Meeting minutes
Agenda
Ege: (goes through the agenda)
Minutes
approved (after fixing a typo)
<kaz> June-5
Ege: Any more remarks?
<kaz> none; approved
Quick schedule
Ege: Who can join tomorrow?
Ege: Tomorrow is a public holiday in Germany
<non Germans>: we can join
Kaz: To be sure, since Ege is on holiday mjk will take over the lead?
Koster: yes
Publication Schedule
<kaz> wg-schedule.md
Kaz: we discussed in main call the publication schedule
Kaz: the main topic for the WG is TD and Binding
Kaz: The initial proposal is to publish a first draft by the end of September
Kaz: We as the TD-TF need to update the wg-schedule.md for TD and Binding.
Ege: Basically our TF needs to fill most of the schedule
Ege: we do not needs to fill everything during the first working draft
Ege: does anybody have other opinions?
Ege: Is everybody fine in calling it TD 2.0 ?
Ege: do we have any objections or proposal?
Cristiano: Do we have some implications regarding the name?
Ege: It would impact the urls
Cristiano: if we use `next` we'd just have a deprecation notice for the final name?
Luca: I would keep on using versioning
… consensus is that the next version will be incompatible so 2.0 makes sense
… we already have the concept of draft, candidate rec, and rec
… I wouldn't spend much time, just go with 2.0
Kaz: I agree with lu, we basically already agreed on it during this charter period. Note that the current Charter just says "Thing Description (Update)".
<kaz> the Current WoT WG Charter
Ege: I also thing TD 2.0 will be incompatible
Daniel: I do not mind 2.0, but I see CSS went with just CSS 3
Ege: Do we have opinions?
Kaz: Keep in mind that CSS 3 means "level 3" and not version
Daniel: I see other specifications doing with single number
Kaz: We already used 1.1
Kaz: from my point of view anything is fine but it must not be 1.2
Luca: I would stay consistent. We already have 11. Unless we have 10 major versions, we shouldn't have a problem
<kaz> WCAG uses 3.0 for version 3 :)
Kaz: Each working group has their own policy
Kaz: we can keep 11, 20 as we like
Ege: I'd go 2.0 since is more descriptive
Kaz: note that we need to talk with PLH before FPWD publication about the URL
<EgeKorkan> proposal: The TD TF agrees on working for First Public Working Draft for the TD (Update) document and the First Public Draft Registry for the Binding Registry document within this charter period.
Ege: Any objections?
RESOLUTION: The TD TF agrees on working for First Public Working Draft for the TD (Update) document and the First Public Draft Registry for the Binding Registry document within this charter period.
<EgeKorkan> proposal: The TD TF agrees on calling the update to the TD specification "Web of Things (WoT) Thing Description 2.0" with the shortname wot-thing-description-2.0
Ege: Any remarks on the second one?
RESOLUTION: The TD TF agrees on calling the update to the TD specification "Web of Things (WoT) Thing Description 2.0" with the shortname wot-thing-description-2.0
<kaz> history of registry docs
Cristiano: Before listing the features, I guess we can list the new features and explain why we are going to 2.0
Luca: all of this would be great material for mastodon or long form blog posts
… we can blog more about such upcoming features
… on the other hand, we should try to pick just one feature and get implementation feedback on it. In a coordinated manner
… so in a month get some results and say that multiple implementations work in an interoperable way
… it would be outreach too. 70% outreach, 30% spec work
… so we would not need to wait for a plugfest
… we should see if the implementations work
Ege: it would be a good strategy in general and it was the original plugfest format
Ege: with 4 plugfests per year
Ege: since we are more distributed it would be good to try as you suggest
Cristiano: and all this work is blocked on the toolchain work
Cristiano: we could have a normative section to tell how to model a queue of actions
Cristiano: queues for actions aren't that common though
Ege: Do we need to put more or that's already too much?
Cristiano: it is good to have a list
Kaz: please think about which feature would take how long discussion. we should avoid working too complicated features.
[adjourned]