W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wot-wg@w3.org > March 2019

[wot-ig/wg] minutes - 27 February 2019

From: Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org>
Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2019 08:49:34 +0900
Message-ID: <CAJ8iq9VohKqiUTFdzVTKDtV9T4w+2ZCDGA1q5Ndd=EDxN_218A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Public Web of Things IG <public-wot-ig@w3.org>, public-wot-wg@w3.org
available at:
  https://www.w3.org/2019/02/27-wot-minutes.html

also as text below.

Thanks a lot for taking these minutes, Michael Lagally!

Kazuyuki

---

   [1]W3C

      [1] http://www.w3.org/

                               - DRAFT -

                               WoT-IG/WG

27 Feb 2019

Attendees

   Present
          Kaz_Ashimura, Michael_McCool, Daniel_Peintner,
          Kunihiko_Toumura, Taki_Kamiya, Zoltan_Kis,
          Toru_Kawaguchi, Yosuke_Nakamura, Michael_Koster,
          Michael_Lagally, Ege_Korkan, Ryuichi_Matsukura,
          Sebastian_Kaebisch

   Regrets
          Matthias

   Chair
          McCool

   Scribe
          Lagally

Contents

     * [2]Topics
         1. [3]Quick updates
         2. [4]Daylight Saving times
         3. [5]WG onboarding information
         4. [6]Schedule
         5. [7]TF updates
               o [8]Architecture
               o [9]TD
               o [10]Binding
               o [11]Scripting
         6. [12]AOB?
     * [13]Summary of Action Items
     * [14]Summary of Resolutions
     __________________________________________________________

   <McCool>
   [15]https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/Main_WoT_WebConf#27_Feb_2019

     [15] https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/Main_WoT_WebConf#27_Feb_2019

   <kaz> scribenick: mlagally

Quick updates

   <kaz> scribenick: kaz

   Lagally: had a call today on workshop
   ... we split the "how to participate" information from the main
   CfP
   ... Kaz is adding information on EasyChair submission

   Kaz: will check the options to handle mutiple paper types
   (position paper/statement)

   Lagally: pc members to be fixed by the end of this week

   Kaz: if it takes longer to get confirmation, we can add them
   (additional pc members) later

   Lagally: we'll get back to all next week

   <scribe> scribenick: mlagally

Daylight Saving times

   mmc to avoid confusion enter the calls in your calendar based
   on US Eastern Time

   McCool: next week the main call will be at the same time, the
   week after one hour earlier
   ... I can send around calendar entries to the members list,
   which includes the call information

WG onboarding information

   <kaz> [16]Kaz's message on the WG onboarding info (Member-only)

     [16] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-wot-wg/2019Feb/0034.html

   (Lagally has problem with WebEx connection and rejoins)

   <inserted> kaz: explains the onboarding information site

   McCool: is there a list for publication schefule

   Kaz: we can add that kind of information and want that kind of
   feedback
   ... please respond to my email on the WoT WG Members list (URL
   above)

   McCool: btw, there's our home page and a landing page but the
   landing page has old information

   <kaz-win> [17]WoT landing page

     [17] https://www.w3.org/WoT/

   Lagally: we should fix this asap - It mentions "W3C started
   standardising ..."

   McCool: we can rewrite the first paragraph
   ... I will draft some introduction section - we should discuss
   in next call and replace the content afterwards

Schedule

   TAG review - Push to Friday next week before sending it to TAG

   McCool: this would be worst case
   ... Chairs (Matthias and me) need to prepare transition
   documents. Editors need to draft an explainer about the
   documents. (Architecture and Thing Description)

   Lagally: What about the other documents (Binding and
   Scripting)?

   Kaz: Only normative documents require wide reviews.

   Lagally: Architecture document references Binding and Scripting
   spec.
   ... are they also to be reviewed?

   Kaz: We can reference stable documents

   McCool: if documents have not been published, this may be a
   concern

   Kaz: This will be checked, when we do the review

   McCool: we need to make sure that we push out up to date
   documents
   ... in the CR review we need to have up to date document for
   all informative documents

   Lagally: do we have a template for the explainer document?

   <kaz> [18]example of TAG review request

     [18] https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/343

   <kaz> [19]example of explainer document

     [19] https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/blob/gh-pages/VCDMExplainer.md

   McCool: yes, see the TAG review issue above.
   ... ideally we have editors drafts by Wednesday, March 6th -
   chairs will submit to TAG by Friday March 8th.

   Lagally: We only have a architecture call on Thursday, would
   prefer to review in Architecture call on Thursday
   ... we can have a draft by Tuesday and consolidate until
   Thursday.

   Kaz: concrete date when the TAG review for our specs will start
   is not yet decided.
   ... If have our expected dates in our mind, we can negotiate
   the deadline with them

   McCool: Other groups need to review that as well.

   Kaz: I think we also need reviews by i18n, Accessibility,
   JSON-LD, etc.
   ... documents don't have to be final.

   McCool: CR deadlines are optimistic. Sebastian, are you also
   ok?

   Sebastian: we still have many issues - realistically the open
   issues won't be covered by next week
   ... do we freeze a version or can we do changes during review

   McCool: you can make changes, but ideally only minor changes
   ... JSON-LD question should be addressed before TAG review
   ... minor things can still change

   Kaz: Sebastian (TD) and Lagally (Architecture) should start
   explainer, I've already talked with the TAG Contact and raised
   a heads-up but will talk with him again when we're ready

   McCool: Explainer can be high level enough to still permit
   structural change

   Kaz: and regarding what and when to get wide reviews (including
   the TAG review), I'd talk with Philippe and Yves again

TF updates

* Architecture

   Lagally: architecture has moved to Thursday time slot
   ... we did not have a call since last week. We had text updates
   from Matthias since then, some updated figures. I created a PR
   yesterday, will have another one today

* TD

   Sebastian: we still have to clarify the situation around
   JSON-LD, this will be a topic in the call on Friday

   Kaz: I talked with Ivan Herman, the Team Contact for the
   JSON-LD WG. We need to ask them for a wide review. Perhaps they
   can join a TD call or our email discussion

* Binding

   Koster: no specific update on binding - plan to have an
   extended explainer, hope to have the update soon

   McCool: need an up to date document when we go to review

   Koster: yes, it is important, will work on it in the next two
   weeks

* Scripting

   Zoltan: we discussed various options on the next API version -
   fetch platform vs. convenience APIs, constructors vs. factory
   methods. I made a terminlogy PR update

   <zolkis>
   [20]https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1HN15VhjCcZEjrSllFSU
   VxUWiYhxFdslx80EtyJObNeo/edit#slide=id.g506a6ce621_0_0

     [20] https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1HN15VhjCcZEjrSllFSUVxUWiYhxFdslx80EtyJObNeo/edit#slide=id.g506a6ce621_0_0

   <zolkis> check slides 24-27

   McCool: What about note publication prior to the TAG review?

   Zoltan: Depends on how the discussion goes, we should allocate
   a day, since the 1 hour call is note enough

   McCool: I created a PR and updated best practices - wot best
   practices and testing document has not been pushed out as a
   note.
   ... let's discuss the testing conversation in the next hour
   ... if you are interested, please join the plugfest call

AOB?

   Kaz: wrt TAG review - I'm not sure we need to have referred
   documents completely stable

   McCool: "reasonably stable" would be desirable
   ... editors version should be consistent, there should not be
   major empty sections

   Kaz: note that the latest published version of binding
   templates is very old

   McCool: we should update the editors drafts before the TAG
   review
   ... we should publish them as notes prior to CR transition

   <sebastian> I have to go

   <kaz> [21]https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/343

     [21] https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/343

   Lagally: what is the TAG review checking?

   Kaz: document structure, basic architecture, design policy,
   etc.

   <kaz> [22]https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews

     [22] https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

   [End of minutes]
     __________________________________________________________


    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [23]scribe.perl version
    1.152 ([24]CVS log)
    $Date: 2019/03/02 23:45:51 $

     [23] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
     [24] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Saturday, 2 March 2019 23:50:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Saturday, 2 March 2019 23:50:40 UTC