Meeting minutes
Logistics
Kaz: don't think having just 3 people would make sense
… but you can still have some technical chat to clarify issues
PR 412
PR 412 - Refine Motivation section
Luca: we have Ben and Mizushima-san as two of the Profile Editors, so we can make decision
Kaz: if Ben's intention for PR 412 is editorial clarification for the Motivation section, we can merge this PR
… but we have another question about who to listed as "Editors" and what that means
… for that purpose, Luca has sent out an email to the whole group, and we should have separate discussion about that
Luca: right
… e.g., TF Lead to be the main Editor
… for this call today
… what can we do?
Mizushima: I can't understand what WoT Profile should describe
… we should clarify what to be described first
… then we can see Ben's proposal
Luca: because TD is designed to describe everything, authors of Consumers can't see what to do easily
… Profile clarifies restrictions and what to do from the Consumers' viewpoints
<benfrancis> Definition of profile from the WoT Architecture specification: https://
Ben: put the definition from the WoT Architecture as above
… can read that quickly
Profile A technical specification which provides a set of assertions such that any Consumer which conforms with the those assertions is out-of-the-box interoperable with any Thing which also conforms with those assertions.
Ben: so Profile is a set of assertons
… is that clear enough?
Mizushima: I think the description itself as a whole is ok
… but...
… we should discuss the whole document structure first
Ben: the definition from the WoT Architecture is fair
… but we have to answer another question before moving ahead
… that's being discussed via email
… unfortunately, there is not much feedback so far
… we may have to propose a resolution as a TF
Luca: one of the remaining part is
… tried to get the Scripting API group by extension
… discussing with the same people of node-wot implementers
… to clarify what is the actual problem with the current WoT Profile
… at least for us, the way WoT Profile is being written is OK
… we can probably wait for one more week to have more people
… to clarify what to be described by WoT Profile 1.0
… among 3 of us here
… can we see the consensus that asynchronous action to be tackled
Kaz: As I've been repeatedly mentioning, asynchronous discussion via email or GitHug is not necessarily the best way to solve this kind of question about the basic policy on what to be described by the WoT Profile speicification and document refactoring in general.
… at least we can't make decision today due to lack of participation
… so I think we should have dedicated discussion about this big topic
… I've been suggesting we have a separate meeting including all the stakeholders at once to discuss this topic, but we can start with the main call tomorrow.
<Tomo> +1 for kaz
Ben: my impression is there has been useful discussion by email already
… some of that was lack of clarity of non-normative sections
… mis-understanding from some of the Siemens participants
… and one specific normative content about actions
… ambiguity around sync/async actions
… personally think we should make a resolution about possible options
… opt 1. if we can get enough implementations, we can move ahead for a REC
… opt 2. give up the current spec
… myself would go for opt 1
Luca: if anybody disagree with option 1, we'll see problems with the spec
… need to see the proof of the problems
… instead of just having concerns
… think Ben agrees with me
… what about you, Mizushima-san and Kaz?
Ben: my understanding from Siemens is that they don't object to Profile 1.0
… it's possible for Profile 1.0 with some fixes and get REC
… if we can get sufficient implementations
… it's awkward to implement it within node-wot, though
Luca: I myself have not made contribution to node-wot
Ben: need special code set to handle Profile
Luca: we probably need somebody who has more experience about the code base
… have not had enough experience yet
<luca_barbato> wot-scripting-api Issue 555 - Extended return type of invokeAction()
Ben: in any case, WoT Profile doesn't have to be implemented by node-wot
… it's just that we need 2 or more implementations
Luca: can you join the main call tomorrow?
Ben: if necessary, and if that is definitely discussed there
Kaz: W3C standardization is based on cunsensus of the whole WG. So we need to build consensus for the next steps of WoT Profile as the whole WoT WG.
Ben: why don't we make a TF resolution?
Kaz: Given we just have 3 people today, we can't make a TF resolution. You and Luca still can make a proposal, though.
Ben: ok
<benfrancis> Draft proposal resolution: We agree as a Working Group that for Profiles 1.0 profile specifications are allowed to define protocol bindings that go beyond what can currently be described with binding templates, as a more prescriptive but unambiguous option to guarantee interoperability between greenfield implementations. The Profile task force will work towards a Candidate Recommendation of profiles 1.0, publicise a request for implementations, and if there are sufficient implementations then proceed to Proposed Recommendation.
Ben: for Profile 1.0, we already have Protocol Binding for SSE
… ideally stick with the current 1.0 content, and handle Protocol Binding for 2.0
Luca: that is fine by me
Kaz: for tomorrow's main call, what do you want to do?
… Ben's proposal?
Luca: first, clarify that TF lead to be the main Editor
… then Ben's proposal should be part of the next step discussion
Kaz: in that case, how to bring the proposal?
… it seems Ben and Luca have the same opinion, but what about Mizushima-san?
… if Mizushima-san doesn't agree, the proposal is from you two
Ben: would suggest we bring the draft proposal to the main call tomorrow
… regarding the question of TF lead and main Editor, those roles may require different tasks
Luca: we have to clarify the Editor assignment policy
Mizushima: I can't understand what should be standardized by WoT Profile 1.0 yet...
… if we standardize some kind of binding mechanism within Profile, that would not be good
… we should clarify what to be standardized first
Luca: the main difference between Profile and Binding Templates is
… Binding Templates extends the capability of Things
Kaz: sorry but we're out of time
… As I mentioned 5 mins ago, the proposal is not the one of the whole Profile TF, though you can still bring your proposals to the main call tomorrow to discuss it there as your proposal.
Ben: have we got a slot for the discussion?
Kaz: Luca has already asked McCool for 10 mins for the discussion
Luca: will ask McCool for 5 more mins
<benfrancis> Requesting review from Tomo on w3c/
[adjourned]