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