribe
EgeKorkan

Meeting minutes

Wrap up on Issue 143

w3c/wot-binding-templates#143

Ege: we talked about this and wrote all the concepts that we are targeting

Issue 143 - "Protocol Binding" vs. "Binding Template"#issuecomment-2824603550 is the results of yesterday's discussions

Ege: we don't need to agree on the name as we can change the repository name easily
… we can decide on the concrete wording later on.

Ege: forgot to mention but we have no TD call for two weeks

Moving Information to the New Repository

requirements

w3c/wot-binding-templates-registry#1

Ege: we are basically copying the information from the binding templates here

proposal: For discussion around the binding registry, we will use w3c/wot-binding-templates-registry repository. However, the name of the repository is subject to change based on the results of the discussions at w3c/wot-binding-templates#143

RESOLUTION: For discussion around the binding registry, we will use w3c/wot-binding-templates-registry repository. However, the name of the repository is subject to change based on the results of the discussions at w3c/wot-binding-templates#143

Ege: then we have a resolution. but I will send an email
… also no objections to merging this PR?

Ege: any objections to moving the related issues as well?
… basically all the issues with the tag at https://github.com/w3c/wot-binding-templates/issues?q=is%3Aissue%20state%3Aopen%20label%3A%22registry%20mechanism%22
… if someone goes to the old link, they should get redirected
… we don't have any leftover issues regarding the registry mechanism in the binding-templates repository

Use Case Process

Reusable Connection

Ege: we aim to have documents of the form https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/tree/main/proposals/initial-connection

Ege: that way we know why a certain was needed

Ege: we should not see this as a bureaucratic step but as a way to align before writing spec documents

Ege: we can write what the user needs to fullfil, the needs of users in form of requirements

Ege: in this example, we also have description about the concrete feature

Ege: we have a document which can be used as a reference

Kaz: we should note that this feature is not only useful for agriculture
… also extending the use case with the requiremeent of usability would be nice

Ege: we can link to more use cases for sure
… however I think the use cases should stay generic a bit

Kaz: TD TF should describe in which part of the use case this initial connection feature would be useful

Ege: so you mean we should explain why there is a link between a user story and use case

Ege: I have opened an issue for this in the use case repo

UC Issue 358 - User Story relation to the Use Case

Ege: any questions on the goal we have?

Ege: the first thing is to write a user story, which is simple to do
… you should basically write one sentence and link to use case that has domain information

Ege: I want to show an example

<kaz> UC Issue 357 - Relevant Payload Selection in (JSON) Payloads

Ege: (presents the content of the user story within the UC Issue 357)

ca: the use case is clear. there might be a way that people were using existing solutions. For example, you can undescribe the payload
… I am wondering, I can propose a solution on this thread

Ege: for existing feature in our specs, we should write here
… in the final document, we should collect existing solutions from other specs. see https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/blob/main/planning/work-items/analysis/analysis-data-mapping.md#existing-solutions
… however, how to collect it in the beginning when the user story is submitted, I don't know

Kaz: I agree with Cris. The whole process needs to be clear

Kaz: we should make a proposal to the next main call.

Ege: we know the first step, the last step but the path between is not clear

Ege: we need to also decide on prioritization

Ege: right now we have a mixed process. We have a charter and an idea of what we want to do

Kaz: the process can be bidirectional. We can write requirements and use cases for the features we are building
… we should discuss this in the main call

Manageable Affordance

<kaz> TD PR 2096 - Manageable Affordances Analysis

<cris> +1

Ege: I am putting all information into one place first

Kaz: so we work on the potential user scenario right?

Ege: yes
… we can merge it to have a place to work on this feature

Ege: AOB?

Ege: Adjourned

Summary of resolutions

  1. For discussion around the binding registry, we will use w3c/wot-binding-templates-registry repository. However, the name of the repository is subject to change based on the results of the discussions at w3c/wot-binding-templates#143
Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by scribe.perl version 244 (Thu Feb 27 01:23:09 2025 UTC).