W3C

– DRAFT –
WoT-WG - TD-TF - Slot 2

05 June 2025

Attendees

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

Meeting minutes

Minutes Review

<kaz> May-22

Ege: I will go over the minutes

Ege: any remarks?

Ege: minutes are approved

Toolchain Updates

<kaz> wot_security.yaml

Mahda: got around to work on the toolchain again
… the schemas are now updated and look better with respect to the spec
… I have restructured the security schemes as well
… I am using annotations to pass variables to post processing

Ege: so we can use it to pass variables to post processing

Mahda: yes

Ege: were you doing this in post processing in a hard coded way?

Mahda: I wasn't doing this
… I raised it as an issue for linkml but it didn't get fixed

Ege: inheritance is on line 58 right?

Mahda: yes. it wasnt working working before but i think they fixed issues in the tool

https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description-toolchain-tmp/blob/main/resources/schemas/wot_security.yaml
… I have added a benchmark tool to get a score for the generation of json schema

<kaz> validate_td_instances.py

Ege: i think it would be good to have generated results on the repo as well
… we decided against it but it would be good to have it
… can you show locally

Mahda: yes it would be helpful
… (shows the generated results on her local PC)

Mahda: we can see the generation of the "null" type. I have reported it to linkml
… it also adds add type string when you dont specify a string
… I also don't have a JSON Schema post processing. I though I had before
… now the top level is correct

Ege: the optional "null" was always there?

Mahda: yes

Kaz: it would be good to have the generated files on github
… and explaining the folder structure
… like at the top of the readme something like "Folder Structure"

Mahda: also it is good to mention that the uri format has issues

Ege: any remarks?

Cristiano: regarding the output generation, we can put them as artifacts
… like a release

Ege: I think it is a rule that editor's draft must be a index.html
… is it the case Kaz?

Kaz: the link for an Editor's Draft from a spec is usually specified by the URL of the Editor's Draft repository. I think it would be easier for the reader to use the repository's URL as usual to access the Editor's Draft.
… though there is no explicit requirement about that

<kaz> s/must be a index.html must be the index.html file on the main branch./

Ege: we can change the github pages build to use a release

w3c/wot-thing-description-toolchain-tmp#43

Ege: other remarks?

Charter Deadline

WoT WG Charter

Ege: the WoT WG Charter is expiring in 4 months and we have summer holidays

Ege: I don't think we can have a TD REC in that time

Ege: I will summarize the basic process nex
… we can get extension but have a REC ready in the end of it
… or get rechartered for 2 years

Kaz: W3C process is getting stricter
… 6-month extension is possible but for a longer extension, we need the rechartering procedure.
… so I'm asking by when we can publish the TD spec as a REC.
… if 6 months is possible, we can get an extension, but if not, we need to go through the rechartering process.

Cristiano: We definitely cannot publish in 6 months
… we have all the work to be done in 3 major topics
… data mapping, manageable affordances, simplified forms
… we definitely need more work
… with administrative work done, we can focus on the specwork
… maybe 1 year is a good time
… but it is difficult to tell

Kaz: given we did not publish a working draft, we need more than 6 months for a REC
… so I propose rechartering
… we should think of summer and christmas periods
… even with 6 monhts extension, we don't get 6 months

Ege: if we don't do extension, we should think of the schedule

Ege: Does anybody think that we can have a REC with a 6 months extension?

Ege: I agree with Cristiano

Ege: I think that the preliminary consensus is that we don't think that a 6 months extension is enough

Kaz: let's make our TF resolution, and bring it to the main call next week.

proposal: The TD TF thinks that a 6 months extension is not enough. Thus, a rechartering is required to publish the next REC of the TD specification

RESOLUTION: The TD TF thinks that a 6 months extension is not enough. Thus, a rechartering is required to publish the next REC of the TD specification

Cristiano: what are the implications? will the work we declared in the current charter carry over or will it be scratched?

Ege: I think it is treated as a new charter

Daniel: The resolution is from the TD right? There are other deliverables in the charter. So are they carried over? We need broader consensus

Koster: we want to adjust other stuff as well

Kaz: the whole wot wg needs to think of the rechartering or extension
… we need to generate an updated new charter. it can be based on the current charter

Ege: nothing mandates that the current deliverables are carried over. right?

Kaz: right

Ege: AOB?

Ege: adjourned

Summary of resolutions

  1. The TD TF thinks that a 6 months extension is not enough. Thus, a rechartering is required to publish the next REC of the TD specification
Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by scribe.perl version 244 (Thu Feb 27 01:23:09 2025 UTC).