Meeting minutes
Agenda Review
Ben: The call today can be quick
… lets see
Minutes Review
<kaz> July-30
Ben: you had time to review
… any objections?
… approved
Schedule
Ben: We decided to publish on 31st of July. That didn't work but we had the resolution at least
PRs
Ben: there were editorial PRs
… I have merged them already
PR 443
<kaz> PR 443 - Change words to US English - closes #442
Ben: I did the work via a spell checker
… there is comment about an id change but it can break a link
Issues
Issue 432
<kaz> Issue 432 - Convert specification to Working Group Note and add a note about the document status
Ben: we had a back and forth on this
… some feedback from ML and LB
… (shows the proposed text in the issue comment)
Ben: any comments?
Ege: looks good
This document was initially on the W3C Recommendation Track and published as a Working Draft on 18 January 2023. The WoT Working Group later decided not to continue to pursue the document to W3C Recommendation status and instead to publish it as a Group Note, as a useful point of reference for use with the WoT 1.x family of specifications.
A Group Note provides a stable reference for a document that is not intended to be a formal standard. This specification has been written based on extensive implementation experience, and testing through multiple plugfests, but has not undergone the full W3C-wide review that would be required for a W3C Recommendation. Implementers therefore implement this specification at their own risk.
Following the publication of this Note, the Working Group intends to switch their attention to a new recommendation track WoT Profiles 2.0 specification for use with the WoT 2.x family of specifications.
Ben: any other comments?
… hearing none, I am adding this call's comments as a comment on github
Kaz: the text itself looks good but as discussed during the main call today, we need to talk with PLH again
W3C Process - 6.3.13.1. Abandoning an Unfinished Recommendation
<EgeKorkan> W3C Process - 6.6. Switching Tracks
Ege: technically, we can still change the document track from REC Track to Note Track
… but we need to talk with the Council and it might take long
… a possibility is we simply publish the document as WD, and we can think about a bit different mechanism for Profile itself (like Bindings Registry) when we work on Profile 2.0
Ben: I agree with Ege about the scary text
Ben: I understand that switching tracks is about patent issues
… W3C seems to want to protect itself
Ben: how do we demonstrate "due consideration"
Kaz: it means filling a legal team at W3C first.
… on the other hand, we can just publish as WD and then work on 2.0
Ben: I think we don't want to get stuck in the legal stuff for 6 months
Ege: I think discontinued draft still doesn't help, we need to switch tracks to publish a note
Ben: We can keep publishing a WD, version it etc.
… going to Ege's comment. Registry still makes sense
Ege: it would be a new document, not switching to a new track
Ben: we can shrink the spec to the mechanism
Kaz: yes, and for that purpose (=Profile 2.0), we need to clarify the relationship between the Profile mechanism and the Profile Registry. also difference between binding and profile
<kaz> s/difference between profile and the mechanism/relationship between the Profile mechanism and the Profile Registry/
Ege: there is no versioning in W3C. You can just create a new document
… profile registry would not need anything from profile 1.0, 2.0 or something
Ben: should we go for a rec now
<dezell> /me
<kaz> s|s/difference between profile and the mechanism/relationship between the Profile mechanism and the Profile Registry/||
Going for REC?
Ben: what do you think Ege about the current state of the document
Ege: I think we need also data schemas etc. for OOTBI. For now these are just best practices for me
… that means going the Matter route and you need certification etc.
… in Siemens there are "profiles" but without this mechanism. Just guidelines
Ben: these are not just best practices from my point of view
… there are layers of interop indeed. Adding data schemas would add that indeed. With WebThings we did it with capability schemas
… profiles give the guarantee of communication
… so there won't be a pretty UI
David: for those walking in, like new people looking for implementation, they see a lot of things they don't know
David: Profiles pave the way for these people to get easier to act on text
… they see it and say "this is something I can do"
Ben: We can continue as a group note today if W3C allows it but we need to check with them
… we should check with W3C again
Kaz: as already discussed during the main call and this call, I'll talk with PLH again, and would clarify what we could do from the Process' viewpoint.
Ben: we can adjourn now