– DRAFT –
WoT Architecture + WoT Profile

agenda

<kaz> MM: we should add time limits to the issues. We can do it at the end

minutes

Oct-26

Lagally: objections?

McCool: no

Oct-27

Lagally: in this call we made a resolution

<ML shows the resolution>

<ML shows the publication plans>

McCool: 8. December is too late we should do the request some weeks earlier

Lagally: requests that the minutes should mention that PR #862 has no group consensus
… instead of "ok" there should be "I object"

Lagally: any objections?

no

Publication Schedule

<kaz> schedule

McCool: targeting 8. December is too dangerous, we should do the CR tranistion request earlier

Lagally: I agree

Issues to close

<ML shows issues that can be closed>

https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3Aclose

https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3A%22close+next+week%22

<ML shows issue by CR transition>

https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3A%22by+CR+transition%22

Lagally: we should evaluate the use cases. The task is to complete the assessment for architecture.
… it is a shame that we have no answear for geo location

Kaz: We should clearifiy what is a must for the CR and what can be defered to the next version

Lagally: Profile would answer the geo location topic, there is already a placeholder

Ege: We already fullfill the current charter. Use cases should be used to identify topics for new charter.
… TD already supports geo locations. There are examples.

Sebastian: we should conentrate on the PRs and we should not do use case discussion

<McCool_> (we need to move on; there is no way we have time to add a good spec for geolocation at this point, so we need to simply have a clear resolution to defer it (and other requirements) to the next version)

+1

Kaz: There should be issues provided that address use case topics. E.g., there should be geolocation issue in the TD repo that address this topic. If some of the requirements are not covered by any of the specs yet, we should identify those features "to be deferred".

PR

<ML shows overview>

https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/pulls

PR 858

PR 858 - Prep for CR, finalize IR and document at-risk items

PR about prep for CR, finalize IR and document at-risk items

<MM shows the rendered version>

McCool: There is a new text about the exit CR

Lagally: looks good

<kaz> Rendered draft of ver11/3-cr/Overview.html

McCool: also fixed some typos and respec errors

<Ege> +1

Lagally: I'm ok to merge, any objections?

no

PR 862 and PR 871

PR 862 - Option 1: Switch Profile to non-normative section

PR 871 - Option 2: Define whole Chapter 7 non-normative

McCool: there is no assertation in Chapter 7 there is no need to define the whole chapter 7 normative

Lagally: another alternative we can mark the Profile section as "at-risk"

Kaz: I'm ok with Option 2, however, we need to clarify our policy for testing and explain the policy for the CR Transition.

McCool: I think option 2 is the most easy solution here, it has no asserations.

Ege: Im ok with it

Lagally: any objections?
… then lets merge this

Lagally: Problem solved, I will also close Option 1

PR 855

PR 855 - Clarify interaction affordance binding mechanisms

<ML shows the rendered version with the change>

<kaz> 6.7.1 Hypermedia-driven

Ege: It breaks the TD design.
… personally, I would not support this

<mlagally> proposal: Accept the current editor's draft as the CR candidate. Some editorial changes to incorporate the changes from PR #871.

<mlagally> proposal: Accept the current editor's draft as the CR candidate including some editorial changes to incorporate the changes from PR #871.

<Ege> +1

Lagally: any objections?

+1

<McCool_> +1

<kaz> same changes to the ED: https://w3c.github.io/wot-architecture/#sec-building-blocks to be applied to the the CR draft at: https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/blob/main/publication/ver11/3-cr/

RESOLUTION: Accept the current editor's draft as the candidate for CR transition.

adjourn