- From: Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2019 02:20:49 +0900
- To: public-wot-ig@w3.org, public-wot-wg@w3.org
available at:
https://www.w3.org/2019/12/11-wot-minutes.html
also as text below.
Thanks a lot for taking the minutes, Dave!
Kazuyuki
---
[1]W3C
[1] http://www.w3.org/
- DRAFT -
WoT-IG/WG
11 Dec 2019
Attendees
Present
Kaz_Ashimura, Michael_McCool, Dave_Raggett,
Michael_Koster, Michael_Lagally, Taki_Kamiya,
Tetsushi_Matsuda, Tomoaki_Mizushima, Daniel_Peintner,
Ege_Korkan, dsr, Kunihiko_Toumura, Ryuichi_Matsukura,
Zoltan_Kis
Regrets
Sebastian
Chair
McCool
Scribe
dsr
Contents
* [2]Topics
1. [3]WG Charter
2. [4]Proposed REC preparation
3. [5]Possible Press Release
4. [6]Data schema for non-JSON payloads
5. [7]Face to Face meetings
6. [8]TF reports
* [9]Summary of Action Items
* [10]Summary of Resolutions
__________________________________________________________
<kaz> scribenick: dsr
WG Charter
The charter is out for AC Review with a deadline of next
Tuesday. We need the votes in by our next call.
<McCool> [11]AC review results (Member-only)
[11] https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/33280/wotwg2019/
We've had some minor changes in the charter template. We've
identified a further 10-15 companies we should reach out to for
their votes. If you know the AC Rep for any of these, you are
welcome to reach out.
Kaz will provide the list of outstanding prospects
McCool: they supported us last time, right?
Kaz: yes, all of them are part of the current WoT WG
participants
McCool: Some feedback in the AC Review - the description of the
TD deliverable is now too vague
Kaz: the detailed text is in section 2
McCool: perhaps the AC Rep wasn't looking at that?
... Suggestions for liaison with GS1 from Phil.
... let's indeed add that
<McCool> proposal: include liason with GS1 in WG Charter
[no objections]
David: is GS1 a participant in the WoT WG?
McCool: no
David: this request could be read as a PR thing
RESOLUTION: include liaison with GS1 in WG Charter
<McCool> ACTION: McCool to update charter to include GS1
liaision
GS1 did come to the workshop in Munich ...
Any other comments? [no]
Proposed REC preparation
McCool: we need to do this today or it will happen in 2020
We need to make a resolution to move to PR today to be within
the end of year publishing moratorium
We had a few minor changes e.g. to update references and need
to add these to the change log
McCool asks mlagally to do this
Lagally: okay, I can do that
Kaz: given that the change is really small we could note in the
SoTD
McCool: I updated some labels ...
adding a CR2 period label
<kaz> [12]example PR transition request (for vc-data-model)
[12] https://github.com/w3c/transitions/issues/158
The change log currently only lists one change and I think
there are more than that
McCool: can I get a volunteer to do a diff on the specs and do
a merge into the change log
Taki: I can do that
McCool: it is needed today ...
... We talk about dependencies ...
... we could state that dependencies are listed in the
dependency section
McCool asks Kaz for the wording for the PR resolution
Kaz responds
<McCool> proposal: current editor's draft of Web of Things
(WoT) Architecture document should proceed to PR transition
Taki: do we want to discuss the ID issue?
<McCool> proposal: current editor's draft of Web of Things
(WoT) Architecture document should proceed to PR transition,
including updates to change log
Lagally: isn't that about the TD not architecture?
McCool: I should create an issue to update the changelog
<McCool> [13]https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/issues/416
[13] https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/issues/416
<McCool> proposal: current editor's draft of Web of Things
(WoT) Architecture document should proceed to PR transition,
including updates to change log
[no objections]
mlagally suggests tweak to wording
<McCool> proposal: current editor's draft of Web of Things
(WoT) Architecture document, including updates to change log,
should proceed to PR transition
RESOLUTION: current editor's draft of Web of Things (WoT)
Architecture document, including updates to change log, should
proceed to PR transition
McCool: now the same for the TD spec
<McCool> proposal: current editor's draft of Web of Things
(WoT) Thing Description document, including updates to change
log, should proceed to PR transition
<taki>
[14]https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues/560#iss
uecomment-562834543
[14] https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues/560#issuecomment-562834543
McCool: Not sure we have an issue number for coap
some talk about the ontology files on github.io and w3.org
I believe that the TD spec itself is fine
Kaz: some question about changing the file name for the
ontology
McCool: does this matter for the PR transition?
Kaz: no
... Also if really needed, I can change the redirection setting
(from https://www.w3.org/2019/wot/ to
https://w3c.github.io/wot-thing-description/ontology/) to adapt
to the file name change.
<McCool> proposal: current editor's draft of Web of Things
(WoT) Thing Description document, including updates to change
log, should proceed to PR transition
Any objections? [no]
RESOLUTION: current editor's draft of Web of Things (WoT) Thing
Description document, including updates to change log, should
proceed to PR transition
McCool asks kaz to add links to the minutes to help Michael
with the PR transition requests
and Kaz provides links to resolutions during the main call on
IRC
Possible Press Release
Do we want a press release for the PRs?
McCool: we're better of with one press release for both
rechartering and the PRs
<kaz> [15]example press release of CSS Writing Modes
[15] https://www.w3.org/2019/12/pressrelease-css-writing-modes-rec.html.en
Kaz: Dave and I can't make this week's marketing TF call due to
an internal staff review meeting
McCool: let's discuss the PR in next week's marketing call
Dave offers to help Sebastian with drafting PRs and we can
discuss white paper and blog posts etc. in next week's
marketing call
Dave to contact Sebastian about this
Data schema for non-JSON payloads
<kaz> [16]Issue 839
[16] https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues/839
Tentative resolution to only cover structured data, not e.g.
JPEG files
Seeking input on whether we need some constraints on non
structured data
Lagally: we need a little more discussion, e.g. for binary data
Kaz: handling binary data is difficult, but we could make
progress at joint meeting with W3C Media and Entertainment IG
McCool: the IETF is working on binary data, and we should track
that
Face to Face meetings
McCool: Nothing yet from Mozilla in respect to Mountain View in
early March.
... We should pin down a date and plan for an open day
<inserted> kaz mentions the earlier, the better if we have the
meeting in March, because March is the end of JP fiscal year
McCool: Seeking suggestions for June/July meeting, my
assumption is that we can go with intel in Finland
TF reports
McCool: No security meeting this week, currently discussing
lifecycle content to be moved to the Architecture draft
... also looking for a better timeslot for the Architecture
call
<inserted> kaz: and I'll create a doodle poll for Marketing to
avoid overlap with the project review calls
[adjourned]
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: McCool to update charter to include GS1 liaision
Summary of Resolutions
1. [17]include liaison with GS1 in WG Charter
2. [18]current editor's draft of Web of Things (WoT)
Architecture document, including updates to change log,
should proceed to PR transition
3. [19]current editor's draft of Web of Things (WoT) Thing
Description document, including updates to change log,
should proceed to PR transition
[End of minutes]
__________________________________________________________
Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by
David Booth's [20]scribe.perl version 1.154 ([21]CVS log)
$Date: 2019/12/11 17:18:47 $
[20] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
[21] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Wednesday, 11 December 2019 17:21:02 UTC