11:58:05 RRSAgent has joined #wot 11:58:09 logging to https://www.w3.org/2023/07/26-wot-irc 11:58:12 meeting: WoT-WG/IG 11:58:19 chair: Sebastian/McCool 11:58:32 McCool has joined #wot 11:58:34 present+ Kaz_Ashimura, Michael_McCool, Mahda_Noura 12:01:25 ktoumura has joined #wot 12:01:27 mahdanoura has joined #wot 12:02:23 present+ Sebastian_Kaebisch, Kunihiko_Toumura, Michael_Koster 12:02:27 sebastian has joined #wot 12:02:50 present+ Ege_Korkan 12:03:05 Ege has joined #wot 12:03:13 agenda: https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/Main_WoT_WebConf#26_July_2023 12:03:22 present+ Tomoaki_Mizushima 12:03:46 Mizushima has joined #wot 12:04:34 mjk has joined #wot 12:06:33 scribenick: McCool 12:06:47 q+ 12:07:12 ack k 12:08:48 topic: Minutes 12:08:55 https://www.w3.org/2023/07/19-wot-minutes.html 12:09:52 sb: new policy, will not going into details, chairs have reviewed and fixed some issues already 12:09:52 q+ 12:09:52 matsuda has joined #wot 12:10:19 ack k 12:10:30 present+ Tetsushi_Matsuda 12:11:06 kaz: do need to let people know where drafts are 12:11:15 i|do|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot/pull/1102 proposed policy for minutes review| 12:11:31 mm: indeed, and also the minutes policy is still only "proposed", so let's scan them quickly 12:13:09 sb: any objections to publish? 12:14:29 sb: no objections, publish 12:14:57 mm: let's also see if we can make that minutes policy official, starting with finishing the draft PR, then a CfR... 12:15:07 topic: quick updates 12:15:11 sb: none 12:15:17 topic: upcoming events 12:15:27 q+ 12:15:29 sb: some vacations, etc. documented on the wiki 12:15:40 ... also public holidays in Japan, e.g. Obon 12:15:56 sb: let's discuss cancelling that week 12:16:02 ... in mid-August 12:16:43 cris_ has joined #wot 12:17:14 mm: let's indicate that Security and Discovery are not cancelled 12:17:37 sb: also note, Security call will be moving starting the week after next 12:17:45 dezell has joined #wot 12:17:49 ... to address a conflict that Mahda has 12:17:57 present+ David_Ezell 12:18:02 q+ 12:18:20 topic: charter 12:18:23 q+ 12:18:27 s/upcoming events/upcoming events and schedule changes/ 12:18:31 sb: regarding review status, any news? 12:18:33 q+ 12:18:56 ... I have not heard if we are in AC review yet 12:19:21 ege: meeting in W3C calendar expiring, we need to update them 12:19:59 i/meeting in/topic: calendar/ 12:20:30 present+ David_Ezell 12:20:32 mm: yes, true, I will fix 12:20:32 ack e 12:20:55 s/calendar/schedule changes - revisited/ 12:20:57 cris: scripting may also have some cancellations also 12:21:52 sb: ok, let me document that 12:22:21 ack c 12:22:23 cris: last three weeks of august, scripting will be cancelled, not sure about next week 12:22:50 s/not sure about next week// 12:23:55 ack k 12:24:08 q? 12:24:09 mm: anyway, I will fix the calendar, and will add task leaders as organizers 12:24:16 i/anyway/kaz: need to clarify who to update the calendar/ 12:24:17 q+ 12:24:20 sb: back to charter status... 12:24:47 kaz: still working with Marcom team on AC review request; will send out this week 12:24:53 ... but charter request is approved 12:25:01 s/Marcom/Marcomm/ 12:25:04 topic: TPAC Planning 12:25:05 q? 12:25:08 ack k 12:25:14 sb: registration is open 12:25:25 i/back to/topic: WG Charter - revisited/ 12:25:34 q+ 12:25:45 ... is hybrid call; original hotel is full, but they have more rooms in another hotel 12:26:34 ack k 12:26:37 ... or rather, some recommendations 12:27:09 kaz: I will be staying at a nearby hotel 12:27:32 sb: need to look more at agenda 12:27:37 q+ 12:27:38 ... some news on JSON-LD 12:28:13 ege: topics are relevant to the group and community, including VC, other related tech 12:28:17 q+ 12:28:37 ack e 12:28:37 ... JSON-LD CG will not be meeting, but we can use their CG slot 12:29:00 ... but Manu mentioned RCH will be meeting and covers some of these topics 12:29:18 ... have asked how many people are interested 12:29:49 ... could join coffee break to set exact time; but would rather arrange in advance 12:30:04 ege: I am currently trying to find the appropriate email, etc. 12:30:07 q? 12:30:42 kaz: their proposed time is Monday morning, which I cannot join 12:30:56 ... an alternative would be to have a dedicated call before or after TPAC 12:31:18 ege: I also have a conflict Monday with WebAgents 12:31:26 q+ 12:31:29 ack k 12:32:24 mm: should we not just ask them to join in one of our slots? 12:33:07 ege: would prefer to meet during TPAC 12:33:17 kaz: who would join? 12:33:34 ege: there are a number of other slots proposed, still working on it 12:33:48 kaz: should also see who can join on Monday... 12:34:08 https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-linked-json/2023Jul/0010.html 12:34:13 mm: Monday is of the table? 12:34:33 ege: no, not completely, only half the day 12:35:23 kaz: need to see who from our side 12:35:30 s/of the/off the/ 12:35:41 s/side/side would join as well/ 12:35:43 mm: need to send around a list of all the alternatives and see who can make each one 12:36:27 ege: there is a list in the wiki, but there are other conflicts 12:36:29 q+ 12:36:39 https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-linked-json/2023Jul/0006.html has answers to the topics 12:36:41 ... currently the Monday slot is the proposal 12:36:47 ... still not finalized, however 12:37:18 sb: won't have a perfect slot, but in favor of a F2F meeting 12:37:31 ... we can follow up with another meeting afterwards 12:38:32 kaz: better if the "official" discussion is after, but F2F meeting can be "casual" 12:38:51 ... just because not all WoT WG members can attend 12:38:54 ack k 12:38:59 ack m 12:40:31 sb: what about SDW and Privacy? 12:40:58 brb 12:41:07 s/brb// 12:41:14 mm: I think both will happen after TPAC in scheduled calls 12:41:15 rrsagent, make log public 12:41:19 rrsagent, draft minutes 12:41:20 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/07/26-wot-minutes.html kaz 12:41:55 q+ 12:42:07 mm: will also double-check a11y slot, thurs at 1730 12:42:14 sb: what about MEIG? 12:43:06 kaz: joint meeting makes sense, but no specific times 12:43:45 mm: suggest we schedule a "use-case" session, invite appropriate groups to it, including MEIG 12:45:11 sb: adds "Use Cases" to topics list 12:45:21 mm: now we need to decide some times for things 12:45:36 sb: suggest we put agenda at the top where it is easy to find 12:46:11 mm: suggest you throw something together, next week we can look at it and refine 12:46:43 q? 12:46:54 ack k 12:46:55 ack k 12:47:15 topic: publications 12:47:32 rrsagent, make log public 12:47:36 rrsagent, draft minutes 12:47:37 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/07/26-wot-minutes.html kaz 12:48:10 sb: have 8-10 "supports" for each publication, 1 fix for "non-support" possible, so need about 10 more 12:48:56 q+ 12:49:01 sb: regarding the fix, there is a PR 12:49:03 q+ 12:49:19 ... but we do have proof that it is implemented 12:49:52 kaz: there is a process issue; will have to talk with PLH 12:50:26 kaz: create a PR, but please do not merge it, wait until get confirmation from PLH 12:50:34 ack k 12:51:02 i|registration is open|-> https://www.w3.org/2023/09/TPAC/ TPAC page| 12:51:19 i|registration is open|-> https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/Main_WoT_WebConf/2023_WoT_TPAC_Agenda WoT agenda| 12:51:27 https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/pull/1858 12:51:34 q+ 12:51:44 ack m 12:51:44 mm: generally be careful, changes to the PR->REC at this stage need external approvals 12:52:15 kaz: at this stage, we should not be adding any updates to the spec, unless there is a fatal problem 12:52:59 s/the spec/any document/ 12:53:18 s/any document/any deliverable/ 12:53:39 q+ 12:53:43 ack k 12:54:01 sb: please ping your AC reps to get more votes 12:54:12 ... there are many WG members still missing 12:54:27 q+ 12:54:36 sb: any other news on publications? 12:54:40 ack k 12:54:41 kaz: notes still in process 12:54:45 topic: joint calls 12:54:55 ege: WoT CG, forgot to mention 12:54:56 s/notes/2 WG Notes/ 12:54:59 ... for TPAC 12:55:16 s/joint calls/TPAC joint discussion - revisited/ 12:55:21 ... is linked already, should include in schedule 12:55:32 q+ 12:55:43 ... there is a document in a PR 12:55:56 ack e 12:56:06 https://github.com/w3c/wot-cg/pull/48 12:56:36 ege: generally, will be mornings on Thursday and Friday 12:58:16 ege: joint call slots are also proposed on WoT WG wiki page 12:59:15 kaz: having separate CG meetings are good, we should also discuss policies about how to transfer ideas and input from CG to WG 12:59:32 ... need to satisfy patent policy, etc. 12:59:44 q+ 12:59:48 q+ 12:59:51 ack k 13:00:11 q+ 13:00:19 mm: we need to document an official policy, but basically people have to agree to patent policy 13:00:59 cris: can go the other way for informal discussion 13:01:23 mm: that is ok for policy discussion, but for technical input we need to satisfy the patent policy 13:01:32 ack c 13:01:34 ack e 13:01:36 ack k 13:01:37 kaz: we also need to be fair to those that have paid for membership 13:02:13 topic: press release 13:02:42 sb: had extended meeting between chairs and marketing TF 13:03:00 ... defined main points for press release, focusing on important points 13:03:08 ... the draft is in the agenda 13:03:52 ... we need also to get feedback from Marcom team, and need to get testimonials 13:03:55 q+ 13:04:08 -> https://github.com/w3c/wot/blob/main/planning/schedule.md schedule.md 13:04:29 -> https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/Main_WoT_WebConf#Press_Release draft narrative 13:05:07 q+ 13:05:46 ack m 13:05:52 ack e 13:05:55 q+ 13:06:37 mm: summary, 6 weeks, 2 for draft, 2 for CfP, 2 for MarComm review 13:06:46 ... need first draft by next week 13:07:18 ack k 13:07:28 kaz: agree 13:07:45 ... and would like to confirm that this is very important task as the whole WoT WG 13:08:10 ... some smaller group's working on the initial draft would make sense 13:08:15 ... like McCool and Koster 13:08:28 ... also we need to start to get testimonials 13:08:37 i/agree/scribenick: kaz/ 13:08:57 mm: Koster, let's start to work on this together 13:08:59 mjk: ok 13:09:07 mm: can start with outline 13:09:20 ... people can give comments if anything is missing 13:10:02 ... main big points are "why it's important", "what's new?" and "what's the impact?" 13:10:26 ... avoiding vendor lock-in 13:10:47 ... two big topics for "what's new": TM and Discovery 13:10:54 q+ 13:10:56 q+ 13:11:00 ack e 13:11:08 ek: should be some sort of relation 13:11:22 ... not new but building up based on something 13:11:31 ... improvement for something 13:11:49 mm: good point 13:12:05 -> https://www.w3.org/2020/04/pressrelease-wot-rec.html previous press release 13:12:13 mm: (shows the previous press release) 13:12:28 ... we need an updated diagram as well 13:12:38 ... something like the narrow-waist picture 13:12:47 q? 13:12:57 ack k 13:14:17 q+ 13:14:50 kaz: for all the big points here, specifically, "what's new?", describing what we've done in a "top-down" manner would be important 13:15:12 ... easy and automatic generation of the system would be a keyword for that purpose 13:15:17 mjk: right 13:15:21 +1 to mjk 13:15:25 ... easy/automatic would be good 13:15:27 ack m 13:15:54 ... also could mention what kind of improvement applied in addition to TM and Discovery 13:15:59 mm: ok 13:16:04 ... Koster and I have to work on that 13:16:10 ... regarding testimonials 13:16:28 ... bunch of software there 13:16:32 ... want to talk about SDOs 13:16:48 ... ECHONET, Conexxus, IPA DADC, etc. 13:17:07 s/IPA/OPC UA, IPA/ 13:17:09 q+ 13:17:20 ... would have testimonials 13:17:23 ack e 13:17:45 ek: what about companies using the technologies who are not Members? 13:17:46 q+ 13:18:01 mm: press release is basically for the Members 13:18:15 ... the question is if we need to mention them by name 13:18:27 ek: any companies working on WoT 13:18:47 mm: we could generate a draft and ask the W3C Team for review 13:18:57 ... you have a list of companies 13:19:00 q? 13:19:11 ... possibly 5-6 13:20:37 kaz: it's odd to mention non-Member companies' names would be odd 13:21:48 ... though we can mention SDOs or OSS projects as we did for the previous press release 13:21:53 mm: yeah, we should be careful 13:22:07 ... we mentioned Eclipse within our previous press release 13:22:13 ack k 13:22:15 q+ 13:22:38 mm: also, nice to have a page of "users of WoT" 13:22:46 ... can point a page as a whole 13:23:15 q? 13:23:21 brb 13:23:27 ... let's work on the draft 13:23:27 s/brb// 13:23:33 q? 13:24:19 kaz: for the next step, please move this draft narrative to the GitHub so that we can continue the discussion 13:24:21 mm: ok 13:24:26 ... is the wot repo ok? 13:24:31 kaz: yes, that's fine 13:25:02 mm: we have some basic testimonials on the wot-testing repo 13:25:28 sk: need upper manager's approval 13:25:44 mm: it's a chicken/egg problem... 13:25:51 ... need to get MarComm review 13:25:55 sk: ok 13:26:12 topic: other topics 13:26:19 scribenick: McCool 13:26:24 sb: need to wrap up so we can do planning 13:26:49 sb: anything from TFs? 13:26:50 q+ 13:26:58 mm: will be covering sec and discovery in planning 13:27:00 q+ 13:27:02 ack k 13:27:03 q+ 13:27:09 ack e 13:27:24 ege: some PRs in TD - group resolutions, also PR/REC issue 13:27:55 kaz: resolution for TD update - how will we do? can we do that today? 13:28:11 mm: can we do it via email? 13:28:32 kaz: email was a little vague, and there was a "fatal" error in assertion text 13:29:07 mm: should consolidate all changes also 13:30:21 mm: suggest TD draft a consolidated set of changes, send out an email with a call for resolution, discuss next week, have group resolution in two weeks 13:31:33 mm: let's lower that to one week for the CfR, that is allowed 13:32:22 scribenick: mahdanoura 13:32:24 scribenick: mahda 13:32:33 scribenick: mahdanoura 13:32:49 Topic: Testing 13:33:05 sb: talk about profiles and how to continue 13:33:22 https://github.com/w3c/wot/tree/main/planning 13:33:24 ...McCool did already some analysis 13:33:48 s/Testing/Planning/ 13:34:21 ... it shows how the architecture is related and considered, Sebastian beatified a bit 13:34:25 -> https://github.com/w3c/wot/blob/main/planning/WoT_2.0_Map.pdf Overview of WoT 2.0 plans 13:34:59 sb: profile discussions and one PR open asynchronous decision making is open 13:35:25 sb: is the PR ready to go age? 13:36:13 ege: reviews received from McCool and Cris, there is one thing remaining from Sebastian, two editors should approve the PR 13:36:30 ... what if two invited experts approve 13:36:40 q+ 13:36:51 ...who are editors? 13:37:49 q+ 13:37:51 -> https://w3c.github.io/wot-charter-drafts/wot-wg-2023-draft.html#decisions Decision Policy within the Charter 13:37:53 ack k 13:38:07 mm: we should review this in the chair meetings 13:38:32 ...ege should finish his changes, and if it looks good we would merge, and do final approval 13:38:32 q+ 13:38:40 ack m 13:38:51 q+ 13:38:55 ack e 13:39:07 RESOLUTION: IE is also included 13:39:57 kaz: based on AB request, IE have identical access permission of member only information 13:40:24 ... how to choose IE's 13:40:30 mm: we need a policy for this 13:40:33 ack k 13:40:59 s/of member/for Member/ 13:41:06 mm: use case requirements should be discussed today 13:41:28 s/based on AB request/as PLH sent out to the Chairs list/ 13:41:29 mm: uploaded an earlier version to Github, how we handle use case requirements 13:41:36 s/IE have/IEs will have/ 13:41:41 ...we discussed in the security group 13:41:55 ...w3c asks from us to have requirements 13:42:07 ...and state whether those RQ have been satisified 13:42:37 s/how to/so the question is not "whether IEs should have the same right (because they already have the same right) or not, but how to/ 13:42:39 ...we have large numbers of RQ's but do not have use cases, and vice-versus 13:42:53 ...the use case often have redunancies 13:43:05 ...most often the use-cases are technology-dependant 13:43:22 ...the correct way is to think of use-cases in terms of end users 13:43:36 s/redunancies/redundancies/ 13:43:59 s/use-cases/use cases/ 13:44:05 s/use-cases/use cases/ 13:44:38 ...there is the use-case document, made various attempts to capture use cases 13:44:40 q+ 13:44:54 ...but the template is complicated to writing the RQ's 13:45:49 ...in security TF, we discussed how to deal with use cases and RQ's 13:45:51 s/RQ's/requirements/ 13:45:52 s/RQ's/requirements/ 13:46:06 ...in security you have a threat/risks which have to be mitigated 13:46:24 ...mitigations are things to do to address risks 13:46:45 ...in our security/provacy guidelines the risks are outdated 13:47:02 ...identify which use cases have which risks 13:47:41 ...we need to have security people go through the use cases and connect the threats, with an external review process 13:48:04 ...discovery is more a traditional spec 13:48:14 ...geo-location RQ is well-documented 13:48:27 ...the plan for discovery is to update the older document 13:49:24 https://www.w3.org/TR/wot-usecases/ 13:49:43 mm: in-line the RQ's and link the use cases that motivate them 13:50:27 ...we should publish the RQ doc in a separate doc 13:52:24 ...suggestion to organise the information better, expand the RQ section in the use case or link 13:52:35 ...we do not try to put RQ's in the use cases itself 13:53:04 ...we don't use necessarily the template, we give the RQ a name, what it is, and link to at least one use case that motivates it 13:53:33 q+ 13:53:40 s/RQ/requirements/g 13:53:40 ...general requirements supported by sub-requirements 13:53:46 q+ 13:54:47 sb: it makes sense to make the references to the requirements 13:55:10 ...how should we differentiate, which use case on a purpose 13:56:18 ...struggling with: use case is a big picture of the scenario, when we want to implement the features, is a relation to the big picture needed? 13:56:43 mm: should find general use cases to motivate 13:56:51 ack s 13:57:18 kaz: agree with McCool proposal 13:58:10 ...any kind of mechanism which makes the implementation easier should be described technically in the use case 13:58:19 ...we should think about refactoring of the specification 13:58:39 ...the technical discussion should be managed with the basic procedure, starting with use cases 13:58:47 ack k 13:58:48 mm: ease of use for whom? 13:59:15 ack k 13:59:19 ack e 14:00:02 ege:interoperability using MQTT for discovery is weird because there are other protocols meant for it, the pipeline is too generic 14:00:50 mm:we have some mission statements, supports interoperability is our mission not use case 14:00:57 q+ 14:01:40 mm:this is an example of how to do general requirements, we actually want to support flexible binding mechasnims 14:02:16 ege: for the TD planning the work items should be separated 14:02:26 ...we can present this next time due to time issues 14:03:22 kaz:agree with McCool propsal, we can start with general requirements and then detailed ones 14:03:37 ...we need to think about how to formulate the structure 14:03:52 ...detailed requirement section should be handled seperatly 14:04:15 s/propsal/proposal/ 14:04:26 s/we can/it's rather that we can/ 14:04:28 mm: we should have a draft and look at a concrete example. The use cases in the main document can be considered as high-level 14:04:47 s/separatly/separately/ 14:04:58 q? 14:05:01