Meeting minutes
Guests, IEs
Koster: IE request from McCool
(to be reviewed during the Chairs call)
Kaz: also McCool is a guest for today
Minutes
Koster: (goes through the minutes)
… any corrections/updates?
(none)
approved
Quick items
Profile
Koster: thought we had got proposal for Profile last week
… publishing the draft as a WD would be able to avoid extra work
<benfrancis> Proposal: The WoT Working Group agrees to publish the current Editor's Draft of Web
<benfrancis> of Things (WoT) Profiles as an updated Working Draft.
<benfrancis> https://
Ben: sent an email about the proposal to the list
… not 100% happy myself given the 6-mo hard work
… but need to follow the W3C Process
… anyway, good to publish a well-polished document
Koster: yeah
… thank you for your work!
… any objections?
(none)
RESOLUTION: The WoT Working Group agrees to publish the current Editor's Draft of Web of Things (WoT) Profiles as an updated Working Draft
<benfrancis> w3c/
Ben: btw, there was a problem about the obsolete HTTP reference
… a PR available as above
Kaz: you can quickly show the changes, and we can quickly merge that :)
Ben: (shows the changes)
Koster: ok, we can merge this now
… any objections?
Daniel: that's OK
… but same problem with Discovery as well
… so we should work on this for the other specs too
Koster: ok
(no objections to merge PR 446 itself)
merged
TD Publication Status
Ege: added the information to the agenda as a separate section
Transition Request for TD 2.0 FPWD
Ege: the transition request has been already approved
… but we forgot to confirm the shortname for that purpose
… that is "wot-thing-description-2.0"
… is that OK?
proposal: the WoT-WG would like to use "wot-thing-description-2.0" as the shortname URL for TD 2.0 publication
Koster: any objections?
Daniel: just wondering different pattern from our previous notation...
Ege: can understand what you mean
… we used to use "wot-thing-description11" for 1.1
<EgeKorkan> https://
<EgeKorkan> https://
Kaz: yes, the change was the conclusion of the TD-TF :)
Ben: just wondering about the redirection mechanism, but OK with the proposal
Koster: any objections for the resolution?
(none)
RESOLUTION: the WoT-WG would like to use "wot-thing-description-2.0" as the shortname URL for TD 2.0 publication
Transition Request for Registry
proposal: the WoT-WG would like to use "wot-binding-registry" as the shortname URL for WoT Binding Registry
Ege: transition request has been updated but we need to confirm the URL for this too
Koster: any objections?
(none)
RESOLUTION: the WoT-WG would like to use "wot-binding-registry" as the shortname URL for WoT Binding Registry
Ege: regarding Binding Templates Note, we've already agreed to publish it as a retired Note
… just working on the "retired style"
Use Case Planning
McCool: we spent today's call to polish the UCR document
<McCool> w3c/
McCool: as an invited guest, created a PR for further improvement
… should be much cleaner now
Koster: what kind of action is expected?
McCool: would get a review by people
Kaz: tx for your hard work
… However, please remember that we as the WoT WG/IG need to be careful to get input from outside of the groups
… Also we need to consider possible big change of the WoT WG Charter due to our plan of merging the IG work into the WG
… so wondering until when we need to merge this PR
… before TPAC?
McCool: would be ideal to merge this before TPAC
… btw, it might be cleaner to publish this as an updated IG Note before the merger of the IG
Kaz: ok
… so we as the whole group would like to ask everybody for review
McCool: right
Koster: ok
Kaz: yeah, publishing an updated UCR note including the updated template and background description would be better
Koster: ok, let's start the review
… anything else?
(none)
Schedule
Koster: (quickly skim the list there)
McCool: less available after the end of August Sebastian: unavailable on Sep 10-11 Ege: unavailable Sep 17-18, Sep 24 only via phone.
Koster: anything else?
New Charter
Koster: we were talking about 3-mo as our expected extension
… but given the holidays around year end, should we ask for 6-mo extension instead?
… that wouldn't hurt anything
Kaz: yeah, 6-mo would be safer
David: yeah, also would go for 6-mo
… just wanted to know about the mood
Kaz: we can easily get a 6-mo extension :)
David: ok
<Zakim> dezell, you wanted to hear from Kaz about the mood.
Koster: any objections?
(none)
RESOLUTION: We will ask for a 6 month extension to the current Web of Things Working Group charter
AOB
Kaz: if people want, we can have some discussion about the Plugfest plan after the main call
Koster: yes, let's keep the Zoom call open, we can start the next call in 5 mins
[adjourned]