W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wot-wg@w3.org > August 2017

[wot-ig/wg] minutes - 16 August 2017

From: Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2017 01:35:56 +0900
Message-ID: <CAJ8iq9XthVfsmbJc-_UD7x014ZUjow2i7OURQezjdpX=9s9Rtw@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 for taking these minutes, Dave!




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

                               - DRAFT -

                               WoT IG/WG

16 Aug 2017

   See also: [2]IRC log

      [2] http://www.w3.org/2017/08/16-wot-irc


          Michael_McCool, Zoltan_Kis, Kaz_Ashimura,
          Daniel_Peintner, Dave_Raggett, Ryuichi_Matsukura,
          Tomoaki_Mizushima, Uday_Davuluru, Darko_Anicic,
          Matthias_Kovatsch, Achille_Zappa, Sebastian_Kaebisch

          Michael_McCool, Matthias_Kovatsch



     * [3]Topics
         1. [4]Quick updates
         2. [5]Plugfest planning
         3. [6]Architecture document
         4. [7]task force reports
     * [8]Summary of Action Items
     * [9]Summary of Resolutions

   <scribe> scribenick: dsr

   Matthias: we may need to discuss the architecture document, so
   please add an agendum for that

Quick updates

   Anyone have any quick updates?

   Kaz: I’ve updated the main IG wiki page with the timing
   information for the task force calls


     [10] https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/Main_Page#WebConf_Meetings

   McCool: Please respond to the doodle poll on the security task
   force call if you’re interested.

   Matthias: the W3C MarComm team are considering our proposal for
   the landing page etc. You usually have a landing page for the
   activity and different styled pages for the constituent groups.

   We want to make the landing page the same style as the group

   I haven’t heard back from them other than that they are
   considering this more generally across the W3C website.

Plugfest planning

   Matsukura-san provides a status report.

   McCool: hotels are very expensive for the week TPAC is taking
   place, so please book your accommodation soon!

   Michael Koster has looked into the cost of booking a room for
   the plugfest. It is not incredibly expensive but we need to get
   some sponsorship to cover it.

   I have yet to hear back from Amazon on providing a room or
   sponsorship. Intel can’t help this time.

   Kaz: can we ask Fujitsu whether they could provide a meeting
   room for the plugfest.

   Matsukura-san agrees to ask Taki-san about this idea.

   McCool: we should also list the ideas we expect for the
   Wednesday demos during the plenary break outs

   We need to organise plenary breakout(s).

   <kaz> [11]TPAC schedule

     [11] https://www.w3.org/2017/11/TPAC/schedule.html

   Matthias: we are looking for a demo room for half a day or a
   full day

   Kaz: I will check with the TPAC organisers about the demo room
   for Wednesday

   <kaz> ACTION: kaz to ask the w3c meeting planner team about
   demo on wednesday [recorded in

     [12] http://www.w3.org/2017/08/16-wot-minutes.html#action01

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-114 - Ask the w3c meeting planner
   team about demo on wednesday [on Kazuyuki Ashimura - due

Architecture document

   McCool: I see that my pull request has been applied. I see that
   Matthias’s pull request on the diagrams is pending resolution
   of a conflict

   mkovatsc: I am working on resolving the conflict and fixing the
   sectioning corruption

   McCool: I commented that we need to improve the terminology and
   have proposed some definitiions for several terms

   mkovatsc: I will provide an iteration over these definitions

   kaz: we’ve had some discussion on the review process and am
   seeking to clarify this.

   We can exploit the HTML diff tool to help with this. and we
   should add that policy to all the deliverable repo, e.g.,

   <kaz> [13]review procedure discussion (member-only)

     [13] https://www.w3.org/2017/08/16-wot-editors-minutes.html#item03

   McCool: it would be helpful to provide more elaborate
   instructions in the README.md file for the repo

   Zoltan will provide an update to the readme file for review
   next week.

task force reports

   Sebastian reports on the thing description task force.

   We are updating the draft, but there remains lots more to do.

   An open question is how to describe validation constraints,
   e.g. SHACL or JSON Schema …

   I will be on holiday for the next 2 weeks, so Taki-san will
   take over moderation of the TD work

   The plan is to stabilise the vocabulary section this Friday

   We have further discussion to progress the sections on
   security, eventing and so forth

   McCool: I don’t think the security work is ready to be merged
   into the TD, and I would rather you keep the security section
   as is for now

   sebastian: I am looking to McCool to provide a pull request for
   the security section when ready

   <kaz> [14]TD discussion during the Editors call (member-only)

     [14] https://www.w3.org/2017/08/16-wot-editors-minutes.html#item02

   McCool shows the draft pull request which isn’t quite ready

   Kaz: when do you think the security pull request for TD will be

   sebastian: there are many open issues, and I will be away for 2
   weeks …

   kaz: We can at least review the level of issues and distinguish
   "issues to be resolved before FPWD" from others

   McCool: the draft should state open questions where we’re
   seeking input

   <kaz> kaz: that's also possible

   McCool: We may have something ready for the security section
   pull request in two to three weeks. Mid-September seems a good
   ... I suggest we go ahead with the FWPD for the thing
   description and provide an updated draft in a month’s time

   <kaz> kaz: +1

   zkis provides a status report on the scripting task force

   We had a discussion on whether to provide an interface to
   access the thing description

   <kaz> [15]Scripting report

     [15] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-wot-wg/2017Aug/0020.html

   We also discussed the role of explicit API vs objects with
   methods with the same names as the thing’s actions etc.

   We could have a two layered approach, e.g. including a means to
   support software updates.

   We need to clarify the benefits of standardising the scripting

   We talk a lot about interoperability but not so much about

   McCool: in my updates to the thing description, I’ve made it
   clear that the fundamental standard is for thing descriptions,
   and scripting is perhaps secondary

   We need to ensure that the thing description and scripting
   documents are aligned and consistent

   Please help by reviewing the documents.

   zkis: we need about two weeks to deal with ourstanding issues
   on the scripting draft

   kaz: we might want to think about Matsukura-san’s ideas for the
   plugfest and its implications for our various documents

   <kaz> [16]Matsukura-san's proposal

     [16] https://github.com/w3c/wot/issues/346

   McCool: I will put this on the agenda for next week’s WoT main
   ... the binding templates task force met.

   The security task force is rescheduling its teleconference and
   working on the structure of the document

   kaz: I will send a reminder on the poll for the new time slot
   mentioning the 2 preferred slots (Mon. 9pm and Wed. 10pm)
   ... meeting adjourned …

Summary of Action Items

   [NEW] ACTION: kaz to ask the w3c meeting planner team about
   demo on wednesday [recorded in

     [17] http://www.w3.org/2017/08/16-wot-minutes.html#action01

Summary of Resolutions

   [End of minutes]

    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [18]scribe.perl version
    1.152 ([19]CVS log)
    $Date: 2017/08/16 16:20:22 $

     [18] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
     [19] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Wednesday, 16 August 2017 16:37:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:27:48 UTC