Meeting minutes
minutes
<kaz> Jan-20
Lagally: noticed a few things, font on point 0 is strange
… and a typo, Editors spelling
<kaz> (fixed)
Lagally: hearing no objections, minutes approved
publication timeline
Lagally: let's confirm current plan
… Feb 4 is next week's call
… normative sections; is an issue for that, by next week
… also normative feature freeze
McCool: would be helpful to have an updated list of assertions
McCool: want to make sure that if we wanted to move an assertion it was done
Kaz: need to check document level consistency first, and then assertions
… document consistency is Feb 4
McCool: what does document consistency entail?
… I assume is also means checking terminology, etc.
… basically I'm saying a more detailed checklist would be helpful
Lagally: ok, let's create an issue
… to review document consistency
… verifying terminology
… checking text
… in normative chapters
… verifying assertions are fit for purpose
… proposing additional normative text if required
McCool: if someone notices an issue, please create a PR to fix it so we can resolve it next week
McCool: should we separate internal and inter- document consistency?
Lagally: that work has been ongoing for a while
McCool: not saying we do the work next week, just that we check it has been done and confirm it
Lagally: will assign all task force leads
Lagally: please review entire doc, not just a few sections... looking for consistency problems
McCool: I assume we will also be suppressing empty sections, editor's comments, etc?
Lagally: depends on the case
McCool: ok, then let's flag issues in such sections if we see them, e.g. normative text inside an editor's comment
contributions
PR 603
<kaz> PR 603 - WIP: Define and Discuss "Hubs"
Lagally: what about hubs PR?
McCool: still needs to be finished, is important, but is not normative
PR 658
<kaz> Improve section structure
Lagally: ok, PR #658
… Improve Section Structure
… fixed a missing closing tag, and also fixed a reference to use cases that used a fixed section number
… changed name of "System Components" to "System Concepts"
… and 6.9, System Integration, is a subsection
McCool: also cross-domain collab very similar, makes sense to have these be siblings
Lagally: propose merging
McCool: concur
Lagally: merged
Lagally: pr #665
… placeholder section on orchestration
<kaz> i|p #665|subtopic: PR 665|
McCool: not sure it belongs under digital twins
<kaz> i|p #665|PR 665 - placeholder section on orchestration|
McCool: but think we can put it in for now, and reorganize later
PR 667
<kaz> PR 667 - adding placeholder section for virtual things
McCool: pr #667
… virtual things
McCool: are we sure it doesn't appear somewhere else?
McCool: definition is also a little odd, just components, not other things we have discussed, eg. room
Ege: composition mechanism deals with rooms, etc.
<kaz> Virtual device
<kaz> Digital twin
McCool: agree we need a more detailed description of this concept
Kaz: are some wikipedia entries for this term also we should look at
Sebastian: want to mention we have a definition of virtual thing, since arch 1.1
Lagally: so you're saying we have a definition and should not touch it
Sebastian: so why are we bringing this up now?
McCool: I think the problem is we just don't have enough discussion of its purpose
McCool: is it like a "virtual class" (no affordances) or a non-physical service (e.g. a simulation)
Lagally: placeholder section only for now
McCool: agree we should add the section, then capture input in the issue, have a consensus, then add content
PR 668
<kaz> PR 668 - remove remove-arch-op-wellknown-compare assertion
Lagally: PR #668
Lagally: merged
Lagally: pr #669
<kaz> i|PR #669|subtopic: PR 669|
Lagally: Producer
<kaz> i|PR #669|PR 669 - Producer definition|
McCool: note "Exposer" has been used before, and is more consistent
… but I think Producer sounds better
McCool: just noting it is inconsistent, not suggesting we change it
Kaz: right now Producer is used just once
… but Expose verbs are used a lot more
McCool: suggesting we allow both Exposer and Producer as synonyms
Kaz: Producer implies generation as well
McCool: right, Exposer does not imply generation, and there cases where the Thing exposing a TD is not generating it
… e.g. a proxy
Lagally: also note that events also use the verb producer
McCool: maybe we should hold off on this PR until we gather more input
Lagally: proposed text also have "specific" thing
… also "create"
McCool: perhaps "create" should be "makes available", since again, it may not "generate" it
… case of the proxy again, or even just a database
… e.g. a database
PR 677
<kaz> PR 677 - removing table 1
Lagally: pr #677
Lagally: removing table 1, we discussed this at length already
Lagally: conflicts, can we agree to merge it?
McCool: concur
Lagally: seems to be no objections
PR 679
<kaz> PR 679 - Update Security and Privacy Considerations
Lagally: pr #679
McCool: a draft
Lagally: but may be good to merge so people know about the issue
McCool: ok, then I'll work on a separate PR with actual new considerations
Issue 678
<kaz> Issue 678 - Fix Respec errors
Lagally: issue #678
Lagally: respec errors, please volunteer to clean up if you can
<kaz> [adjourned]