Meeting minutes
Guests, New Members
McCool: no new members
Minutes
<kaz> Nov-22
McCool: reviewed in the chair call
… any objections for publishing?
… ok then they will be published
quick updates
Nordic Chapter CG
McCool: we joined the meeting of the "Nordic Chapter Smart City / Web of Things CG". kaz, Sebastian, Koster and myself were there
Kaz: Sebastian talked about WoT and myself talked about Smart Cities and Digital Twins discussion at W3C
McCool: someone we met before was there
Kaz: As I mentioned on the WoT agenda, we're invited to their meeting on Dec 18 again.
Koster: horizontal platforms for different domains, they are dealing with a lot of diverse protocols
… they are pretty good in agreeing
… and came up with useful solutions
McCool: yeah for smart cities that is a plus
Kaz: We as the WoT WG should clarify the relationship between the Nordic Chapter CG's topics and the WoT WG's scope. Also we as the W3C as a whole (or rather myself as the W3C Smart Cities Champion) should clarify their topics and W3C's discussion on Smart Citeis and Digital Twins.
McCool: BTW, there is another discussion on possible liaison with FIWARE (and the NGSI-LD spec) coming up again. We should keep an eye on that as well going forward
Koster: RDF-STAR is related to NGSI-LD ?
McCool: RDF-STAR is rather a new work
… It's important but the tooling is not quite there yet
… FIWARE is important too
… we should find a way to fit in
Kaz: I agree with the conclusion we need to look into possible liaison with FIWARE again
… but as I mentioned for the Nordic Chapter CG already, we as the WoT WG need to clarify the relationship between FIWARE's NGSI-LD and WoT-WG's work. For example, "Digital Twins" and "Smart Cities" are important use cases for WoT standards, but those topics are not the WoT-WG's main targets to be standardized.
McCool: RDF canonicalization is also soon to happen
meeting schedule
<kaz> schedule.md
McCool: we've updated the schedule.md, but note we will have a holiday break soon (Christmas/New Year)
… first 2024 meeting will be the 10 of Jan
… also we have a doodle for TD/binding call
Ege: it will stay open till next Tuesday
… then we will publish the results in the next main call
policies
<kaz> policies area
Ege: are the merged policies in place?
McCool: do we move the polices we approve in the right directory?
Sebastian: I think so
McCool: we should double check if we cleaned up the draft
… once the policy is in the right directory is active immediately
Ege: async decision is active?
Sebastian: media policy was merged
McCool: readme is not updated
… async is active
recommendations
<kaz> REC transition request
McCool: we have REC transition request . We need to update the expression of assertion 148
… I'll take care of this
… and keep it in sync with discovery
… I'll also fix links
resources and links of ontologies and schemas
McCool: any updates?
Kaz: we need to work on some details, e.g., HTML fix, Implementation Report fix and Namespace URI redirection, so the pubdate got delayed as Dec-5.
McCool: problem is that I can't finish the DID issue until we publish the resources with the final namespace URI
press release
McCool: We got a testimonial from VE3 last week. We were not sure if VE3 was a Member but got clarification they were a Member, so accepted it
… Also we have just got a new testimonial from Fujitsu
… sebastian will share the last version and we can give the approval
Sebastian: as said we have a new testimonial
McCool: the link for Fujitsu's testimonial a the top of testimonials is missing
Sebastian: already mentioned it in the comments
… we can freeze the press release and use it for official publication
McCool: need a resolution to accept the additional testimonials?
Kaz: We can review the testimonial text again to make sure. However, press release is basically published by the W3C as a whole, and the MarComm Team is in charge of that.
… So if there is any problem with the latest draft, we need to explicitly transfer that to the MarComm Team. On the other hand, if the draft is OK by us, that's fine.
McCool: So we don't need a resolution for this
Kaz: right. collaborative work like this is helpful and useful always, though :)
meetups
WoT CG
McCool: CG is going to have a home assistant meetup?
Ege: no
Ege: we have a new meetup next on 12th
… it is about industry ontology that is using WoT
… I'll create a calendar event
… about home assistant we are working on it. Josh is taking care of it. Next monday we'll talk about it in the internal event.
<Ege> https://
McCool: it is not clear if the meeting is reserved to chairs or to the whole group
McCool: can you call member meeting?
Ege: after opc-ua call
McCool: any other meetings?
Ege: no
Nordic Chapter CG - revisited
McCool: we need to figure out how to set the next Nordic meetup
Daniel: we can talk about cancelling Scripting
… let's talk about this next monday
McCool: discovery is not super active too right now
… in general we should figure out better solutions even though this happens once a month
Kaz: we can make an intial decision right now
TF reports
Marketing TF
McCool: any updates ?
Ege: yeah, we actually got a good insights from marketing call
… there is more attendance
<Ege> topics/
Ege: we've not got response from Coralieyet, but github topic is already done
… if you want to change it let us know
… we can iterate if needed
Kaz: I gave some comment about this proposal on GitHub topics for "Web of Things", and strongly suggested we got advice from Coralie before creating it.
… You mentioned "WebXR is also using GitHub topics", but the situation on WoT is a bit different. If we use "Web of Things" as the keyword for GitHub topics, the results will include something related to "Web of Things" outside W3C as well.
… other repositories might not be related to our standardization work on "W3C Web of Things"
Ege: it is impossible to regulate GitHub topics
… the ones that are using wot is listed in our page
Kaz: we should have waited for Coralie's advice before opening this
McCool: did you talk with Coralie?
Ege: we sent email but have not got a response yet
Kaz: We should have not opened it before getting her advice, because it would be difficult to close it once it's publicliy opened.
McCool: as written it talks only about w3c wot but the tag does not include this
Ege: some other W3C groups don't seem to care about that
Kaz: As I already mentioned, "Web of Things"'s case is a bit different from "WebXR" and "Web Accessibility", and include many topics from outside. So we as the WoT WG should be careful.
McCool: lets' follow up with Coralie then
Kaz: Agree. I'm not objecting to using GitHub topics itself, but just have been suggesting we get Coralie's advice first before opening it publicly.
IG charter
<kaz> Draft IG Charter
Koster: we will focus on two issues
… use cases and requirements section
… plug fest and testing
… and as third point is best practices
Scope
<kaz> Issue 122 - IG Charter 2023: Update scope
McCool: we don't have an issue for defining relations with CG
Koster: there is some overlaps in the use cases and requirements section
Koster: is there anything we are missing?
Koster: we have a section dedicated to relationships with other groups in the scope issue (#122)
… testing and plugfest
… one of them is more validation of the assertions in the spec
… the other is more exploratory
… new features get tested
McCool: the plugfest is an event
… testing is about validating assertions and produce the report
… one of the outcome of a plugfest could be a test report
… wg should be resposible of managing the reports
Koster: exactly and the other groups can submit
McCool: it is better to collect test data over time
… we should clarify the process of collecting test results
… it is fair to say
… IG or CG can organize events for facilitate the collection from a wider audience
Ege: in this PR form the CG
… we have a proposal for how plugfest can be organized by the CG
Ege: the testing activity was assigned by the test taskforce, but it can pull TDs from other sources
McCool: testing task force should be more about organizing tooling
… the repo can be maintained outside the WG and we can pull the results from the outside
Ege: WG decide the mechanism and CG just need to comply
Cristiano: +1
Koster: the test events can be organized by IG or CG and the test results can be submitted by both groups
McCool: ok meeting closed
Kaz: I'm ok with the direction
… we should detail more the single responsabilities of each group.
… not only the PRs in each repository, we should work together
… we should have one file
McCool: we need a simplier document
Ege: ok not in the CG repository
Kaz: wot repository
Cristiano: I would keep CG document as it is
Kaz: we need one for WoT IG too
McCool: ok take kaz's feedback
… and incorporate it
Koster: aob ?
… none
[adjourned]