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

[wot] minutes - 25 May 2016

From: Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 00:59:55 +0900
Message-ID: <CAJ8iq9VjMhsPNz=nbK_rNtTN4D+HjtDcubthenB-KX7nHL3_eQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Public Web of Things IG <public-wot-ig@w3.org>
available at:

also as text below.

Thanks a lot for taking these minutes, Victor!



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

                               - DRAFT -

                                 WoT IG

25 May 2016



   See also: [3]IRC log

      [3] http://www.w3.org/2016/05/25-wot-irc


          DarkoAnicic, Kaz_Ashimura, Michael_Koster,
          Soumya_Kanti_Datta, Toru_Kawaguchi, Victor_Charpenay,
          Yingying_Chen, Yun_Li, Daniel_Peintner,
          Matthias_Kovatsch, Takuki_Kamiya, Tuan_Tran,
          Frank_Reusch, Masato_Ohura, Johannes_Hund,
          Dan_Romascanu, Kazuaki_Nimura, Kazuo_Kajimoto




     * [4]Topics
         1. [5]agenda
         2. [6]Beijing f2f
         3. [7]Type system
         4. [8]IG Charter
         5. [9]WG Charter
         6. [10]next Web-conference
     * [11]Summary of Action Items
     * [12]Summary of Resolutions

   <kaz> matthias: status of the type system?

   <kaz> dape: discussion on the list and need to get converged

   <kaz> scribenick: victor

   <kaz> agenda:



   Matthias: Agenda: 1. quick updates (F2F, type system)

   2. Charter review

Beijing f2f

   <kaz> [14]f2f wiki


   <Yingying_> The venue is vision hotel, next to Beihang
   University campus

   Yingying: venue is Vision hotel, next to Beihang University

   participants need to fill a form (link to add to


   <kaz> [16]Vision Hotel Beijing

     [16] http://www.visionhotelbeijing.com/


     [17] https://www.w3.org/Member/wiki/WoT/WoT_F2F_201607

   <kaz> [18]Vision Hotel Beijing

     [18] http://www.visionhotelbeijing.com/

   Kaz: 2 questions: 1. [19]http://www.visionhotelbeijing.com/, is
   this the right hotel?

     [19] http://www.visionhotelbeijing.com/,

   Yingying: indeed.

   Kaz: open day, open to non-members also?


     [20] https://www.w3.org/Member/wiki/WoT/WoT_F2F_201607

   Johannes: more generally, procedure for open day, if we'd like
   to propose speakers?

   Yingying: hosts will take care of that. They also have their
   own invited speakers.
   ... I'll do the intermediary.

   There is an informal agreement that the more speaker we have,
   the better.


     [21] https://github.com/w3c/wot/tree/master/proposals/type-system

Type system

   Daniel: three proposals. JSON Schema is the best so far.

   There are a few pending issues but we'll start to integrate the
   outcome of this task to the current practice document.

   Kaz: handling of number precision?

   Daniel: JSON Schema allows: integer, min, max, float. No way to
   say e.g. [0.1, 0.2], though

   Kaz: should discuss the details at the F2F.

   Matthias: JSON Schema is still a draft. We should take
   advantage of this to drive the standard in a direction that
   suits us.

   Michael: what about payload formats?

   Daniel: it is embedded in the TD. No name for the value type,
   no URI.

   <michael> ack

   Michael: An example of a whole TD should be shown for the sake
   of clarity.

   Kaz: TD object model should be compatible with existing data
   model. What about mappings to e.g. C struct? Exhaustive
   analysis needed.

   Taki: there is also CSV, flat files. How to link to existing

   <michael> There are also some JSON template languages that have
   substitution features


     [22] http://w3c.github.io/wot/charters/wot-ig-2016.html

IG Charter

   IG Charter. How to proceed? One person responsible for a
   specific section, in charge of reviewing and merging PR.

   important point: deliverables. Will reach out individual people
   for that.

   <kaz> [23]automotive wg charter

     [23] https://www.w3.org/2014/automotive/charter

   we need to fix dates. Precise dates are needed? For instance:
   mid-June is enough?

   Kaz: even per quarter is fine.

   Kajimoto: review round could start now for the Architecture

   Kaz: specific point: difference between semantic model (IG
   deliverable) and TD?

   Matthias: will make a proposal to explain that.

   For the editors of the charter itself: one person responsible
   for each of the following sections: introduction, scope,

   Kajimoto: about semantic models/APIs: is a never-ending work.
   Proposal: have this deliverable only in a second step.

   <k_nimura> q

   (after the WG is launched)

   Matthias: agree. This should be clealry explained below in the

   Kaz: what about splitting it in two subections

   <k_nimura> i'm trying to talk

   Matthias: agree, had the same proposal.

   <k_nimura> which document would deal TD and DI discussion in

   Nimura: which document would deal TD and DI discussion in IG?

   Matthias: Current Practice document, from my point of view.

   <k_nimura> i see

   <k_nimura> yes.

   <kajimoto> Yes, too!

   To recap: use issues to review and comment on the current
   version of the IG charter.

WG Charter


     [24] http://w3c.github.io/wot/charters/wot-wg-2016.html

   Matthias: links have been updated. Terminology on the figure
   has been updated. Remaining TODO on privacy.

   I propose to remove it. We already have a security item. Oliver
   Pfaff to produce a text about "privacy by design".

   deliverables are stable. Added WoT Test Cases

   Test case already needed for the next PlugFest.

   Kaz: the IG Charter figure about relationship WG <> IG should
   also appear in the WG Charter.

   WoT Test Cases should be moved to section 3.2

   Kajimoto: deliverables are TD, scripting API, protocol
   bindings. Might induce changes in the Architecture document.
   What about adding this document in the WG Charter?

   Matthias: a standard document of that kind might be needed,
   that reflects the evolution in the other deliverables.

   Johannes: W3C procedure on that?

   Kaz: architecture document should be a W3C recommendation,

   (section 3.1 - Normative)

   Matthias: comments on the privacy item?

   <k_nimura> related to the WoT test case, how to deal
   conformance ? how to prove something developed is fit to
   recommendation documents or interoperable each other? isn't it
   proper documents not like Other Deliverables?

   Nimura: related to the WoT test case, how to deal with
   conformance ? Isn't it a proper document like other

   Kaz: difference between conformance test (not in the scope of
   the W3C) and implementation check suite.
   ... about privacy, we could simply merge security and privacy.

   Matthias: indeed. Oliver should write in the security section.

   Kaz: back to implementation check: W3C provides a test
   framework (with a test runner). Exists for HTML5

   Collaboration with the automotive group is possible regarding

   Matthias: done with this topic. Again, please review.

   <michael> I submitted a transfer layer proposal

next Web-conference

   Matthias: agenda items?

   Kaz: Kajimoto to present the last status of the architecture?

   <michael> OK good

   Mathias: also status of the Current Practice document: type
   system, protocol bindings

   Michael: proposal for an abstract transfer layer?

   Matthias: should be part of an extra Web-conf (including

   Michael: fine

   [ adjourned ]

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

   [End of minutes]

    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [25]scribe.perl version
    1.144 ([26]CVS log)
    $Date: 2016/05/25 15:53:38 $

     [25] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
     [26] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Wednesday, 25 May 2016 16:01:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:27:03 UTC