Meeting minutes
Minutes
<kaz> July-5
McCool: Any objections to publish the minutes?
<no objections>
Cancellations
McCool: No changes to the cancellations
Kaz: People should clarify their holiday/vacation schedules
McCool: We should avoid conflicts with national holidays (though it's kind of difficult)
<McCool> https://
McCool: people should put their unavailability on the Cancellation section of the main wiki above
… since we are approaching the holiday period
New charter review status
McCool: we can make modifications to the separate detail plan doc
<kaz> wot-charter-drafts PR 118 - Update wot-wg-2023-draft.html based on the TiLT comments
Kaz: we have received 6 comments
… we should put my name, table is also updated with some captions
… we should change our specs to proposed recommendation
McCool: I think I deleted some parts by mistake
McCool: does the group agree with this
Sebastian: these changes are fine
McCool: I can align some small textual improvements
Sebastian: can we change the list of deliverables?
… we do not have anyone to take care of the profile work at the moment
Luca: I can take care of the profile if no one wants to
Kaz: we should not change the content so much at this point
… we can make clarification later on
<McCool> proposal: Merge wot PR#118 to update the draft 2023 charter to address TiLT (W3M) feedback.
<McCool> proposal: Merge wot PR#118 to update the draft 2023 charter to address TilT (W3M/volunteers) feedback.
RESOLUTION: Merge wot PR#118 to update the draft 2023 charter to address TilT (W3M/volunteers) feedback.
TPAC
Accessibility
McCool: which slot should we pick for the accesibility
… we can pick our slot on thursday afternoon
Ege: I would prefer using our slots for WoT specific discussions
Kaz: Our charter says that accesibility is very important, and they're getting interested in accessibility for WoT services as well as ordinary Web contents. So it's good timing to have a joint meeting with them in person during TPAC 2023.
Thursday 14.09 at 11:30 – 13:00 Friday 15.09 at 11:30 – 13:00 and at 17:00 – 18:00
McCool: let´s propose this slot for now
<Zakim> dape, you wanted to remote access for Joint Calls
McCool: they also want to consider non-browser applications thanks to WoT
Ege: I think we can pick their slots still
WoT CG
Ege: there are slots available from CG as well
McCool: let's put this into the agenda
Ege: I can organize
Ege: should we remove the categories above?
McCool: yes, you can fill the details later on
Kaz: I cannot join due to conflicts with the MEIG but a chair should join
Sebastian: I can attend
McCool: any objections to meeting slot?
JSON-LD
McCool: what topics do we have?
Kaz: the breakout session and the joint discussion is different
McCool: ege and sebastian can you update it
SDW
Kaz: we can collaborate on WebVMT, GeoPose, etc.
Publication
<kaz> https://
<kaz> https://
<kaz> https://
McCool: 3 Proposed RECs were published yesterday on July 11.
McCool: we have news, as linked above
Sebastian: thank you kaz for doing the work
Kaz: thank you, chairs and editors
Press Release
McCool: we can meet as chairs and discuss or we can do it in the marketing call
Ege: we should agree on who writes the introduction
McCool: we need to set the narrative for the Press Release
Meetups
McCool: (writes to the wiki on the WoT-CG and the WoT-JP CG)
Social Media
Ege: there are issues with Twitter lately
https://
Kaz: wondering if we need to work on the other messenger app like LinkedIn, because the more apps we work on, the more effort would be required
Sebastian: also a bit concerned about working on multiple apps
Ege: we can manage multiple platforms from a single app, which reduces the efforts
McCool: we should consider all our options. let's discuss this in the marketing call
Planning
Overall structure
<kaz> Sebastian's slides
Sebastian: I prepared slides (will be uploaded later)
Sebastian: <presents the wot 1.1 structure>
McCool: it is also missing a scripting API (that's a NOTE)
McCool: Architecture contains security assertions
Luca: API does not implement TD, but consumes
Kaz: My suggetion is not to add rdf-like relation to the components within this basic diagram, but simply list all the documents mentioning which is REC-Track, which is Note, which is Use Cases doc as the starting point, which is building blocks, etc., first.
Kaz: After that, for the next phase, we can see what is described within which document based on the ToC of each document
McCool: There two large clusters we have to organize: system and metadata
Sebastian: my plan is to pick each component and see what we agree about it for the next version
McCool: My proposal is to first reorganize the components in the two clusters
McCool: - System : Architecture, Discovery, Security, Use-Cases
McCool: - Metadata : TD, Bindings, Profiles (maybe)
McCool: profile may apply to both groups
McCool: it is ok to focus on a cluster at time
Kaz: I think this categorization is a good approach to start
Kaz: we should think which are building blocks and which are starting points (e.g. Security is a starting point, TD is a building block)
Kaz: a third category, Guideline could be also good to add
<Mizushima> +1 Kaz
McCool: we have to discuss in the context of the metadata cluster what profile involves
Kaz: UseCase is a starting point of the spec work
Kaz: profiles, that help interoperability come the last
McCool: Security comes across the different clusters
Luca: We should agree of what profiles fit
McCool: We discuss before a long time, we focus first on interoperability
Luca: hopefully we won't need specific profiles for Discovery
Kaz: I suggest not putting profiles in this diagram today
McCool: we have to keep in mind that we want to support bindings from other organization
Ege: we agreed to not have a separate binding template document
Ege: the binding template will be part of TD
McCool: We should call it Binding Registry instead of Binding Templates Registry
<McCool> (time check - 15m left)
Mizushima: we should first thing of the purpose of WoT 2.0 and then think on what to map to the document
Kaz: the WoT 2.0 had been discussed in the charter, we didn't state explicitly about the Binding Registry, so we can start today to keep it a Binding Templates document until we have full consensu on the Registry
Koster: That makes sense to me too. In addition, I wonder what about TM, are we going to have a separate document for it?
McCool: Back to Mizushima's point, we have to decide how much our focus on greenfield devices, and we need to figure out if we have gaps (e.g. Onboarding)
Ege: I think we should not restrict us to brownfield devices
… but not overfocus on greenfield
Ege: Everything that target Consumer is greenfield
Ege: Onboarding may be too big to tackle
McCool: We should experiment more on onbording to have an idea
Kaz: Agree that we need to clarify our scope and target areas, but we should start with the expectations from the industry
Kaz: and rely on the use-cases to extract requirements that lead to decisions
<McCool> (time check - we are now over)
Luca: We should make sure to make sure what we keep providing building blocks people can mix and match as needed (e.g. not using scripting API or TM)
<kaz> [adjourned]