See also: IRC log
<dsr> scribenick: dsr
<kaz> [ so far: kaz, dave, joerg, claes, dan, daniel, darko, frank, kajimoto, katsuyoshi, kunihiko, matthias, takuki, toru, tuan, yingying, louay, sebastian, Soumya ]
Joerg reviews the agenda
Joerg: this is not yet available on github, but some people are already commenting on it.
Kajimoto: I’ve uploaded my current document to https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/images/0/0d/2016-03-03-WoTArchitectureDraft-comments-merged.pdf
Kajimoto introduces the architecture document
Kajimoto: I would invite all of you to comment on figure 1
I’ve tried to name each of the modules required for a WoT servient
My thanks to Darko and Johannes for their help
Joerg: any comments as yet on
this document?
... we should transfer this to github for ease of commenting,
when can that be done?
kajimoto: I will do this as HTML using the template that Johannes sent me.
<kaz> Current practices
Joerg: this is a new document to describe the current practices prior to each plugfest
Matthias introduces the document
He asks people to provide meaningful commit messages when they edit the document
This is in HTML and using ReSpec
Daniel: I am working on the plans for the Montreal plugfest. We’re hoping to encourage more experimentation.
This is a work in progress so I encourage you to take a look and discuss what you want to see happen
Last time, we were able to remotely control an air conditioner in Japan, this time it would be great to do something challenging
Daniel: we want to include something on discovery and are discussing some ideas
Joerg: it is 5 weeks to go and it is now time to get concrete on our plans
We need to cover a broader range of capabilities and to become more consistent
Joerg encourages everyone to get involved and share their ideas
Kaz: do we want to have specific scenario for demos this time?
Joerg: that could be a good idea
Last time we had control over a coloured light.
Joerg asks Kaz for suggestions for this time
Joerg: we need suggestions during the next 2 weeks
Darko: we need to select the scenario very quickly, so that people can get the necessary equipment
Joerg: we could look at smart homes..
Darko: we need to exploit readily available sensors and actuators
Dave: I’m thinking more in terms of features than real-world scenarios
Matthias: I agree with Darko about the need to reach agreement soon
Claes: I currently don’t have specific input, sorry
Dan: [no sound]
Daniel: We have info in github and the wiki and this could be confusing. Perhaps we should focus on the wiki page with the ideas for Montreal?
Joerg: so you propose to have the technical specs in github and other info on the wiki?
Daniel: yes
The github doc provides a link to the wiki
Joerg: please remember to add yourself to the wiki page for the meeting if you plan to participate in the plugfest
Frank: [inaudible]
Kajimoto: At the last face to face, we were able to use thing descriptions nicely. I don’t have specific ideas for scenarios for Montreal
<Sebastian> Sorry, I have to go.
<Sebastian> cu
<DarkoAnicic> I have to leave today early too.
Daniel: this time it would be good to ask the registry rather than the devices
<DarkoAnicic> +1
some consistency is needed for interoperabiity
Sebastian: we need more semantics and could look at the IoT lite ontology
I unfortunately have to leave now, so bye
Joerg: so discovery should be in focus for this plugfest, right?
Darko: we first need to decide on the scenario
Louay: for devices with bluetooth low energy the device id can be used to search for the thing description.
since it isn’t practical for such devices to transfer their thing description directly
So we are looking at layering discovery on top of existing standards
I hope to provide a demo around this
Kunihiko: [no comment]
Soumya: I support Louay’s comment. This time we should work on discovery.
Joerg asks Soumya and Louay to work on a proposal over the next week
[they agree]
Takuki: I agree with focusing on interoperability, and also some work on a shared vocabulary through the registry
Joerg encourages Takuki to contribute to the plans for the plugfest, e.g. updating the wiki page over the next few days
Soumya: do you want Louay and me to update the wiki page or to use email?
Joerg: the current practice document in github
The wiki is more about what people are individually planning
Joerg: this is for everyone to contribute to
Kaz: a quick question on the plugfest - I wonder if anyone wants to try using EXI encoding?
Daniel: it definitely sounds interesting, lets discuss this further
https://github.com/w3c/wot/blob/master/WG/wot-wg-items.md
<inserted> scribenick: kaz
dsr: material on github
joerg: will you share the screen?
dsr: have been collecting ideas
on the github wiki
... scripting, biding, thing description
... idea on scope vs. out-of-scope
... have put into the HTML format for charters
<dsr> https://w3c.github.io/charter-drafts/wot-wg-2016.html
dsr: we have the structure
... myself and kaz will be the proposed contacts to be
approved
... there is yellow/red text at Scope
... we need to define what to do
... attempted to do so for Thing Description
... (showing the github HTML and github wiki in parallel)
... checked with Soumya and Oliver
... Louay also provided some text
... what the proposed API will do
... proposed plan is to get clear idea what to do and what do
avoid
... so that we can get stronger proposal by the Montreal
meeting
soumya: we decided the work will
go into TD and Scripting API
... here we don't have much about that
... jointly discuss TD and AP
... Dave, Kaz and myself discussed during the DI call
... the working group draft Charter is not very clear about
DI
... how can you interact with all the aspects
... we should focus discovery aspect as well
joerg: ok
jhund: would be good to have
discussion on bullet points on the wiki vs the text on the
HTML
... which text on the left side (=HTML version) covers which
part of the wiki
... any good proposals?
dsr: email would be a good
starting point
... we can move on using GitHub issues
joerg: a bit concerned about the
consistency
... maybe we should have the draft charter and confirm the
points on the wiki are covered by the HTML
... if there are any missing points, we need to check them
dsr: need to include "Issue:"
text
... we need richer interaction for discussion
... the source wiki document was unclear for the Charter
... had clarification discussions with colleagues
jhund: maybe we could put IDs for each point
dsr: sounds like an action item for somebody
jhund: can update the document
joerg: any comments/questions?
dsr: with this new HTML version
of the Charter, we expect some normative specs and no-normative
ones
... on the right side (=original wiki) the description was
unclear
joerg: on the right side (=wiki)
wasn't there description?
... questions are, we need to have a consistent charter with
the wiki
... the wiki has scope/out-of-scope/delivelables sections
... that would be question 1
... question 2 is security/privacy topics
... distributed over the building blocks
... not that focused what we need to achieve
... in the left HTML document, what's in-scope and what's
out-of-scope
... protocol mapping would be cross cutting points
... you have to understand each topic should be covered
... privacy and discovery should be also covered
... can we have sub section of 2.1?
... clear building blocks which correspond bullet points
dsr: number of separate
specs
... which deliverable corresponds to security/privacy?
... what is the best way for refactoring?
kaz: maybe we might want to copy
all the bullet points to the HTML as is
... and then start structural edits next?
dsr: wouldn't be very productive way...
joerg: starting with section 1
Scope
... and see if all our points are covered
... also may ask Oliver and Soumya to check security
portion
... security/privacy captured in the scope section or
not?
... ask for comments following up the f2f discussion
... would ask you see if there is any open points in the GitHub
document within 2 weeks
... especially on the scope at section 1
dsr: sounds reasonable
... but we need to clarify what people really are thinking
<Soumya> Kaz, can you assign me a work item related to the points Joerg mentioned
joerg: would like to start with the open points people think in the scope section
<scribe> ACTION: soumya to review the HTML version of the draft charter to see if there are any open points esp. in the scope section [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/03/03-wot-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-33 - Review the html version of the draft charter to see if there are any open points esp. in the scope section [on Soumya Kanti Datta - due 2016-03-10].
<Soumya> Thanks Kaz
dsr: and check what's missing
joerg: ok
... starting point for the draft charter
... and would make you aware of the f2f meeting agenda on the
wiki
<dsr> There is a lot of missing context to the work items and hidden issues
-> https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/F2F_meeting_2016,_April,_11th_-_13th,_Montreal,_Canada montreal f2f wiki
joerg: preparation day for
plugfest
... Sunday afternoon
... and on Monday, combination of OpenDay/Plugfest
... Tuesday/Wednesday IG meeting
... please put your input/comments on the wiki
... very much focus on TFs
... we might have some blocks in the afternoon, Tuesday
... current practice/architecture documents
... editing comments for them would be welcome
... please feel free to put your comments on the wiki
... next web conf call will be Wed., Mar. 16
... is that OK with you?
... completing the IG before the Montreal f2f
kaz: we need to work for brief
extension of the IG for that
... because the current charter expires a the end of this
month
joerg: ok
soumya: what would be the time for the next call?
joerg: Wednesday call will be 2pm
CET
... will update the wiki
... any other comments/questions?
(nothing)
[ adjourned ]