– DRAFT –
WoT-WG/IG

Logistics

McCool: 2-hour call today because we need to talk about the IG Charter

Guests, New Members

none

Minutes

Nov-8

McCool: (goes through the minutes)

approved

Quick updates

Nordic Smart Cities CG

McCool: there'll be a meeting of the Nordic Smart Cities CG on Nov 27
… Kaz and the WoT Chairs will join the meeting (during the Discovery call)

Meeting schedule

McCool: (checks the upcoming holidays)

holidays and upcoming events

(Discovery on Nov 27 will be cancelled)

Rescheduling calls

McCool: any updates on the TD call?

Ege: will send a proposal
… would include the Chairs call slot

McCool: note there is the OPC UA call right after that slot

Ege: another possibility is Thursday 3pm CET

McCool: talking about 2 calls? or one?
… maybe having calls on Tuesday and Thursday would make sense

Kaz: we don't need to talk about the detail during this call
… but we need to clarify the restrictions more explicitly

WG planning

McCool: policy discussion to be done next week on Nov 22

<McCool> proposal: have an extended main call (by 1h) on Nov 22 to discuss policies

RESOLUTION: have an extended main call (by 1h) on Nov 22 to discuss policies

Kaz: the policy discussion should include how to manage the progress of our own spec work too

McCool: that's true

Ege: should we consider potential input for the ongoing project management discussions by the Team ad the AB?

Kaz: my suggestion is no :)
… we could work on our own policy first

McCool: yes

REC drafts

McCool: Discovery and Architecture are done from my viewpoint
… what about TD?

Ege: some open PRs

Kaz: we need to make the spec HTML ready
… make the related resources ready
… and also need to identify what the remaining GitHub Issues are like
… by adding some explicit labels like "defer to 2.0", "publication preparation", "editorial", etc.

McCool: when Kaz makes the Transition Request for RECs, we need to identify the remaining issues within it
… I've worked on Discovery for that

Discovery Issues

McCool: and Architecture

Architecture Issues

Remaining TD Issues/PRs

McCool: there are still "by REC publication" issues for TD
… but we need to identify how to handle them

TD Issues

McCool: also there are 7 PRs

TD PRs

McCool: Ege to clarify how to deal with them

Lagally: wondering about them

McCool: editorial fixes for diagrams, etc.

Lagally: using open-source tool?

Ege: yes

PR 1918

McCool: ready to merge PR 1918?

TD PR 1918 - Update 1.1 REC Publication after new process version

Ege: still need to fix link errors

Kaz: which is the correct URL for ETSI, https or http?

McCool: https
… but apparently specref uses http wrongly

Kaz: has raised an Issue for that?

McCool: Ege did
… any objection for merging this?

(none)

merged

<Ege> tobie/specref#757 is the PR I did to specref

Issue 1894

McCool: what about the other "by REC publication" ones?

TD Issues marked as "by REC publication"

Kaz: this is related to the automatically generated text by ReSpec
… so we don't need to care about that

Issue 1509

TD Issue 1509 - We need to update the TD IANA entry and sync with TM content

McCool: relabel as "External SDO" instead

(no "by REC publication" issues now)

Issue 1894 - revisited

TD Issue 1894 - Clarifying "Future updates to this Recommendation" section

Kaz: the text of "Future updates to this REC..." is based on the latest process document
… and all/most of the latest RECs include that text
… we also can include the line safely
… at some point, ReSpec will generate that line automatically, I think

McCool: right

REC drafts - revisited

McCool: so now all the spec drafts should be ready for the transition request

Kaz: let's record that as a resolution

<McCool> proposal: WG confirms that Architecture 1.1, Discovery, and TD 1.1 REC drafts have been updated to the latest process document and that all related remaining issues have been identified, and that we should proceed with the REC transition request.

RESOLUTION: WG confirms that Architecture 1.1, Discovery, and TD 1.1 REC drafts have been updated to the latest process document and that all related remaining issues have been identified, and that we should proceed with the REC transition request.

Ontologies and Schemas

McCool: some recent changes
… would merge the remaining PR 12

wot-resources PR 12 - Sync TD resources

McCool: (goes through the PR)
… fixing problems with the ontologies
… would like to merge this PR

(merged)

McCool: what about the responses from the Webmaster and PLH?

Kaz: got a response from the Webmaster, who agrees with my suggestion on the simpler mechanism
… but still waiting for the response from PLH

McCool: for the 1.0 spec, we had 5 resources and the setting was messy at that time already
… now we have 20 resources
… but I'm reluctant to change the mechanism now

Kaz: making reddirection setting and content negotiation setting (for TTL and HTML) for 20 files separately one by one would be really complicated and it would be very difficult to maintain the setting
… So I really would like to suggest we use simpler setting, i.e., (1) putting all the WoT resoureces uder one specific repository (which is already done) and (2) setting a redirection from www.w3.org/ns/wot to w3c.github.io/wot-resources. We can maintain all the resources based on the specifications and the versions ourselves
… It would make our work for 2.0 version also much easier. The Webmaster agrees to this proposal, I'm asking PLH as well for opinions.

McCool: let's see what the potential changes would be
… basically w3.org/2022/wot/discovery => w3.org/ns/wot/discovery
… what would be the merit for that?

Kaz: we can manage the structure ourselves
… we don't care about v1 specs, which are already handled the previous mechanism
… however, I'd suggest we should discuss this separately rather than diving into it today, because we need to talk about the IG Charter today
… note that PLH might have a different opinion from mine
… so we should discuss this issue after getting his suggestion

McCool: possibly, we could use w3.org/ns/wot/discovery/v1/context
… but not sure we would like that direction

<McCool> w3c/wot-resources#13

Ege: don't understand what would be complicated with the current mechanism

Kaz: anyway, I'd suggest we not talk about this today
… let's have discussion again after getting response from PLH

McCool: ok

Press release

draft text

McCool: draft text is fixed

Kaz: MarComm is installing that on the W3C server
… but we still need to wait for the publication date

McCool: need to wait for the translations as well

TPAC minutes

Notes from the minutes

McCool: we've been reviewing the minutes

PR 1136 - Create 2023-09-14-WoT-TPAC-UseCases-Discussion.md

McCool: there is a note on Use Cases and Requirements too

Kaz: yes
… and TD/Binding part also done by Koster

McCool: ok
… let's merge the UC/Req part then

(merged)

PR 1137 - Create 2023-09-15-WoT-TPAC-Architecture-Discussion.md

McCool: can be merged for Architecture

(merged)

PR 1135 - Create 2023-09-14-WoT-TPAC-Accessibility-Discussion.md

McCool: extracted actions from the APA minutes

(merged)

McCool: What about TD/Binding?

Koster: we've already merged it

PR 114 - Create 2023-09-WoT-TPAC-TD-Discussion.md

McCool: ok

Day 1 minutes

Day 1

<McCool> proposal: Accept minutes for Day 1 of TPAC WoT minutes at https://www.w3.org/2023/09/14-wot-minutes.html

RESOLUTION: Accept minutes for Day 1 of TPAC WoT minutes at https://www.w3.org/2023/09/14-wot-minutes.html

Day 2 minutes

Day 2

<McCool> proposal: Accept minutes for Day 2 of TPAC WoT minutes at https://www.w3.org/2023/09/15-wot-minutes.html

RESOLUTION: Accept minutes for Day 2 of TPAC WoT minutes at https://www.w3.org/2023/09/15-wot-minutes.html

Minutes from the joint meetings

Kaz: as I put there, we should record the minutes of the joint meetings with Web Agent CG and WoT CG would be better

McCool: let's confirm them next time

Kaz: that's fine, but at least the bullet points on different roles of WoT WG, WoT IG and WoT CG should be recorded somewhere as the starting point for the IG Charter discussion.

Ege: actually, the minutes from the WoT CG joint meeting are copied to the GitHub area.

<Ege> https://github.com/w3c/wot-cg/blob/main/Minutes/2023/2023_09_14-minutes.md and https://github.com/w3c/wot-cg/blob/main/Minutes/2023/2023_09_15-minutes.md

[ break ]

IG Charter

McCool commit without PR

<kaz> McCool's commit

McCool: a section describing use cases, he made them consistent and expanded them to include consumer, industrial, agricultural and environmental
… he also changed some wordings
… modified the hypermedia-driven interaction section to emphasize a broader case
… changed Linked Data, added accessibility, machine learning/artificial intelligence
… added a link to the previous charter

McCool: there is a typo in the current commit which needs to be fixed
… mm added a paragraph regarding privacy and security, link to the security and privacy guideline document, he didn't the internationalization too much only put it in context
… some minor typo issues would be fixed later by Michael McCool
… we can now review it

PR 132

<mjk> PR 132 - IG Charter 2023: Update Deliverables

McCool: we didn't clearly state that the use case and requirement is also in the interest of IG, this is added. Implementation report removed as it is not an IG task

<Ege> Also see: https://www.w3.org/WoT/cg/

Ege: I would just revert the ending, related community groups to the WoT

McCool: we could do that, we can leave the PR open for additional suggestions

McCool: we could also merge it to avoid conflicts later on, and then iteratively proceed

Koster: I don't see anything that would be against merging it

McCool: we only have one month left, I think personally finish by December

McCool: I think we should merge it, and if you have a problem create suggestions

Ege: I just created one

Kaz: I am also okay for merging this, the title say deliverables, we should think about the deliverable and scope section seperately
… ideally the diagram on the realtion should be updated

McCool: we should create a link to the other section with the scope, where more details are added there

Kaz: for this PR itself, we should concentrate on the description of deliverables

McCool: I don't want to prevent the IG from mentioning tutorial

Kaz: merging this PR is fine, but we should first start with mission, and scope, then deliverables

McCool: let's not merge yet now, and look at the mission statement then revisit this

PR 131

PR 131 - Update IG 2023 Mission Statement

McCool: the original text is reworded to mention "WoT approach seek to..."
… I added line 137, as interest groups we are seeking to build a deeper understanding of stakeholder needs
… this related to what we are doing with the use case activity
… the final line is to align WoT standard via W3C SDO liaisons
… I suggest we leave this PR open and take suggestions

Koster: any comments on this?

Kaz: I suggest we say "W3C WoT standards seek" instead of "WoT approach seeks"

McCool: we could say the W3C WoT standard

McCool: this suggestion is taken into account directly and changed to: The W3C Web of Things standards seek to counter the fragmentation of the...

Koster: any other suggestion?

McCool: should we extend the SDO acronym?

Kaz: it would be probably better to simply say "via liaisons" instead of "via W3C SDO liaisons"

Koster: any additional change?

(none)

Merging PR 132 and 131

Koster: merged PR number 132

Kaz: PR 131 could be also merged today

Koster: any objections to merging PR number 131?

(none)

McCool: let's do policies next week

<kaz> [adjourned]