W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wot-ig@w3.org > March 2016

[TF-AP] minutes - 9 March 2016

From: Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2016 00:03:45 +0900
Message-ID: <CAJ8iq9WQFAeCn0S0HJU_YyQWaL8dnjxF-gN4m2R5Yr107qK0hg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Public Web of Things IG <public-wot-ig@w3.org>
are available at:

also as text below.

Thanks a lot for taking minutes, Claes!




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

                               - DRAFT -

                 APIs and Protocol Bindings Task Force

09 Mar 2016



   See also: [3]IRC log

      [3] http://www.w3.org/2016/03/09-wot-ap-irc


          Kaz, Dave, Claes, Dan, Daniel, Frank, Johannes, Michael,
          Yingying, Sebastian, Louay, Katsuyoshi, Matthias, Nan,
          Takuki, Nicolas, Toru, Achille




     * [4]Topics
         1. [5]Architecture document
         2. [6]Draft charter doc
         3. [7]Next plugfest
     * [8]Summary of Action Items
     * [9]Summary of Resolutions

   <scribe> scribenick: Claes

Architecture document


     [10] http://w3c.github.io/wot/architecture/wot-architecture.html

   Johannes presents the doc

   Valuable for having the same vocabulary. Johannes thanks the

   <jhund> contribuing:


   Johannes encourages everyone to review and comment or directly

   Kaz: Good starting point.
   ... suggest to update with input from best pratices doc and
   ... missing how to include non-servient components
   ... show deployments where only parts of ther components are

   <scribe> ACTION: Kaz to add a Github issue based on this
   discussion [recorded in

     [12] http://www.w3.org/2016/03/09-wot-ap-minutes.html#action01]

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-34 - Add a github issue based on this
   discussion [on Kazuyuki Ashimura - due 2016-03-16].

   DSR: Fine to have an architecture doc but currently does not
   represent implementations done.
   ... We need more discussion about the architecture
   ... What are the reponsibilities of each layer?

   Johannes: Doc is based on discussion at latest F2F meetings.

   DSR: Proposes e-mail discussion.
   ... for example misses in the doc description of role of

   Johannes: Asks Dave to provide comments directly in the doc.

   DSR: A more general issue. What do we want this doc to show?

   Johannes: Proposes general points in section 3
   ... Different deployment scenarios in section 4.
   ... Section 5 describe the abstractions we made.

   DSR: Show somewhere how it fits/integrates with existing
   platforms and deployments

   Matthias: Suggests section 4 for Dave's proposal.
   ... Try to populate the terminolgy from the Best Practices doc.
   What is a Servients???
   ... need to use the same terminology!

   Kaz: Completely agree with Matthias about those points
   ... on the other hand, have another question about the document
   structure. Section 5 should be before section 4
   ... wants the Servient description early in the doc. We can
   talk about this kind of document structure issue later when we
   publish this as a group Note, etc., though.

   <michael> +1 matthias - first say what a servient does, then
   what a servient is

   Johannes: Good starting point, initial doc
   ... other TFs should check if they see themselves represented
   by this architecture doc

   <scribe> ACTION: Johannes to reach out to Sebastian [recorded

     [13] http://www.w3.org/2016/03/09-wot-ap-minutes.html#action02]

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-35 - Reach out to sebastian [on
   Johannes Hund - due 2016-03-16].

   UNKNOWN_SPEAKER: and talk about it at the next IG call

   Sebastian: Will include this in the agenda for next TF-TD call

Draft charter doc

   <kaz> [14]https://w3c.github.io/charter-drafts/wot-wg-2016.html

     [14] https://w3c.github.io/charter-drafts/wot-wg-2016.html

   Dave presents the doc

   DSR: ... using new template where yellow marked text are
   comments and placeholders
   ... ideally section 1 scope could refer to the architecture doc
   but we are not aligned yet


     [15] https://github.com/w3c/wot/blob/master/WG/wot-wg-items.md

   Johannes: Sections 1, 1.2 and 1.3 cover the work done in TF-AP
   ... checking that everything decided at our latest F2F as
   reflected in the Github doc is covered by the charter proposal

   DSR: Strive to get a short charter
   ... some bullet points from the Github doc is too cryptic
   ... people who are reviewing charters fell more comfortable if
   stuff has been implemented
   ... i.e. we should have "proof of concept" implementations of
   what we want to standardize
   ... in the charter reference for example working notes on what
   we have implemented
   ... major work to be done on 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3.
   ... need to provide more detail in the charter on access
   control and privacy

   Johannes: Ok if we don't have "everything" in the charter but
   what we have should be convincing

   kaz: regarding the information on "proof-of-concept"
   implementations, it should be easy to find information about
   "proof of concept" implementations but we don't have to have it
   in the charter itself. Instead it should be easily visible on
   the wiki.

   Daniel: For available implementations, who proves the
   interoperability? Difficult to have a list of implementations.

   DSR: We could cite reports from the plugfests stating the
   ... state in the charter where to find this information.

   <inserted> [16]WoT WG draft Charter on GitHub


Next plugfest

   <kaz> [17]April f2f wiki


   Matthias: We want to collect what people have implemented so we
   can define the scenarios.
   ... in table at the meeting wiki page
   ... also add contributions to earlier plugfests
   ... referring to section 4 of the [18]Best Practices doc, look
   at the questions and give feedback and use this as the starting
   point for the implementation.

     [18] http://w3c.github.io/wot/current-practices/wot-practices.html

   DSR: Encourages people to document their implementations
   ... provide links to this information

   <kaz> kaz: fine with putting information on the wiki first, and
   it would be great to have integrated list of "available
   components" on the best practice later

   Matthias: No links to specific implementations in the Best
   ... better to collect links at the wiki

   Johannes: Wrap Up: People to fill in the table at meeting wiki
   on what they are bringing to the plugfest, features, sensors,

   <inserted> [19]plugfest section of the f2f wiki


   <dsr> [Dave plans to add his work for the plugfest when he gets
   back from the W3C AC meeting]

Summary of Action Items

   [NEW] ACTION: Johannes to reach out to Sebastian [recorded in
   [NEW] ACTION: Kaz to add a Github issue based on this
   discussion [recorded in

     [20] http://www.w3.org/2016/03/09-wot-ap-minutes.html#action02
     [21] http://www.w3.org/2016/03/09-wot-ap-minutes.html#action01

Summary of Resolutions

   [End of minutes]

    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [22]scribe.perl version
    1.144 ([23]CVS log)
    $Date: 2016/03/09 14:51:30 $

     [22] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
     [23] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/

Kaz Ashimura, W3C Staff Contact for Auto, WoT, TV, MMI and Geo
Tel: +81 3 3516 2504
Received on Wednesday, 9 March 2016 15:04:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:26:56 UTC