- From: Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2020 10:51:01 +0900
- To: public-wot-ig@w3.org, public-wot-wg@w3.org
available at:
https://www.w3.org/2020/01/15-wot-minutes.html
also as text below.
Thanks a lot for taking the minutes, Michael Lagally!
Kazuyuki
---
[1]W3C
[1] http://www.w3.org/
- DRAFT -
WoT-IG/WG
15 Jan 2020
[2]Agenda
[2] https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/Main_WoT_WebConf#15_Jan_2020
Attendees
Present
Kaz_Ashimura, Dave_Raggett, Michael_McCool,
Daniel_Peintner, David_Ezell, Kunihiko_Toumura,
Michael_Lagally, Niklas_Widell, Takahisa_Suzuki,
Taki_Kamiya, Tetsushi_Matsuda, Tomoaki_Mizushima,
Zoltan_Kis, Ege_Korkan, Ryuichi_Matsukura
Regrets
Sebastian
Chair
McCool
Scribe
mlagally
Contents
* [3]Topics
1. [4]Policy wrt. figures and images
2. [5]Minutes
3. [6]Govtech meeting
4. [7]Meeting with MEIG
5. [8]WoT WG Charter
6. [9]Proposed Rec
7. [10]Press release
8. [11]Future F2F
9. [12]Binding templates
10. [13]Testing
11. [14]TF reports
12. [15]Marketing
* [16]Summary of Action Items
* [17]Summary of Resolutions
__________________________________________________________
<kaz> scribenick: mlagally
Policy wrt. figures and images
Lagally: request to use architecture overview figure for
surevey by Platform industry 4.0
Kaz: will check policy
<kaz> [18]patent policy
[18] https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20170801/
<kaz> [19]IPR FAQ
[19] https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/IPR-FAQ-20000620#translate
<McCool> proposal: to make the overview figure in the
architecture document (Fig 18) available for republication in
the Plattform 4.0 survey whitepaper
<kaz> [20]Document license
[20] https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/2002/copyright-documents-20021231.html
<McCool> proposal: To make the overview figure in the
architecture document (Fig 18) available for republication in
the Platform 4.0 survey, subject to the general W3C policy
RESOLUTION: To make the overview figure in the architecture
document (Fig 18) available for republication in the Platform
4.0 survey, subject to the general W3C policy
McCool: resolution assuming it fits with W3C policy
... kaz, can you please check and get back to Michael
<inserted> Kaz: will do
Minutes
McCool: will send minutes for group review, will send out after
review period
... automatic approval if no objection via email or approval in
next meeting
Kaz: as team contact I prefer 1 week, quick review previous
minutes during next call
McCool: can be a quick review during next meeting
<McCool> proposal: review period for minutes to be one week,
and covered in the following TF call
RESOLUTION: review period for minutes to be one week, and
covered in the following TF call
Lagally: please send objection via email first to reduce
discussion time
Govtech meeting
McCool: first meeting took place, follow up planned in two
weeks
... if you are interested to contribute, let McCool know
... minutes are not published publicly until confidentiality
requirements are clarified
Meeting with MEIG
McCool: we should prepare presentations on status, future use
cases, ...
Kaz: will work on future use cases
McCool: we need a presentation
Kaz: we work in architecture on use cases
Start time: 7am PST, 10am EST, 3pm GMT, 4pm CET, 5pm EET,
midnight JST
Basic schedule:60 mins for WoT discussion + 30 mins for
Media-specific discussion (Bullet Chatting)
WoT WG Charter
McCool: notifications were sent to reviewers, no objection
received
... Kaz, what about current charter extension to end of January
Kaz: no decision yet, is in discussion
Proposed Rec
<inserted> McCool: still ongoing
Press release
McCool: we created speaking points
<McCool>
[21]https://github.com/w3c/wot-marketing/blob/master/TALKING.md
[21] https://github.com/w3c/wot-marketing/blob/master/TALKING.md
McCool: waiting for marketing to create a draft press release
<discussion about marketing call and availability of
stakeholders>
McCool: let's do a marketing call for 30 mins today,
potentially 30 mins tomorrow
Kaz: perhaps also as part of TD ?
McCool: REC will be in 1 month from now
... we seek testimonials from companies that are legally
approved
... let Sebastian and McCool know if you plan a testimonials
Ege: I can ask students about what they think
McCool: we want to convince industry, e.g. I could ask
Singapore, perhaps member companies can say something about it
<kaz> Kaz: note that there are 2 parts, (1) "Speaking Points"
as the main body on the WoT's impact and (2) Testimonials from
Members
Future F2F
McCool: there are issues with the Mozilla Mountain View. We
either find another host quickly or do online-plugfest only and
shift to later meeting
... Mozilla can host 25 people but no room for Open Day
Lagally: how many attendants for open day?
McCool: +30
... Helsinki could be another target for the launch event
... will ask Mozilla again
Kaz: if we wait until end of next week, we only have 6-7 weeks
of lead time.
... better decide by end of this week
McCool: what do people think? better have F2F in March or just
online?
... I'll check with Mozilla again, if it does not work out we
will cancel
... kaz, can we do a quick poll?
Kaz: yes, and we can ask people about their interest in hosting
the possible meeting as well
McCool: let's have a decision by the end of this week
... perhaps only 2.5 days meeting and plugfest without
openday??
... Helsinki meeting
... we have a local organizer, dates and times are committed
now
... we overlap with ICWE conference to allow wider
participation
... WoT is actually on the CFP, we could submit a paper
... anyone planning a paper?
Ege: I'm writing a scientific paper, but our group could do a
workshop paper/proposal
<egekorkan>
[22]https://icwe2020.webengineering.org/industry-track/
[22] https://icwe2020.webengineering.org/industry-track/
<discussion on alternatives, submission deadline is still in
the future>
McCool: We can make T2TRG workshop?
Ege: there could be a half day workshop on the industry track
McCool: does a summary paper count for industrial track?
... I can draft a proposal, we can discuss in the TD call on
Friday
<inserted> (McCool mentions the possibility of our organizing a
workshop, and would contact the Chairs about that idea)
McCool: ege, what's your paper about?
Ege: timing analysis / tool as a node-WoT front end.
McCool: testing?
Ege: full consumer side
McCool: I'll discuss with the chairs of the T2TRG
... I could draft a paper based on the WoT status presentation
... Please review the plan on the agenda page, there's also a
Wiki page
Kaz: MMC, do you also contact ICWE chairs?
McCool: yes
... need to discuss policy wrt. ICWE attendance
Binding templates
Ege: I received review feedback from Daniel and Toumura, seek
for permission to publish
McCool: we agreed on one week review, please summarize the
differences
Ege: we fixed examples, introduced tweaks to CoAP and MQTT
vocabulary, some things were not properly addressed
<zkis> Zoltan: worked with Elena on the device lifecycle,
taking into account OCF, OneM2M, LwM2M, SIM, Oracle IoT models.
Will be presented on the Architecture meeting tomorrow.
Ege: sequence diagrams were added
... some editorial changes to payload structure
McCool: this is an improvement, anyone needs more review time?
(nobody)
<McCool> proposal: publish the current editor's draft of the
Binding Templates document as a W3C Note.
<McCool> proposal: Publish the current (13 Jan) Editor's Draft
of the Binding Templates document as a W3C Note.
<no objections>
RESOLUTION: Publish the current (13 Jan) Editor's Draft of the
Binding Templates document as a W3C Note.
Kaz: as of today?
McCool: the githubio draft says "January 13"
<kaz> Kaz: ok
Testing
McCool: testing: there was a request to separately count
consumer and producer implementation
... we need two implementation in each role
... we need to take this into account for next revision
... node-WoT as a fully implemented consumer would also work
Ege: we recently found some Python implementations from
universities, do they also count?
McCool: we need an implementation report, do we have a
dashboard to track implementations
... we don't have conformance testing suite
... implementation report is very detailed, a summary of
features would be useful
... boiled down a set of assertions to features, let's discuss
in marketing call
TF reports
McCool: please respond to TD doodle poll, will decide by Friday
Kaz: testing topic: we need to restart testing/plugfest call
McCool: shift marketing discussion to right slot starting next
week
Lagally: architecture: we have an editorial PR, please review
until tomorrow's arch call
[23]https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/pull/421
[23] https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/pull/421
Marketing
<egekorkan>
[24]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Egekorkan#Managing_
a_conflict_of_interest
[24] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Egekorkan#Managing_a_conflict_of_interest
Ege: feedback was that we have too much conflict of interest
... not independent sources
McCool: we must *disclose* conflict of interest
Ege: I don't have conflict of interest
McCool: just explain the situation to them
Ege: they also ask for secondary reliable sources
McCool: if you find other articles that talk about WoT, you
could refer them
... citations from other implementations
... we should track publications and collect in a .md file
... this could be referenced from the article
Ege: topic: social media presence
<egekorkan> [25]https://github.com/w3c/wot-marketing/issues/17
[25] https://github.com/w3c/wot-marketing/issues/17
Ege: we want to have a twitter account like the CSS group
Kaz: what is the action item?
... I can contact the CSS group
<kaz> [26]HTML5
[26] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTML5
Kaz: for Wikipedia example you could look at the HTML spec
... JSON-LD could also be a good example
<kaz> [27]JSON-LD
[27] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JSON-LD
McCool: you could check the citations
<egekorkan> [28]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75RFHIA1Xyc
[28] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75RFHIA1Xyc
McCool: let's search for external articles
... AOB?
(none)
McCool: Ege, you and Sebastian should discuss timeslot for next
week. On this slot we will have a plugfest call
... no marketing call tomorrow
... would be fantastic to have a draft of the press release
Thursday next week
<kaz> Kaz: so no marketing call today after this call or
tomorrow, possible marketing discussion on Friday during the TD
call. also expected marketing discussion on Thursday next week
<kaz> [adjourned]
Summary of Action Items
Summary of Resolutions
1. [29]To make the overview figure in the architecture
document (Fig 18) available for republication in the
Platform 4.0 survey, subject to the general W3C policy
2. [30]review period for minutes to be one week, and covered
in the following TF call
3. [31]Publish the current (13 Jan) Editor's Draft of the
Binding Templates document as a W3C Note.
[End of minutes]
__________________________________________________________
Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by
David Booth's [32]scribe.perl version 1.154 ([33]CVS log)
$Date: 2020/02/03 01:45:32 $
[32] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
[33] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Monday, 3 February 2020 01:51:10 UTC