Meeting minutes
IEs
Koster: We have two IE requests and also Mahmood Afshari is being evaluated
Kaz: I will contact them
Minutes
<kaz> May-28
Koster: any changes?
… approved
Quick Items
Call for resolution on Discovery user stories
McCool: I will finalize PR 359 discovery
Use Cases
McCool: I will summarize the meeting today
… there were 6-7 people in the call
… we discussed the process, the role of the document
… also putting the user stories in the individual spec documents
… also we did not communicate why we do the process the way we want
… also we noted the issues with the current document
<McCool> w3c/
McCool: we also need to remove some of sections or put them in other documents like architecture
… we are almost done with the work. I would like to keep the document and cleanup
Koster: my takeaway is that, the discussion has focused on what we need out of the document and why are we doing this
… having a central document is good but it is not a requirement
… if we do, it can be an index
… that the TF work can reference from
… the current work/text is from old times
… and that is how we scoped the WG work
Ege: I object. They are not that old
… we had the current specs already
McCool: I agree
Koster: the use cases now help understanding TD
<McCool> w3c/
<McCool> (above is the set of tweaks)
Koster: also the renaming is now being discussed
… like use cases becoming user scenarios
Koster: like the onboarding example
McCool: that is not a user scenario though. A user scenario is something like automating a greenhouse
Koster: the overall idea is to have the use cases document like an index
Sebastian: I am open with any direction
… central document has benefits, individual tf documents are also good
… I have realized that TD document does not reference use cases
… a technical document should do that
… also use cases document is a very old document
… mccool is doing some PRs to cleanup that I find useful
<Zakim> McCool, you wanted to react to sebastian
McCool: moving the document does not solve the issue, just moves it
… a central document is good
https://
https://
<Zakim> Sebastian, you wanted to react to EgeKorkan
<kaz> WoT WG Charter expires on 2 Oct 2025
Kaz: I agree with koster and sebastian
… I want to remind that the charter is expiring in october
<kaz> schedule
Kaz: we also have the summer vacation, so maybe 2 months work left
… UC and Reqs is needed from W3C Process document
Kaz: we should think of when to do which work, so the schedule
dp: I need to understand the process
… do we need a use case for each new TD feature? like an example
Kaz: we just need to point some resources about the rational of each feature during the transition
Ege: given that UC&R document was used for transition and that it does not have any rationale for the TD 1.1 features, we can keep it as is. Nobody seems to care
Ege: also we don't have time pressure
Kaz: Please remember that we rather used the links for the GitHub Issues directly for the Transition Request
<kaz> TD 1.1 Transition Request
Kaz: We (=WoT WG and WoT IG) can choose what we want to do in addition to the W3C Process' requirements, but we still need to think about how to manage our publication schedule during our Charter periods (=WG and IG). Also need to think about possible extension or rechartering too.
McCool: we can or may not get an extension
… we should really address the issue of not linking back to the use cases document from td
Kaz: also we should note that the IG works on the UC&R and the IG charter has more time
McCool: so no time pressure for the UC&R document
<kaz> WoT IG Charter expires on 19 May 2026
McCool: UC&R document should be high level
… stuff like onboarding are technical requiremeents
Kaz: would suggest we split the UC work by the IG and the TD work by the WG. also we should have an IG and WG schedule separately.
Kaz: Technically, we can have UC&R in each WG specification as a section separately from the IG's UC&R Note itself. If the IG's UC&R Note needs some more time to be updated, we can consider it as a UC&R Note for the next WG Charter.
McCool: splitting the schedule to two is a good idea
McCool: I will write the proposal
<kaz> schedule.md
<McCool> proposal: Clarify that the Use Case TF and Note is the responsibility of the IG and the other TFs are part of the WG. Decouple the schedule for the IG and WG and maintain them separately.
McCool: any objections?
<sebastian7> +1
RESOLUTION: Clarify that the Use Case TF and Note is the responsibility of the IG and the other TFs are part of the WG. Decouple the schedule for the IG and WG and maintain them separately.
Kaz: would suggest we make another resolution to split the WG's spec work from the IG's UC&R work also. However, we're getting out of time, so let's continue the discussion about that next time based on the updated schedule for the IG and the WG.
TPAC 2025
Koster: Kaz has created a wiki page
Koster: please put your availability to the wiki
Meetups
WoT CG
Ege: will have a meeting on Thursday
… about visual programming, etc.
Smart Cities
Koster: Doodle poll ongoing for the next meeting in June/July
AOB
David: Plugfest call today?
Kaz: don't need to have the Plugfest call today
… but please put your availability about the Plugfest as well on the wiki
WoT TPAC 2025 wiki including the Plugfest section
Josh: we need to clarify the logistics for the Plugfest
… we don't have a sponsor yet
Kaz: tx
… already started to talk with the W3C Events Team about that
Koster: aob for today?
(none)
[adjourned]