Meeting minutes
Logistics
Sebastian: today would like to allocate some time to discuss Profile; so will go through the other items quickly
Guests
Sebastian: no guests, have two pending IE applications; working on scheduling a presentation
Kaz: one person is working on a presentation on work and expected contributions
… so now we are discussing when he can present
minutes
<kaz> May-29
Sebastian: as usual, welcome to review in advance
… reviewed in chairs call, did not see any issues
… suggest we approve; any objections?
… hearing no objections, approved.
quick items
Sebastian: draft for charter of Digital Twins for Smart Cities IG has been distributed to AC reps, ping your AC reps please; time until July 3
Notices
Sebastian: good news from OPC UA, released last week a companion spec, 10100-1, WoT Connectivity
Sebastian: it is using the latest TD spec, 1.1
… intention of this spec is to use WoT TDs for onboarding scenarios
… may have devices that are not OPC UA based, this allows an OPC UA system to import TDs and use them to onboard devices
Kaz: at some point we should talk about potential impact to our specs, e.g scripting and binding templates
Sebastian: was some plan discussed about official OPC UA binding; we have a draft but it is not yet official
… we have discussed options for this in the past
… discussed with W3M, but it was decided that OPC UA should work on it themselves due to need for conformance testing
… however, we should collaborate with them to ensure that things work together
Kaz: my point is rather procedural - should send updates to the liaison mailing list too. also should have how to deal with WoT/OPC-UA binding using the Binding Templates Registry at some point later
McCool: there may also be impact on profiles, e.g. if the spec has certain requirements for onboarding to be successful, such as mandatory ids, etc.
McCool: also, is there a spec for OPC UA devices presenting TDs?
Sebastian: not yet, that needs a complete binding
Kaz: let's discuss in chairs call details and followup
meetups
WoT CG
Sebastian: any news? If not, will skip
Ege: added video and slides links for last WoT CG meetup - see agenda
<kaz> Video link
<kaz> slides
WoT JP CG
Sebastian: any news on WoT JP CG?
Mizushima: nothing new
errata
Sebastian: there is a PR we should look at, and ask ege for a summary
<kaz> wot-thing-description PR 2023 - Fixes to Errata Documents
Ege: for all REC-track documents there is a PR
… we decided to do this manually, so these RECs disable the automatic script
McCool: since no discovery or arch meetings right now, would like to suggest we have a resolution in this call to merge those PRs
Kaz: TD TF can work on TD spec Errata, but Architecture and Discovery do need discussion during the main call as McCool mentioned. Also this is related to the whole WG policy.
McCool: as for policy proposal for errata, we can merge PR since it only goes into policy directory, but then we need a resolution to make it an actual policy
Sebastian: other PRs are just fixes to scripts, right?
McCool: suggest we have a resolution to merge all four PRs to make it official
<sebastian> proposal: the group agrees on to merge the PRs #2023 of the TD repo, #948 in the Architecture repo, and #547 in the Discovery repo.
<kaz> wot-architecture PR 946 - Fixes to Errata Documents
<kaz> wot-discovery PR 547 - Fixes to Errata Documents
RESOLUTION: the group agrees on to merge the PRs #2023 of the TD repo, #948 in the Architecture repo, and #547 in the Discovery repo.
Sebastian: (merges above PRs)
<kaz> wot PR 1191 - Errata Management Policy Proposal (putting the proposal to the proposals folder)
McCool: propose that we do a call for resolution to make this an official policy, one week from now
Sebastian: ok, let's do that , ege if you can make a PR to move to the policy directory, final comments can go there
<kaz> (meaning approving the proposed policy and install it under "policies" folder)
schedule
<kaz> Holidays and Events
Sebastian: Kaz unavailable June 12-13, impacts Use Case, Main, and TD calls
McCool: suggest cancel main call on June 12
Mizushima: also cancel Use Case call June 12
Sebastian: cancel TD calls?
Ege: ok with cancelling TD call, but suggest we have the "tooling" call
… it's not an official WG call
Sebastian: (updates list of cancellations in wiki)
<kaz> Cancellations
F2F Planning
November
<kaz> November WoT Week wiki
Sebastian: Nov 27 date and location (Munich) for WoT@Industry have been confirmed
Sebastian: would like to plan "WoT Week" around that
… WoT@Industry would be an "Open Day", then we would add plugfests and WG meetings
… first three days would be hosted by Siemens, last two would be at Microsoft
… plugfest 2 days, Open Day, then WG F2F
… there will also be a party, sponsored by Siemens, on the night of the OpenDay
Sebastian: would be useful to fill out the attendance list further, so if people can check their ability to travel
… we have a contract with a hotel for the OpenDay but are looking into extending it for the week
Sebastian: kaz, any news on TPAC?
Kaz: TPAC in Sept in Anaheim; joint meeting and WoT meeting allocated
… encouraged to skim the scheduled
<kaz> Draft meeting scheule
McCool: my understanding is that we have no joint calls with WoT scheduled
Kaz: actually... they were automatically added when we mentioned
McCool: then we should reach to them and actually have an agenda...
Kaz: feedback is June 10, would be good to do before next chair's call. let's talk about that on the team-wot mailing list
profiles
Sebastian: have been several emails exchanged, would like to ask ben to summarize discussion
<kaz> June 4 WoT Profile Minutes
Ben: general high-level agreement to make profiles and binding templates closer together
… but unclear what to do with the current draft
… some limitations right now, not possible to create a profile that guarantees interop
… current spec works around this by defining behaviour e.g. for actions
… high-level; question that needs to be answer whether the profiles should define bindings
<kaz> Ben's email on May 29
Ben: propose two options:
… option 1, agree that profile can define prescriptive bindings
… in other words, proceed with current document on REC
… option 2: only add restrictions to other specs, not new bindings; then current spec would become a Note and we would start on a new track.
… currently we are blocked from making progress until this is decided.
<sebastian> Option 1
<sebastian> 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. Publish a Candidate Recommendation, publicise a request for implementations, and if there are sufficient implementations then proceed to Proposed Recommendation.
<sebastian> Option 2
<sebastian> Decide now that profiles must only constrain what is already possible with binding templates in TD 1.1, discontinue the approach taken in WoT Profiles 1.0, publish the current text as a Working Group Note and start work on a Profiles 2.0 specification which takes a different approach.
Sebastian: as mentioned in email, a little concerned about first sentence of option 1.
… little concerned that option 1 weakens the binding templates if other docs are creating binding rules; it makes it unclear where to find information about behavior.
Sebastian: makes it clearer to the developer is there is a single place to look
Ben: agree option 1 is messy; have had to work around limitations in binding template; want to improve in 2.0.
… my understanding is that you prefer option 2. But want to confirm it is necessary, since it would require a lot of rework in the short term.
… agree there is a lot of good work in the draft, so I agree it should at least be a Note.
… would rather see a Rec that is synchronized.
Ben: want to clarify whether there are other members besides Siemens that prefer option 2. Although we do want consensus. Would Siemens object formally to option 1?
Sebastian: cannot really decide yet; need to look at input from the entire group.
McCool: to clarify, we do intend to refactor the specs either way, it's just a question of the status of the documents in the meantime. It may take longer to get through the REC process than the refactoring would take.
Kaz: currently option 1 and 2 mix two points; content and style. My understanding is that no-one objects to publishing as a REC as long as the content is correct.
… right now we are on 2.0 specs, and reorganizing other docs, e.g. refactoring binding templates into TD spec.
… it would be helpful to clarify the relationships between binding and profiles.
Daniel: it's not that we are against profiles, etc. but IMO having it as REC has implications - means strong support from entire group. Right now I don't see that consensus.
… so I would lean towards option 2.
Luca: what is in profile is meant to solve the problem of having useful greenfield devices
… so if we don't publish it, will leave a gap for about 2yrs
<sebastian> sorry, I need to leave.
<kaz> (Sebastian leaves)
Luca: what we have in Profile 1 is something that is useful for early adopters.
McCool: wrap up the comments and close the meeting
… any final comments?
Luca: rather would have profile as REC
… we have the force for interoperability
… if somebody wants to have a WoT greenfield device that person doesn't need to find the way by themselves
McCool: there is an email thread about this topic
… but would be better to have a GitHub Issue to have broader discussion
… what do you think?
Ben: just changing the media of discussion would not be useful...
McCool: let's continue the discussion on the email thread then
Daniel: maybe we need some kind of vote
McCool: need to clarify pros/cons before voting
… unfortunately, the next main call is cancelled
… but we can talk about this again in 2 weeks
… good to think about the schedule
Kaz: agree
… we should have another dedicated discussion
Luca: btw, what about my Editor status?
Kaz: As I already mentioned last week, Editor assignment is TF decision
McCool: let's confirm that during this call to make sure
Kaz: That's also fine
proposal: support making Luca Barbato provisional editor of the Profiles TF
(no objections)
RESOLUTION: support making Luca Barbato provisional editor of the Profiles TF
[adjourned]