12:05:08 RRSAgent has joined #wot 12:05:12 logging to https://www.w3.org/2024/04/03-wot-irc 12:05:16 meeting: WoT-WG/IG 12:06:27 present+ Mahda_Noura 12:06:33 scribenick: JKRhb 12:06:52 matsuda has joined #wot 12:07:11 topic: Minutes Review 12:07:16 present+ Kaz_Ashimura, Michael_McCool, Luca_Barbato, Daniel_Peintner, David_Ezell, Ege_Korkan, Jan_ROmann, Kunihiko_Toumura, Luca_Barbato, Tetsushi_Matsuda, Tomoaki_Mizushima 12:07:18 mm: Looked at the minutes in the chairs call 12:07:24 ... didn't see any major issues 12:07:31 ... fixed a link inbetween 12:07:39 ... JSON Schema will be discussed today again 12:07:54 ... resources is still in flux 12:07:59 ... any objections to publishing? 12:08:10 ... hearing no objections, minutes are approved 12:08:15 topic: Quick Items 12:08:20 subtopic: IRC 12:08:32 mm: There is a new syntax for indicating the channel in the IRC 12:08:34 i|Looked|-> https://www.w3.org/2024/03/27-wot-minutes.html Mar-27| 12:08:38 ... you can use it to indicate the channel 12:08:39 q+ 12:08:55 ... for some reason, it still prompts me for my username, which is a bit annoying 12:09:01 ... there is an email with a complaint 12:09:08 ek: Sent a follow-up email to that 12:09:17 ... you can set a bookmark with the username 12:09:42 ... that's what I do, it is quite practical 12:10:00 mm: (adds a link to the mail to the Wiki) 12:10:13 subtopic: Daylight Saving Time 12:10:21 Tomo has joined #wot 12:10:24 q+ 12:10:26 mm: We are now back to the old time, as you've noticed, since you are here 12:10:36 subtopic: New WoT IG Charter 12:11:02 kaz: The extension request got one review so far 12:11:15 ... they understand that we are outside the original charter period 12:11:30 ... hopefully, they will approve us today or tomorrow 12:11:39 ack e 12:11:42 ack k 12:11:53 ... just means that can't publish new documents but discussion can continue 12:12:15 mm: The 3 month extension is probably too generous, but it is just to be on the safe side 12:12:20 topic: Notices 12:12:26 mm: Anything to announce here? 12:12:27 s/one review/one approval/ 12:12:30 No announcements 12:12:36 topic: Meetups 12:12:42 subtopic: WoT CG 12:12:57 mm: There is a planned meetup regarding WoT and Solid 12:13:06 ... on May 16 12:13:11 ... any more updates? 12:13:27 ek: There will also be new tutorial videos on the YouTube channel 12:13:32 mm: Keep us posted 12:13:38 subtopic: WoT JP CG 12:13:49 mz: There is nothing to report here 12:14:03 topic: Cancellations and Schedule Updates 12:14:14 mm: I am going to clean up the list of cancellations 12:14:16 s/here/here, but planning some more events/ 12:14:28 ... next week there are the AC meetings 12:14:31 rrsagent, draft minutes 12:14:32 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/04/03-wot-minutes.html kaz 12:14:40 ... Kaz is going to travel that week 12:15:02 ... on April 16 there is going to be another cancellation, will you be available then? 12:15:17 ... main call is going to be on the 17th 12:15:41 kaz: Will be available on the 17th, on the 16th there will be a Japanese Community meeting 12:15:53 s/a J/the J 12:16:00 rrsagent, draft minutes 12:16:01 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/04/03-wot-minutes.html kaz 12:16:16 mm: April 22 until April 26, there is going to be the Hannover fair 12:16:39 rrsagent, make log public 12:16:51 chair: McCool 12:17:02 mm: As Kaz is not going to be available on April 10, so we are going to cancel the main call 12:17:30 mm: The use cases call is going to be cancelled on April 17 12:17:43 s/Jan_ROmann/Jan_Romann/ 12:17:45 kaz: Yeah, Mizushima-San is not going to be able to make preparations then 12:17:53 present+ Michael_Koster 12:18:13 mm: On April 29, the Scripting call is going to be cancelled 12:18:25 topic: Schedule 12:18:42 mm: Feel free to update the schedule depending on your taskforce planning 12:18:53 topic: Publications 12:18:56 No updates here 12:18:58 topic: JSON Schema 12:19:08 mm: There has been an ongoing debate on JSON Schema 12:19:28 ... JSON Schema is not a standard, but we are using it in our specifications 12:19:33 ... and for TD validation 12:19:56 chair: McCool, Koster 12:19:56 ... however, they were recently withdrawing from the IETF and decided to essentially form their own SDO 12:20:01 regrets+ Sebastian 12:20:11 ... so there was the question whether we can normatively depend on such a specification 12:20:32 ... I feel that we should formally declare our dependency on JSON Schema so that is not buried under a lot of noise 12:20:33 q+ 12:20:35 s/On April 29, the Scripting call is going to be cancelled/On April 29, the Scripting TF should decide whether the call is going to be cancelled 12:20:55 ... and that someone should summarize the current state of the discussion 12:21:08 ... so the question is whether we should make a statement as a group 12:21:21 ... or whether we should only respond individually 12:21:36 q+ 12:21:43 ... so I wanted to ask whether someone wants to volunteer to go through this and summarize it for us 12:21:54 ... want to ask Ege if could do that 12:22:14 https://github.com/orgs/json-schema-org/discussions/671 12:22:22 ek: I can write up a summary and I could go to there monthly meetup and present it to them 12:22:44 ... in the discussion linked above, there is also their process document 12:22:52 q+ 12:22:53 ... I can create a text and share it with the group here 12:22:55 q+ 12:23:06 mjk has joined #wot 12:23:16 mm: My goal is that W3C understands WoT's position and whether we support this 12:23:39 ek: At least I support treating JSON Schema as a normative, referencable document 12:23:43 mjk7 has joined #wot 12:24:13 also see: https://json-schema.org/blog/posts/w3c-wot-case-study . This was a joint effort with them 12:24:34 mm: We should discuss this and make clear that we as a group formed a consensus here. Should draft a resolution and pass it within one week 12:24:41 mjk7 has left #wot 12:24:43 q? 12:24:48 ack e 12:24:53 ek: Should make it clear publicly that we support them 12:25:10 kaz: Wanted to ask you all to summarize our need 12:25:22 mm: Let's discuss with the group and make our position clear 12:25:36 ... Ege can make a draft and we can then discuss it 12:25:50 kaz: Decision should be made by the chairs but we can delegate it to Ege 12:26:00 ... but we can discuss Ege's draft 12:26:10 s/Decision/Summary and decision/ 12:26:19 mm: Want Ege to draft something which can then agree to as a group 12:26:22 s/draft/draft as the whole WG/ 12:26:30 ... need a written draft to make sure that we are all on the same page 12:26:32 ack k 12:26:39 kaz: Thank you for volunteering, Ege! 12:26:52 lb: Let's think about a worst-case scenario 12:26:52 s/there monthly/their monthly/ 12:27:21 ... if their decision to form an SDO and their published version does not satisfy us 12:27:40 mm: We would not be worse off than we are today 12:27:49 rrsagent, draft minutes 12:27:50 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/04/03-wot-minutes.html kaz 12:28:51 lb: If they keep evolving their specification but we can pin the version we are referring to as a standard, but if they are keep moving, then we might need to "import" the version we are referring to into our specifications 12:29:26 mm: We need JSON Schema for validation, e.g. in the directory service, there are other mechanisms such as JSON-LD 12:29:36 ... not consistent with industry tooling 12:29:55 q+ 12:29:57 q? 12:29:59 ... we need to figure out how strong the dependency really is and what we need to cite it 12:30:00 ack l 12:30:27 david: I chose to be an early reviewer of Ege 12:30:31 ack de 12:30:54 ... we are relying heavily on JSON Schema, version 7 to be precise 12:31:07 ... if you ever need help, Ege, just let me know 12:31:28 dp: Quick note: I doubt that we are the only ones relying on JSON Schema within W3C 12:31:28 q+ to mention that VC is also reliant on JSON Schema 12:31:39 ... should coordinate with them 12:31:48 q+ 12:31:53 ack dape 12:31:56 ... and reach out to them and make a common statement to the W3C, across groups 12:32:13 https://www.w3.org/TR/vc-json-schema/ 12:32:24 mm: I am also think about the web ecosystem, e.g. OpenAPI, for them it is pretty important 12:32:36 ... also the people from the schemas breakout 12:32:54 ek: There is also the Verifiable Credentials WG, which we should involve 12:33:12 kaz: I think that's why we are asking Ege to summarize our point 12:33:19 topic: F2F Planning 12:33:45 mm: June is coming pretty close, when Sebastian returns I hope we can pin down the open questions 12:34:00 ack e 12:34:00 Ege, you wanted to mention that VC is also reliant on JSON Schema 12:34:07 q- 12:34:17 q+ 12:34:24 ... I added an additional level of approval to the wiki 12:34:46 ... please fill in the table, so that we have a better idea who will join 12:34:53 q- 12:35:06 kaz: I hope to be able to come, but the 90% is conditional, depending on the topics discussed 12:35:17 ... that is probably also true for you, right? 12:35:30 mm: Yes, therefore I hope to finalize the agenda soon 12:35:48 ... also considering that there are stricter guidelines in place now 12:35:51 topic: Versioning 12:35:57 mm: We had a meeting last week 12:36:02 ... walked through the draft policy 12:36:16 ... as far as I understand, this is the latest version of the prososal 12:36:22 q+ 12:36:39 ... did not make it to a resolution, plan is to spend some more time during tomorrow's TD call and finish it 12:36:45 i|We had|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/pull/1969 draft policy on TD repo| 12:37:15 ... note that this is in the TD repo for now, but it should also apply to other TFs, so ideally we should move it to the wot repository eventually 12:37:22 ... this should also affect Profiles 12:37:37 lb: Probably depends on what we want to do in Profiles 12:37:51 mm: You will probably also have ontologies etc. 12:38:19 lb: One of the open questions for Profiles is whether they will insert additional vocabularies 12:38:45 ... but I read it and I am aware of it, as I am one of the authors 12:39:09 ek: One thing: Tomorrow, I would like to focus on the discussion regarding the pre-REC 12:39:25 ... including the date in the version 12:39:32 ... then we should have a resolution 12:39:40 q? 12:39:43 ack e 12:40:07 topic: Other TFs 12:40:49 mm: We should probably skip this, with the exception of Profiles, since we are short on time. Does anyone want to give an update? 12:41:09 s/Profiles/Profile/ 12:41:32 rrsagent, draft minutes 12:41:33 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/04/03-wot-minutes.html kaz 12:41:40 No other updates 12:41:41 https://github.com/w3c/wot-profile/issues/369 12:41:44 subtopic: Profile 12:42:17 s/Other TFs/TF reports/ 12:42:19 lb: The problem we currently have within Profile is that we this problem that synchronous actions are underspecified 12:42:39 s|https://github.com/w3c/wot-profile/issues/369|| 12:42:53 q+ 12:43:01 i|The problem|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot-profile/issues/369 wot-profile Issue 369 - Clarifications on async actions| 12:43:04 q+ 12:43:26 ... in Profile we are facing the issue that since it is underspecified in TD, we have Profiles that specify what should happen in such a case, which is not covered by TD 12:43:39 ... so the question is whether Profile can patch or override TD 12:43:39 q? 12:44:01 ... then Profile would need to be REC to patch TD, otherwise we would need to fix TD 12:44:58 ... if we fix it in TD 2.0, we are fine, otherwise we would need to publish Profiles as a Note 12:46:26 q? 12:46:30 ack m 12:47:08 lb: We can choose to move forward with the 2.0 philosophy that Profile is only further restricting what you can do with TD. So the way to expand the capabilities is only within TD 12:47:14 q+ Q1: yet another alternative could be an errata.,... even though I don't like this path (not sure if feasible). Q2: How is the decision made, a poll? 12:47:30 q+ 12:47:32 ... for version 1.0 we have this problem and we need to discuss whether Profile can fix TD 12:47:49 ... or whether Profiles should only operate within this scope 12:47:52 q+ 12:48:18 ... otherwise asynchronous actions would need to be axed from the current version 12:48:51 ... or we close it as a note and we use the collection of issues in the right place 12:48:57 ... and fix them 12:49:09 ... want to have a consensus for that 12:49:24 ... then we can discuss how to reach this aim most efficiently 12:49:44 kaz: I think we as the whole WoT WG should think about we should do as the whole WG 12:49:59 ... we can of course listen to all of the participants 12:50:58 ... but we should discuss the deliverables as a WG. Should focus on the current charter, we can publish the current draft as a note or REC in this charter period 12:51:42 mm: I've seen other WGs first publishing CRs and never going to REC 12:51:53 ack m 12:51:56 q? 12:51:58 ack k 12:52:00 ... I think we should first get a full consensus from the WG before going to REC 12:52:20 dp: I agree, would also say that we should first fix TD before going to REC 12:52:21 q+ 12:52:39 ... I think there is a third option to first fix TD and then go to REC 12:52:56 q+ 12:52:59 ... I think a full consensus might be unlikely, so maybe we could have a poll instead 12:53:09 s/we should do as the whole WG/what we should do as the whole WG/ 12:53:11 ack dape 12:53:13 mm: Procedurally, I think we can make a call for resolution 12:53:31 ... remember that it is consensual, so if one person objects, it is dead 12:54:34 q? 12:54:36 ... regarding actions, I feel like TD is a way to describe how a given system works, while a Profile describes a specific Thing should operate 12:55:02 ... need to split this in the right way. Question whether we can fix this via TD alone, my guess is "no" 12:55:14 lb: We can fix it via TD, that is not a problem 12:55:31 present+ Cristiano_Aguzzi 12:55:37 q? 12:55:47 ack m 12:55:49 ack l 12:55:52 q+ 12:56:00 ... the question is whether we need additional vocabulary terms. We would need to publish a publication and the question is whether it would be version 1.0 or 1.1 12:56:16 mm: We should make a resolution that clearly states the options 12:56:22 s/1.0 or 1.1/1.2 or 2.0/ 12:56:42 +1 12:56:53 q? 12:57:05 ... should list the different options and then let the group decide 12:57:14 ... should be done by the Profile TF 12:57:32 kaz: Generally agree, the Profile TF should clarify the painpoints, though 12:57:47 ... then these problems should be handled by the TD TF 12:57:57 q- 12:58:07 mm: Each option should be motivated with pros and cons listed 12:58:09 q+ 12:58:32 ... we are out of time, so let's organize ourselves 12:58:46 lb: Should we open issues in Profile or new ones in TD? 12:59:10 s/open issues/refer to the issues/ 12:59:18 mm: Should be something like a Markdown document with the options 12:59:19 s/new ones/open new ones/ 12:59:32 ... can link relevant issues 13:00:00 lb: Will probably create a draft .md file and then we can move it somewhere appropriate 13:00:29 [main call adjourned; policy discussion starts in 10 mins] 13:00:33 rrsagent, draft minutes 13:00:35 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/04/03-wot-minutes.html kaz 13:08:15 scribenick luca_barbato 13:11:39 topic: Policy PRs 13:12:41 https://github.com/w3c/wot/pull/1128 13:12:47 subtopic: PR 1128 13:12:55 s|https://github.com/w3c/wot/pull/1128|| 13:13:14 -> https://github.com/w3c/wot/pull/1128 PR 1128 - [Policy] Move chair-decision-process.md from "proposals" to "policies" 13:13:43 mk: We could just use the standard W3C policy 13:14:07 q? 13:14:10 q- 13:14:18 q? 13:14:40 mk: We can just close this PR, any objections? 13:14:52 ktoumura has joined #wot 13:15:27 13:15:52 proposal: Close PR#1128 on chair decision policy without merging. 13:16:13 mm: Any objections? 13:16:21 13:16:46 resolution: Close PR#1128 on chair decision policy without merging. 13:18:07 https://github.com/w3c/wot/issues/1168 13:18:17 subtopic: Issue 1168 and PR 1181 13:18:19 https://github.com/w3c/wot/pull/1181 13:19:00 s|https://github.com/w3c/wot/issues/1168|| 13:19:17 i|1181|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot/issues/1168 Issue 1168 - [Policy Proposal] WoT-wide general policy on assertion ids| 13:19:23 q+ 13:19:44 mk: The Issue and the PR addressing it is about the id format for assertions 13:19:49 s|https://github.com/w3c/wot/pull/1181|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot/pull/1181 PR 1181 - Assertion id policy proposal| 13:19:56 rrsagent, make log public 13:20:01 rrsagent, draft minutes 13:20:02 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/04/03-wot-minutes.html kaz 13:20:34 i/We could just/scribenick: luca_barbato/ 13:20:36 rrsagent, draft minutes 13:20:37 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/04/03-wot-minutes.html kaz 13:20:43 ege: I planned to expand it, I can update it right now 13:20:58 subtopic: PR 1182 13:21:02 https://github.com/w3c/wot/pull/1182 13:21:20 q+ 13:22:05 kaz: Regarding 1168, are we going to review it during this call? 13:22:19 mk: Yes, in the mean time we moved to the next subtopic 13:22:31 s/subtopic: PR 1182// 13:22:36 s|https://github.com/w3c/wot/pull/1182|| 13:22:41 subtopic: PR 1182 13:22:58 mk: This is the current policy draft for article selection 13:23:14 q+ 13:23:19 i|This is|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot/pull/1182 PR 1182 - Article Selection Policy| 13:23:58 ege: the second point needs more discussion 13:25:02 example of collaboration would be https://json-schema.org/blog/posts/w3c-wot-case-study 13:25:52 -> https://github.com/w3c/wot/blob/cb53ed04bd38d31e7e6597519055b518111681fe/proposals/policies/article-selection.md rendered MD 13:25:57 q? 13:26:00 ack e 13:26:01 mk: We have 3 kind of articles, all of them with some degree of involvement 13:26:30 mk: I think it is consensus to not accept articles from third parties that have no relationship with us 13:27:10 mk: I think the only question is about CG groups 13:27:35 q+ 13:27:35 q? 13:27:54 mk: Are other W3C CG considered close enough to us or not? 13:28:16 cris1 has joined #wot 13:28:50 kaz: I agree with mm, we should start with only IG and WG participants 13:28:55 q+ 13:28:59 s/mm,/McCool,/ 13:29:02 ack k 13:29:22 q+ 13:30:56 ege: I think we have to focus on if it is a person writing on their blog or if it is a company/organization writing on their public blog as the company itself. 13:31:33 ege: I think there is agreement to not accept by default CG submissions 13:31:35 q? 13:31:59 mk: I thought of W3C members not part of the WoT WG and IG 13:32:47 ege: Under point 3 we could have a WG member that wrote an article on a magazine 13:33:05 cris: What to do regarding Invited Expert in this regard? 13:33:25 cris: I agree with kaz regarding not accepting CG submission 13:34:45 cris: to me is not really clear what to do regarding social media posts from 3rd parties we like to showcase 13:35:12 q+ 13:35:17 ack e 13:35:18 q+ 13:35:22 ack c 13:35:22 ack c 13:37:21 q+ 13:37:32 ack lu 13:37:45 q+ 13:37:52 q- 13:38:36 lb: I think we should consider the policy as the default, but in the end is up to the marketing TF decide if a content is worthy or not publication 13:39:46 mk: If there something really compelling we can make an exception, we can update line 13 to clarify that 13:39:52 q+ 13:40:22 ege: I'd clarify line 9 to specify the IG members 13:40:39 ... I propose to be explicit regarding the Invited Experts 13:41:31 ack e 13:42:42 q? 13:42:49 ege: Also if we do a collaboration with CG members, it should fall on point 2 13:43:10 ege: I agree with Luca we can have exceptions but they should go through the main call 13:44:02 cris: It feel we should be clear that is up to the marketing TF, I'd change line 7 to be less strict 13:44:14 ack c 13:44:54 kaz: In the end the key criteria is all about content, but the default policies should be about the WG and IC members 13:45:26 ... if we really want to include more people, it would get kind of complicated and the whole IG would have to review the content 13:45:41 ... if the content is coming from IG and WG it is much easier 13:45:43 q? 13:45:45 ack k 13:45:53 s/about content/about the content/ 13:46:05 cris: we should be explicit that this is the default policy 13:46:18 s/about the content (=whether the content to be referred to or not)/ 13:46:23 q+ 13:46:47 rrsagent, draft minutes 13:46:48 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/04/03-wot-minutes.html kaz 13:49:17 s/IC /IG / 13:49:45 ack l 13:50:09 +1 13:50:13 q+ 13:50:52 kaz: I'd clarify more line 11 13:52:05 I think what Kaz wants is the following sentence: It is written by one of the IG or WG participants or by one of the W3C WoT WG or IG member organizations. 13:52:42 kaz: It is written by one of the IG or WG participants 13:53:10 q? 13:53:17 q+ 13:53:32 q- 13:53:33 q+ 13:53:41 https://www.siemens.com/de/de/unternehmen/stories/forschung-technologien/folder-topics/web-of-things.html 13:54:27 q+ 13:55:15 ack e 13:55:27 q? 13:56:21 ack k 13:57:19 q+ 13:58:02 q? 13:58:08 ack l 13:58:57 mk: do we have consensus on line 11? 13:59:30 lu: I'd merge it since we solved the last point of contention 14:00:57 mk: objections? 14:01:02 14:01:15 rrsagent, draft minutes 14:01:16 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/04/03-wot-minutes.html kaz 14:01:28 q+ 14:01:46 q0 14:01:50 s/q0// 14:01:51 ack k 14:01:55 mk: We move the discussion to 1181 the next meeting 14:02:17 s/to 1181/on 1181 to/ 14:02:32 mk: adjourned 14:02:34 rrsagent, draft minutes 14:02:35 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/04/03-wot-minutes.html kaz 14:02:44 let's start at 5 past :) 14:03:08 s/let's start at 5 past :)// 14:04:22 luca_barbato has left #wot 14:55:19