See also: IRC log
<kaz> scribe: Darko
<kaz> scribenick: DarkoAnicic
<dsr> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wot-ig/2016May/0009.html
Dave: looking for a colaboration with OCF Platform w.r.t
Markus: involved in work in OCF
Markus affiliated with Samsung
<kaz> auto minutes on ocf presentation
<kaz> kaz: automotive wg meeting in Paris last week
<kaz> ... had a presentation by another Samsung guy, Sanjeev BA, on OCF's work
<kaz> ... OCF IoTivity work on some RESTful framework
<kaz> ... but so far don't have meta data mechanism
<kaz> ... so I suggested they refer to JSON-LD and he agreed
<kaz> Beijing f2f wiki
N_Wang: talking about possible contributions for the next F2F (Alibaba, Academy of Science etc.)
<kaz> kaz: information available on the above wiki page
<dape> https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/F2F_meeting,_July_2016,_China,_Beijing#Visa_Invitation_Letters
<kaz> [ Yingying: I just want to remind you that you need to request for the invitation letter asap. ]
All: please request the invitation letter this week in case you plan your trip to China
<kaz> New process for draft charter generation
Matthias: explaining the process on using GitHub for editing charter pages
<kaz> Charters repo
<kaz> HTML version of the draft IG Charter
<kaz> kaz: has just put the URL on the IRC above
Dave: we should provide a wiki page with instructions
Matthias: there exists a README file explaining the process
Sebastian: in case of problems, please give your proposal over email and W3C stuff will create a pull request
Dave: initial 4 weeks for the charter are too short
Matthias: we should define the deadline, it works more efficiently
Dave: 3 weeks to get a stable draft and 1 week to get the feedback
kaz: it is not the big difference between the old and the new charter
Matthias: we should create a pull request for each new item/proposal, then we see what is in and is out
Joerg: bigger changes means longer extension?
kaz: yes, so we should make sure whether we would like to add big changes or not.
Joerg: if the agreement is not achieved till July, what are consequences?
Dave: no big risk. We should get
the charter right.
... we need to extend the validity date of the current
charter
Matthias: Action on Dave to write in the REAMDE the timeline related info
Matthias: are we on track w.r.t WG Charter
<kaz> draft WG charter
Joerg: put emphasis on work on WG Charter (discussed also on the last F2F)
Matthias: look at both charters, and if issues exist, please open the pull request. Deadline - next week.
<dape> https://github.com/w3c/wot/tree/master/proposals/type-system
Daniel: introducing the new type
system
... adding complex data types
... JSON Schema is a preffered solution. Please comment
out.
... 2 weeks for comments.
... please post issues as pull requests.
Victor: we have enough time till une 10th to finalize the propsoal.
Dave: to build conesus we need to propose and evaluate different proposal (i.e., not to go faster with certain solutions)
Daniel: to better undestand the raised issues, please use the issue tracker
<kaz> GitHub issue tracker
Victor: please use "Proposal for TD" as a tag
Matthias: please give additional propsoal that can be evaluated during the plugfests
Victor: we focus on JSON Schema
without ignoring other proposals
... they will evaluated/reviewd too
kaz: proposals/approaches should be defined based on the group's interest
Matthias: define the problem, and then we will work on different proposals that lead to the solution
Dave: we should research use cases/propsoal beyond the group
Matthias: this is not feasible. More practical is that a stakeholder joins the group and address a use case/proposal
Joerg: let us do things in iterations. Practical evaluations give good insight about problems/solutions, also to externals.
Joerg: we are working on the current practise docuemnt, and the document reflects the current state of matters. In another iteration we can capture the updates.
Joerg: this issue is reappearing, let us capture this in minutes and refer to it later on
<kaz> kaz: we might want to record Dave's concern on further investigation and stronger collaboration with other SDOs and technologies, and think about that at some point
<kaz> ... it would be of course better if we could do that as well
<dsr> My concern is that we aren’t doing a thorough enough job at considering the alternatives
<dsr> The current practice document is focused on finding a single approach for the next plugfest and isn’t a good vehicle for studying the alternatives
Matthias: focus the work on both charters and the architecture document update
Sebastian: there is an agenda point about pub/sub, notification (from Michael Koster), but let us postpone it for the next time
Michael: I will sketch a primer on the topic with timeline, problem statement etc.
<kaz> [ adjourned ]