IRC log of wot-td on 2024-02-29

Timestamps are in UTC.

13:55:43 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #wot-td
13:55:47 [RRSAgent]
logging to https://www.w3.org/2024/02/29-wot-td-irc
13:55:57 [kaz]
meeting: WoT-WG - TD-TF - Slot 2
14:04:22 [Mizushima]
Mizushima has joined #wot-td
14:04:29 [dape]
dape has joined #wot-td
14:04:29 [mjk]
mjk has joined #wot-td
14:04:48 [kaz]
present+ Kaz_Ashimura, Michael_Koster, Daniel_Peintner, Jan_Romann, Luca_Barbato
14:05:00 [kaz]
chair: Koster
14:05:26 [kaz]
present+ Ege_Korkan, Tomoaki_Mizushima
14:05:44 [Ege]
Ege has joined #wot-td
14:06:31 [kaz]
present+ Cristiano_Aguzzi
14:08:03 [kaz]
q+
14:09:16 [JKRhb]
JKRhb has joined #wot-td
14:09:51 [kaz]
regrets+ Mahda
14:09:59 [JKRhb]
scribenick: JKRhb
14:10:34 [JKRhb]
topic: Minutes Review
14:11:13 [JKRhb]
s/Minutes/Agenda/
14:11:35 [kaz]
kaz: as you mentioned, we didn't have an official call yesterday, but had brief chat and got important opinions there
14:11:49 [kaz]
... so would suggest we record those points here on the minutes
14:12:01 [JKRhb]
mjk: Agree
14:12:11 [kaz]
i/Agree/... then we should review both the minutes from last week, Feb 21 and 22/
14:12:16 [JKRhb]
... Today, we are going to focus on the registry and toolchain (?)
14:12:21 [kaz]
i/as you/scribenick: kaz/
14:12:27 [JKRhb]
topic: Minutes Review
14:12:40 [kaz]
i/Agree/scribenick: JKRhb/
14:12:47 [JKRhb]
mjk: Just skimming over the minutes from last week
14:12:56 [JKRhb]
... does anyone think anything is missing there?
14:13:13 [JKRhb]
... think we had a more detailed discussion related to the toolchain yesterday
14:13:19 [kaz]
i|Just|-> https://www.w3.org/2024/02/21-wot-td-minutes.html Feb-21|
14:13:28 [JKRhb]
... I think we can then approve the minutes, does anyone object?
14:13:39 [JKRhb]
No objections
14:13:47 [dape]
q+
14:13:54 [JKRhb]
... then we can consider the minutes from February 21 approved
14:13:55 [kaz]
ack k
14:14:07 [JKRhb]
... then to the minutes from February 22
14:14:12 [kaz]
ack d
14:14:29 [JKRhb]
dp: Just noticed that some of the commands from the script did not work
14:14:39 [JKRhb]
... some insertions by Kaz have not been processed
14:14:50 [JKRhb]
mjk: Oh, yeah, that is then only editorial, right?
14:14:58 [JKRhb]
dp: Maybe Kaz can fix that
14:15:05 [JKRhb]
mjk: Yeah, is that easy to clean up?
14:15:19 [dape]
ack dape
14:15:34 [kaz]
i|then to the|-> https://www.w3.org/2024/02/22-wot-td-minutes.html Feb-22|
14:15:34 [JKRhb]
kaz: Technically, we have already approved the minutes from the 21st, right? And we are now talking about the minutes of the 22nd?
14:15:38 [JKRhb]
mjk: Correct
14:16:07 [JKRhb]
kaz: (checks the minutes of the 22nd)
14:16:38 [JKRhb]
mjk: There are also two comments that are out of place that are related to the CoAP topic
14:17:29 [JKRhb]
kaz: Please reload the file
14:17:37 [JKRhb]
mjk: (reloads)
14:17:50 [JKRhb]
... Yeah, that looks good, these issues have now been corrected, thank you
14:18:05 [JKRhb]
... there is a misspelling of IANA ("IAMA")
14:18:50 [JKRhb]
... there is a comment by Jan that has not been formatted, but that is probably a chat message by him
14:18:52 [JKRhb]
kaz: Correct
14:19:14 [JKRhb]
mjk: There is also an empty comment associated with Ege
14:19:21 [JKRhb]
kaz: We can remove that
14:19:57 [JKRhb]
mjk: Any other additions or objections to the minutes from the 22nd?
14:20:12 [JKRhb]
... then I would propose approving the minutes
14:20:13 [kaz]
rrsagent, make log public
14:20:17 [kaz]
rrsagent, draft minutes
14:20:18 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/02/29-wot-td-minutes.html kaz
14:20:25 [JKRhb]
No objections, minutes are approved
14:20:32 [kaz]
q+
14:21:08 [JKRhb]
subtopic: Yesterday's Meeting
14:21:28 [kaz]
i/Feb-21/subtopic: Feb-21/
14:21:38 [kaz]
i/Feb-22/subtopic: Feb 22/
14:21:41 [kaz]
rrsagent, draft minutes
14:21:42 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/02/29-wot-td-minutes.html kaz
14:21:48 [JKRhb]
kaz: Maybe we can quickly record the discussion from yesterday's meeting
14:22:05 [JKRhb]
mjk: So, to recap
14:22:36 [JKRhb]
... yesterday we had an informal discussion to brainstorm how to make progress on some of the areas we have been circling aroung
14:22:53 [JKRhb]
s/aroung/around/
14:23:02 [JKRhb]
... the discussion focussed on three main areas
14:23:19 [JKRhb]
... one being the toolchain, as we already discussed in the meeting of the 21st
14:23:25 [JKRhb]
... then the ontology
14:23:33 [JKRhb]
... which is mostly about resources and versioning
14:23:55 [JKRhb]
... we should probably be specific that the main issue here is versioning
14:24:06 [JKRhb]
... and the third one was the registries
14:24:36 [JKRhb]
... a minor issue was also project management, but as that is going pretty well, we decided to focus on the first three topics
14:25:03 [JKRhb]
mjk: With the toolchain, the summary is that we better need to clarify what problem we want to solve
14:25:09 [kaz]
rrsagent, draft minutes
14:25:11 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/02/29-wot-td-minutes.html kaz
14:25:48 [JKRhb]
... we already know how to do it, but we want to solve the problem of complexity
14:25:48 [JKRhb]
... which built up over several years
14:25:59 [JKRhb]
... Mahda did a great job of documenting most of the process as a diagram
14:26:27 [JKRhb]
... but what we agreed upon was that we want to sort of put that aside for now and try to generate a simpler diagram focussing on the inputs and outputs
14:26:43 [JKRhb]
... we already know what the inputs are
14:26:55 [JKRhb]
... and we know what we want to produce
14:27:16 [JKRhb]
... and in the middle, we can consider that part as a blackbox which we can gradually improve
14:27:41 [JKRhb]
... we wanted to have a separate meeting for the toolchain rather than integrating it into the regular call
14:27:48 [kaz]
q?
14:27:51 [kaz]
ack k
14:27:52 [JKRhb]
... which would allow us to do some deep-diving here
14:28:28 [JKRhb]
... we recognize that what we are doing is software engineering
14:28:37 [JKRhb]
... and should start with a new diagram
14:28:50 [JKRhb]
mjk: Regarding versioning, we had a contribution by @@@
14:28:58 [JKRhb]
... which we can use as a model
14:28:59 [Ege]
q+
14:29:22 [kaz]
s/@@@/David Ezell from Conexxus/
14:29:36 [JKRhb]
... for semantic versioning, we need to clarify what constitutes a minor or major changes
14:29:44 [JKRhb]
mjk: Regarding the registries
14:30:01 [JKRhb]
... we kind of realized that we did not have all of the requirements
14:30:13 [JKRhb]
... and that the discussion might have gone a bit off track
14:30:23 [Ege]
ok I have to leave but can someone send me via email the versioning document from David Ezell?
14:30:24 [Ege]
q-
14:30:33 [kaz]
i|Regarding|-> https://gitlab.openretailing.org/public-standards/api-design-guidelines/-/blob/main/Open%20Retailing%20API%20Design%20Rules%20for%20JSON.pdf Information about Semantic Versioning from David|
14:30:42 [JKRhb]
... maybe we need to think about the requirements a bit more
14:30:43 [kaz]
q+
14:30:51 [JKRhb]
... is there anything I got?
14:30:59 [JKRhb]
kaz: I think that was a great summary
14:31:06 [JKRhb]
... it was a casual, but a great discussion
14:31:21 [JKRhb]
... if everyone is okay with that direction, we can follow up on that discussion
14:32:35 [JKRhb]
mjk: Going forward, I think we need to be a little bit more careful. I think one thing to take away is that we can use the registry discussion as a template for other topics as well
14:32:40 [JKRhb]
topic: Binding Templates
14:32:58 [JKRhb]
subtopic: PR 352
14:33:03 [JKRhb]
mjk: This one is still open
14:33:31 [kaz]
i|This is|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot-binding-templates/pull/352 PR 352 - Min Polling Interval in CoAP|
14:33:33 [JKRhb]
jr: Ege wanted to make some improvement regarding the generation of the document
14:33:38 [JKRhb]
... still pending
14:33:49 [JKRhb]
subtopic: Registry Analysis
14:34:08 [JKRhb]
mjk: There is still some uncertainty regarding the requirements
14:34:20 [kaz]
i|There is|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot/blob/main/registry-analysis/Readme.md wot/registry-analysis/Readme.md|
14:34:28 [JKRhb]
... let's see if we have some requirements in the readme file
14:34:28 [kaz]
rrsagent, draft minutes
14:34:30 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/02/29-wot-td-minutes.html kaz
14:34:36 [kaz]
q?
14:34:36 [kaz]
ack k
14:34:40 [JKRhb]
... (skims through the document)
14:35:08 [JKRhb]
... we have W3C registry analysis and the IANA registry analysis by Cristiano
14:35:34 [JKRhb]
... the whole point of IANA, from my point of view, is that there should be no conflict in the assigned names and numbers
14:35:45 [JKRhb]
... and that there are no duplicate registries
14:36:27 [JKRhb]
... the third thing is that they will check the work, but that might be the least important point, as there are differences in the thoroughness of the reviewers/experts
14:36:50 [JKRhb]
mjk: The requirements we have in the document are mainly about interoperability
14:37:08 [JKRhb]
... one main thing is also that we make the process transparent to experts
14:37:33 [JKRhb]
... it always been that way, but we can also decouple the process from the W3C a bit
14:37:55 [JKRhb]
... all while the binding documents themselves are actually non-normative
14:38:23 [JKRhb]
... in the W3C sense, with the main normative content coming from other SDOs like Ashrae or OASIS
14:38:40 [kaz]
rrsagent, draft minutes
14:38:41 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/02/29-wot-td-minutes.html kaz
14:39:02 [JKRhb]
... still an open question whether the review is part of the TD taskforce or whether there should be another group that reviews submissions
14:39:44 [JKRhb]
... bindings should be "webby", question what kind of document a binding should be
14:40:20 [JKRhb]
... in terms of requirements for the specification, we mainly need to think about documentation requirements, so the format of the submitted document
14:40:37 [kaz]
q+
14:40:59 [JKRhb]
... versioning, deletion and deprecation are also requirements listed here
14:41:22 [JKRhb]
mjk: I think we had discussions already, so we are ready to start the work here
14:41:53 [JKRhb]
... I think we also talked about where to publish the registry, whether it should be a W3C or an IANA registry, for example
14:42:12 [JKRhb]
... so, for me, it is obvious that the registry should be a W3C one
14:42:24 [JKRhb]
... don't think we need to worry about that too much
14:42:42 [JKRhb]
... other aspects related to the internet and names and numbers would go to IANA
14:43:17 [JKRhb]
... we may need some more discussion regarding W3C registries and with the people involved
14:43:49 [JKRhb]
... then there are questions regarding the registration of URI schemes, whether they need to be registered with IANA or can be temporary
14:43:58 [mjk]
q?
14:44:14 [JKRhb]
... so I would propose using a W3C registry and then using IANA when required
14:44:30 [JKRhb]
kaz: Thank you for the summary, Michael, I completely agree
14:44:42 [JKRhb]
... my understanding is that we should generate a document like DID
14:44:59 [JKRhb]
... generating a registry track document
14:45:27 [JKRhb]
s/generating a registry track document/using the registry track mechanism/
14:46:12 [mjk]
q
14:46:12 [JKRhb]
... so we would create a document for registering binding template documents, although DID is still using a note document
14:46:45 [kaz]
-> https://www.w3.org/TR/did-spec-registries/ DID Specification Registries
14:46:49 [JKRhb]
... and look into our existing bindings and how they would fit into the new mechanism
14:47:14 [JKRhb]
mjk: We need a new document, a spec describing how the registry works
14:47:28 [kaz]
i|and look|-> https://www.w3.org/TR/webcodecs-codec-registry/ WebCodecs Codec Registry as an example of W3C Draft Registry|
14:47:43 [JKRhb]
... is there an existing document (e.g., by DID) that describes how the process works
14:47:56 [JKRhb]
s/works/works?/
14:48:17 [JKRhb]
kaz: I posted two examples above
14:48:59 [JKRhb]
... the content of the two specifications is quite similar, although the DID is currently on the Note track, only the style is a bit different
14:49:04 [kaz]
s/DID Specification Registries/DID Specification Registries as an example of Group Note/
14:49:19 [JKRhb]
mjk: Even the style is not that different as both are from the W3C
14:49:23 [kaz]
q+
14:49:41 [JKRhb]
... but styling according to W3C processes is another requirement
14:50:04 [JKRhb]
kaz: Yeah, and we need how to manage the process according to Cristiano's analysis
14:50:31 [JKRhb]
... regarding the design of the individual entries
14:51:17 [JKRhb]
... so, for us the question is, what kind of information from the binding documents we want the entry tables to be managed
14:51:37 [JKRhb]
... I think our preference should be to use the registry track
14:52:03 [JKRhb]
mjk: Ah, so the DID specification is not using the registry track, but the note track
14:52:31 [JKRhb]
kaz: Exactly, the registry track was not available then, but they are considering switching to the registry track
14:53:08 [JKRhb]
mjk: Is there any advantage of not starting as a registry track? I think we can just start as a registry track document, right?
14:53:20 [JKRhb]
kaz: Exactly, that would also be less confusing
14:53:47 [JKRhb]
mjk: So I think we can simply start with the registry track, unless we find any issues with it
14:54:10 [JKRhb]
... and create a draft registry similar to the Web Codec Registry
14:54:29 [JKRhb]
... so I think we can make the decision to use this kind of registry process
14:54:48 [JKRhb]
... and then make a small number of IANA registrations if need
14:54:54 [JKRhb]
s/need/needed/
14:55:09 [JKRhb]
mjk: By the way, does this document manage any external registries?
14:55:34 [JKRhb]
... so for example, does it register something like a URI scheme?
14:55:53 [JKRhb]
... something like that would probably also go into the registry document
14:56:22 [JKRhb]
kaz: So if you look into the document, you have an "Audio Codec Registry" section linking to the individual specifications
14:56:36 [JKRhb]
... these is quite similar to our main Binding Template document
14:57:05 [JKRhb]
mjk: So, the Procotol Binding document will be a new document which is going to be a registry document
14:57:27 [JKRhb]
... as this is the way it is done in W3C, unless we find a reason to do it differently
14:57:39 [JKRhb]
... we should start generating this document
14:57:56 [JKRhb]
kaz: I also think that what we are doing is quite similar to what this document does
14:58:24 [JKRhb]
... so we could basically change the title to "WoT Binding Template Registry" (laughs)
14:58:49 [JKRhb]
mjk: Yeah, we can basically reuse their structure
14:58:57 [JKRhb]
... and use their document as a template for our own
14:59:17 [JKRhb]
... if we fill out this template, then we can answer all of our open questions
14:59:51 [JKRhb]
... if we write up the "Registry Entry Requirements", we will be able to answer how this process should look for us
14:59:54 [mjk]
q?
14:59:58 [kaz]
ack k
15:00:21 [JKRhb]
mjk: I think we made some progress
15:00:21 [JKRhb]
... we can go from here
15:00:30 [JKRhb]
... next step will be using our project management approach and create the document
15:00:36 [JKRhb]
... and also review with Ege
15:00:42 [JKRhb]
... any other business?
15:00:55 [JKRhb]
[adjourned]
15:01:28 [kaz]
rrsagent, draft minutes
15:01:29 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/02/29-wot-td-minutes.html kaz
17:23:13 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #wot-td