- From: Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 03 Aug 2020 00:04:16 +0900
- To: public-wot-wg@w3.org
available at:
https://www.w3.org/2020/07/23-wot-arch-minutes.html
also as text below.
Thanks,
Kazuyuki
---
[1]W3C
[1] http://www.w3.org/
- DRAFT -
WoT Architecture
23 Jul 2020
[2]Agenda
[2] https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/WG_WoT_Architecture_WebConf#Agenda
Attendees
Present
Call 1: Kaz_Ashimura, Michael_Lagally,
Sebastian_Kaebisch, Tomoaki_Mizushima, Ryuichi_Matsukura
Call 2: Kaz_Ashimura, Michael_Lagally, Michael_McCool,
Tomoaki_Mizushima
Regrets
Chair
Lagally
Scribe
kaz
Contents
* [3]Topics
1. [4]Call 1
1. [5]Prev minutes
2. [6]Schedule alternatives
3. [7]Profiles
4. [8]Issue 17
2. [9]Call 2
1. [10]Prev minutes
2. [11]Profiles
* [12]Summary of Action Items
* [13]Summary of Resolutions
__________________________________________________________
Call 1
Prev minutes
[14]July-16
[14] https://www.w3.org/2020/07/16-wot-arch-minutes.html
Lagally: (goes through the minutes)
... can we approve the minutes?
(no objections)
Lagally: approved
Schedule alternatives
[15]Doodle poll
[15] https://doodle.com/poll/wtxn2wffxvd8fuvy
Lagally: will send a reminder to the whole group
Kaz: the results imply the current marketing slot would be the
best
... let's talk about that during the marketing call today
Sebastian: yes, let's talk about that
... anyway, we need to search for a better slot for marketing
Lagally: tx!
... Sebastian, we need your input as well esp. for the profile
discussion
Sebastian: ok
Profiles
Lagally: let's look into the issues
[16]wot-profile issues
[16] https://github.com/w3c/wot-profile/issues
[17]issue 7
[17] https://github.com/w3c/wot-profile/issues/7
Lagally: McCool's proposal to reduce number of goals or
differentiate
... the common understanding so far is creating a single
profile as a starting point
... (adds a comment to issue 7)
Sebastian: wondering if we could have more additional profiles
... the resolution made last week doesn't say "a single
profile"
Lagally: right
... do we want to start with multiple ones?
Sebastian: we should clarify our point
... this is a baseline with one profile which provides a
guideline
... and then how to extend it
... if people have some legacy mechanisms, don't have to follow
that
... we should clarify which kind of use cases to be addressed
by the "core profile"
... we should discuss that
Lagally: we should have more discussion about that during this
Architecture call
... what the central points for interoperability
... starting with one core profile and think about extending it
... people can use the core profile as the basis
Sebastian: definitely agree to the idea of profiles
... but a bit concerned about how to deal with it
... we should be careful how to communicate with implementers
outside W3C
... who are working on IoT based on the market needs
... might need to work on various different technologies
... what kind of protocol could be used for what, etc.
... should consider the actual benefit of having profiles
... would be better to provide multiple solutions
Lagally: completely agree
... we shouldn't exclude people working on MQTT, etc.
... if we support only one protocols, that would not be good
... we have to discuss the details and find a solution
... (shows the initial draft)
[18]initial draft of wot-profile
[18] https://w3c.github.io/wot-profile/
Kaz: we can concentrate on the core profile for the FPWD
... and put the other possible profiles into "other expected
profiles" section
... after getting consensus, we can move them one by one to the
main body
Lagally: agree
... regarding issue 7 itself, it's asking us to reduce the
number of the profiles
... and we've already reduced the number
... we have a consolidated requirements for profiles as well
here
[19]requirements.md
[19] https://github.com/w3c/wot-profile/blob/master/REQUIREMENTS/requirements.md
Lagally: (adds some more comments to issue 7)
Sebastian: seems to be reasonable
Kaz: Ben's last comment for issue 7 is kind of old (in 2019)
... so let's give this update and see his response
Lagally: ok
... let's keep this issue 7 open and see his response
[20]Lagally's comments based on the discussion today
[20] https://github.com/w3c/wot-profile/issues/7#issuecomment-662845278
Issue 17
[21]issue 17 - vocabulary not in TD context
[21] https://github.com/w3c/wot-profile/issues/17
Sebastian: Section 4.1.2.2 list a number of vocabulary (e.g.,
softwareRevision, loc_latitude,...) that are not mention in the
TD specification yet.
[22]section 4.1.2.2 of wot-profile draft
[22] https://w3c.github.io/wot-profile/#recommended-practice-
Sebastian: this is listed for the core profile
... but no new term is clearly defined
Lagally: we have practical knowledge based on our PlugFest
efforts
... but the knowledge requires some baseline for
interoperability
Kaz: regarding the terminology definition itself, we can start
with listing undefined terms with "to be defined" :)
... e.g. softwareRevision: TBD
Lagally: (adds comments to issue 17)
... our intention is not to divere from the TD spec or define
duplicate entities
Kaz: we can move the possible new terminology section to the
Architecture draft or the TD draft later if needed
... but starting with listing necessary terms would make sense
Lagally: ok
[23]Lagally's comments to issue 17 based on the discussion
today
[23] https://github.com/w3c/wot-profile/issues/17#issuecomment-662848481
Lagally: we have to look into the Architecture issues as well
... now we can quickly skim the initial draft wot-profile
[24]initial draft wot-profile
[24] https://w3c.github.io/wot-profile/
Lagally: (and then create another issue)
... profile is not exclusive
... add text that explains that the TD can be used without
restriction for all purposes
Sebastian: we can discuss the detail for the issue next time
[25]new issue 18
[25] https://github.com/w3c/wot-profile/issues/18
Lagally: would it be OK to use this initial draft as the basis
of further discussion?
Sebastian: let's work on that so that we can publish the FPWD
in September
... btw, I should be also part of the Editors to give updates
Lagally: tx!
... aob for today?
(none)
[call 1 adjourned]
__________________________________________________________
Call 2
Prev minutes
[26]July-16
[26] https://www.w3.org/2020/07/16-wot-arch-minutes.html
Lagally: (goes through the minutes)
(no objections)
Profiles
<mlagally___> propsal: Use the current strawman document as the
baseline for the Profile specification
RESOLUTION: Use the current strawman document as the baseline
for the Profile specification
<mlagally___> proposal: Accepting the following requirements
for the FPWD: Interoperability, Limit and reduce complexity,
Eliminate ambiguities, Limit resource consumption, finite set
of features and capabilities, follow security and privacy best
practices subject to group feedback
RESOLUTION: Accepting the following requirements for the FPWD:
Interoperability, Limit and reduce complexity, Eliminate
ambiguities, Limit resource consumption, finite set of features
and capabilities, follow security and privacy best practices
subject to group feedback
<Mizushima> [27]wot-profile issue 16
[27] https://github.com/w3c/wot-profile/pull/16
Lagally: adding co-Editors
McCool: fine to be added
Lagally: would merge PR16 as is right away
... we can add McCool and Sebastian later
McCool: ok
[28]Issue 17
[28] https://github.com/w3c/wot-profile/issues/17
McCool: we should start with the main ontology
... the question is if we would limit extensions, e.g., do we
want to let OneDM, etc., to be included in the profiles?
Lagally: have been working vocabulary from our PlugFests
McCool: we need to think more about testing side for the
PlugFest work
Kaz: as I proposed during the first call, regarding this issue
17 from Sebastian itself, I'd like to suggest we clarify which
term is defined and which is not
... and think about the concrete definition later
McCool: yeah, we should respond to Sebastian
... note that we should not fragment because a profile TD is
still a valid TD
... we might want to define a limited frozen set of extension
[29]Lagally's comment
[29] https://github.com/w3c/wot-profile/issues/17#issuecomment-663085750
[30]Issue 8
[30] https://github.com/w3c/wot-profile/issues/8
Lagally: (adds a label of "defer to 2.0"and removed the
"requirement" label)
[adjourned]
Summary of Action Items
Summary of Resolutions
1. [31]Use the current strawman document as the baseline for
the Profile specification
2. [32]Accepting the following requirements for the FPWD:
Interoperability, Limit and reduce complexity, Eliminate
ambiguities, Limit resource consumption, finite set of
features and capabilities, follow security and privacy best
practices subject to group feedback
[End of minutes]
__________________________________________________________
Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by
David Booth's [33]scribe.perl version ([34]CVS log)
$Date: 2020/07/27 04:29:05 $
[33] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
[34] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Sunday, 2 August 2020 15:04:21 UTC