W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wot-ig@w3.org > November 2018

[wot-ig/wg] minutes - 14 November 2018

From: Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2018 15:12:30 +0900
Message-ID: <CAJ8iq9V2xOaiRNrQr4um+LN3fu9a_-bgk_OF4Q-uBuBDACFPVw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Public Web of Things IG <public-wot-ig@w3.org>, public-wot-wg@w3.org
available at:

also as text below.

Thanks a lot for taking these minutes, Michael McCool!




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

                               - DRAFT -


14 Nov 2018


          Kaz_Ashimura, Michael_McCool, Daniel_Peintner,
          Dave_Raggett, Matthias_Kovatsch, Michael_Koster,
          Toru_Kawaguchi, Zoltan_Kis, Michael_Lagally,
          Tomoaki_Mizushima, Kunihiko_Toumura


          Matthias, McCool



     * [2]Topics
         1. [3]Quick updates
         2. [4]TPAC report
         3. [5]PlugFest results
         4. [6]Online plugfest
         5. [7]IG Re-Charter
         6. [8]Possible support?
         7. [9]Task Force reports
     * [10]Summary of Action Items
     * [11]Summary of Resolutions

   <kaz> scribenick: McCool


     [12] https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/Main_WoT_WebConf#Agenda

   Daniel: online plugfest, add to the agenda, discussed in TD

Quick updates

   redo on the testing doodle

   <mkovatsc> [13]https://doodle.com/poll/pdfikpihu4pvqpu8

     [13] https://doodle.com/poll/pdfikpihu4pvqpu8

   those who filled it in early, please check again

   dave, matthias, and ege

TPAC report


     [14] https://www.w3.org/2018/10/25-26-wot-minutes.html

   kaz compiled draft minutes, above

   please look at them, in a week we should finalize

   in next main call

PlugFest results


     [15] https://github.com/w3c/wot/tree/master/plugfest/2018-lyon

   results from hitachi, panasonic, oracle

   please add yours

   do change the intended layout a little

   looks like oracle is not using the table

   McCool: let's try to coordinate this with our work on drafting
   the implementation report

   Matthias: linear report, table is better
   ... have some test cases where there are missing assertions,
   and vice-versa
   ... there are a large number of assertions missing still
   ... postpone looking at details until testing/plugfest call

Online plugfest


     [16] https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/WG_WoT_Thing_Description_WebConf

   Daniel: see link, agenda from the 9th
   ... possible candidate dates for plugfest
   ... freeze of TD doc end of Dec, xmas/new years impl, then
   plugfest in 3rd week of jan
   ... this is current proposal, felt that some time was needed to
   finalize td before plugfest

   <kaz> [17]Nov-9 TD call minutes (Member-only)

     [17] https://www.w3.org/2018/11/09-wot-td-minutes.html

   Matthias: very concerned about timeline
   ... no time to fix findings before next F2f
   ... results are currently very far from what we need
   ... not about passing all the tests, but about getting testing
   plan organized
   ... another indicator is that our results template is lengthy,
   does not have all assertions
   ... I do have some tooling that should work here

   Kaz: from w3c procedure viewpoint, plugfest is not really
   necessary; useful, but not required
   ... CR/PR transition just requires testing a couple of
   implementations separately
   ... maybe should thing of interop testing and assertion testing

   McCool: but... do people self-report, or use validation tools;
   what counts as an implementation?

   Matthias: plugfest is a time that implementors can sit together
   to test things

   <kaz> [18]https://www.w3.org/TR/2012/NOTE-mmi-interop-20120124/

     [18] https://www.w3.org/TR/2012/NOTE-mmi-interop-20120124/

   Matthias: for example, people who only have clients need
   servers to test against
   ... and we need concrete dates

   Kaz: here is another example, see link above. we should
   concentrate on the testing for CR/PR transition. and later we
   can publish an interoperability testing document based on
   PlugFest results as a WG Note if we want.

   McCool: I think we should focus on what is technically needed,
   other things are gravy
   ... we can put report on interop testing, etc in an appendix of
   the implementation report

   Lagally: feel a little uncomfortable squeezing in things so
   late in the year
   ... would rather not squeeze things into a short time

   Matthias: I don't know if it helps to just call it a special
   call on the test suite
   ... but there an issue with collecting the information from the

   <kaz> McCool: shows his generated draft implementation report
   ... details to be discussed during the testing call later

   <kaz> [19]Michael's draft implementation report

     [19] https://cdn.staticaly.com/gh/mmccool/wot-thing-description/updated-test-results/testing/plan.html

   <McCool> I know I personally have delayed filling out the
   report as I'm a concerned format is not correct
   ... deliverables to be filled in
   ... most new content
   ... for example, agreed on simplified api requirements
   ... basic idea though is to explore new topics, liasons,
   interop testing
   ... also growing ecosystem of implementations
   ... what is the deadline?

   <inserted> [We had some more discussion on testing, and a
   separate assertion review call proposed during the 2nd week of

IG Re-Charter


     [20] https://github.com/w3c/wot/blob/master/charters/wot-ig-2019.html

   Matthias: probably end of nov

   Kaz: better to have a draft by end of nov
   ... already started discussion with w3m for wg extension but
   ... would be good to have both at once

   McCool: I would feel uncomfortable waiting until dec
   ... let's get all the issues for the ig recharter lined up for
   discussion and ideally PRs by next main call

   Kaz: note that w3m meeting also occurs on wednesday

   McCool: we should at least give them a heads up that it will be
   on the agenda then

Possible support?

   Matthias: visitors about testing during TPAC
   ... working on web, but interested in what we were doing in iot
   ... some of them are willing to help us a bit, but asked for
   ... is a bit difficult since we still have to figure it out
   ... new territory for them, too
   ... have some concerns about who is helping who
   ... probably benefits on both sides

   McCool: I think we need to clarify what we are testing first

   Matthias: ok, so let's keep them in the loop, may be useful

   Dave: concur with mccool, not quite ready yet; contracts etc
   would be premature
   ... but if some members want to sponsor them, that would be
   fine, however...
   ... up to that member

   Kaz: extracting assertions and handling tests ourselves should
   be the first step

   Matthias: ok, will get back to them; not a "no", but a
   deferral; "maybe later"

Task Force reports

   McCool: a bunch of security updates to the TD
   ... definitions, considerations, mandatory at thing level...
   ... don't trust the class diagram though, not updated yet
   ... victor is working on a way to autogenerate

   <kaz> [adjourned]

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

   [End of minutes]

    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [21]scribe.perl version
    1.152 ([22]CVS log)
    $Date: 2018/11/15 06:03:09 $

     [21] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
     [22] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Thursday, 15 November 2018 06:13:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:27:36 UTC