W3C

– DRAFT –
WoT-WG/IG

20 August 2025

Attendees

Present
Ben_Francis, Daniel_Peintner, Josh_Thomas, Kaz_Ashimura, Kunihiko_Toumura, Michael_Koster, Michael_McCool, Sebastian_Kaebisch, Tetsushi_Matsuda, Tomoaki_Mizushima
Regrets
David
Chair
Koster
Scribe
sebastian, kaz

Meeting minutes

guests

no guests today

minutes

<kaz> Aug-6

Koster: any comments?
… or change requests?

there are no objections, minutes are approved

Quick Items

Koster: there is the open question about Profile if it can be published as Note or not

Kaz: received a message from PLH, let's move this to a seperate agenda item

Koster: there are no other quick news

Notices

Koster: there are no other notices either

TPAC planning

Registration

Sebastian: early bird registration will be over soon

Kaz: subtopic: Breakout room the room for the breakout session, there is a question how lon would we need for the preperation and wrapping up

Sebastian: I think, 30min should be ok for wrapping up

Remote participation and invited guests

McCool: how does the registration work for remote participants?

Kaz: You should talk with the event team.

McCool: is the breakout session also open for non members?

Kaz: who do you have in mind?

McCool: I'm thinking about the NGSI-LD people

Sebastian: for the PlugFest there will be a seperate call after this call

Sebastian: started to have breakout proposal for our WoT Demos on Wednesday: w3c/tpac2025-breakouts#7

Kaz: we will start the discussion on the agenda details in September

Schedule and Cancellations

<kaz> Schedule updates

Koster: Sebastian will be on vacation from next week. McCool will be less available after end of August

<MK shows the publication schedule page of all deliveries>

https://github.com/w3c/wot/blob/main/planning/schedule.md

<kaz> WG Schedule

McCool: would suggest we remove the section around "Discovery" given there is no TF at the moment

IG schedule

Koster: what is the status of the IG schedule

McCool: its mainly use case topics
… not completely on track, but we are making good progress
… there will be some another updates. Major missing is links forms

McCool: shall we publish a Note under the IG or should we wait?

Kaz: we need to clarify the updated charter and get this review beforehand
… we need to update the IG schedule content, e.g., mid-August already passed

McCool: I will discuss this in the next UC meeting

New Charter

<kaz> current WoT WG Charter

Koster: where is the line input from the TD TF?

Kaz: it could be useful to have a template HTML for further discussion based on the latest charter template

ACTION: Kaz will create a template HTML for WoT WG charter

Ben: wondering about the Profile agenda item

McCool: this is part of the charter discussion

Profile

Kaz: received response from PLH
… even a discontinued draft allows to continue to work on Profile such as for Profile 2.0
… there are difficulties with the legal counsel. we need to talk with all companies if we want to publish as Note. I think there are 3 possible options, (1) updated WD, (2) CR or (3) changing to Note Track. The final decision should be made by the whole WG.

Ben: i secured an EU grant to spend 6 month working on profiles and the grant is desinged to try and help move on with the standard to the next stage
… I dont think the discontinued draft would be a sufficient outcome for the grant funding

Kaz: the final decission should be made by whole WG

Kaz: if we want to go directly to publish the 2.0 Profile we need still need to talk with PLH how to handle this. A solution can be to change the name.

McCool: are there some rules how many changes can make to be a CR without having to have it be called a new thing?

Ben: thanks MM for the proposal to go to a CR

<benfrancis> "A technical report should not switch away from the Recommendation Track without due consideration of the Patent Policy implications and approval of W3C’s legal counsel if the Working Group envisions a likelihood of returning to it later. "

<benfrancis> https://www.w3.org/policies/process/#switching-tracks

Ben: does legal counsel needs to be involved when the we move back to REC track?

Kaz: moving back to REC would be easier; however, moving forward from REC Track to Note is already a big burden.

Ben: let's continue the discussion when we move on with the CR track
… what if we split out all individual profiles to seperate documents, similar we have for bindings

Koster: this would be cleaner

Ben: I think the bar is higher getting a CR than for a Note

McCool: you don't need implementation experiences for everything

Kaz: Please note that "Discontinued Draft" is the mechanism to show a spec is abandoned like we used to use Note for that purpose. If we don't want to use the mechanism of Continued Draft we can still use or choose CR or update

Ege: the process document was updated, there is no Proposed Recommendation phase at all anymore
… regarding the splitting aspect, in the binding case it is speficied in the TD which is a normative way

Sebastian: are the seperated documents notes or recs?

Ben: they are notes

McCool: PLH should know that Bens work is constrained on his grant.

Kaz: suggest to have a meeting together with PLH, Ben and chairs

Sebastian: agree

<kaz> [adjourned]

Summary of action items

  1. Kaz will create a template HTML for WoT WG charter
Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by scribe.perl version 244 (Thu Feb 27 01:23:09 2025 UTC).