W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wot-wg@w3.org > August 2020

[wot-architecture] minutes - 30 July 2020

From: Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2020 17:01:18 +0900
Message-ID: <87lfin0w1d.wl-ashimura@w3.org>
To: public-wot-wg@w3.org
available at:

also as text below.

Thanks a lot for taking the minutes, Cristiano!



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

                               - DRAFT -

                            WoT Architecture

30 Jul 2020


      [2] https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/WG_WoT_Architecture_WebConf#Agenda


          Call 1: Kaz_Ashimura, Michael_Lagally, Tomoaki_Mizushima
          Call 2: Kaz_Ashimura, Cristiano_Aguzzi, David_Ezell,
          Michael_Lagally, Michael_McCool, Sebastian_Kaebisch,
          Ryuichi_Matuskura, Michael_Koster, Ben_Francis,



          kaz, cris


     * [3]Topics
         1. [4]Call 1
              1. [5]Prev minutes
              2. [6]Logistics
              3. [7]Profiles
              4. [8]Issue 4
         2. [9]Call 2
              1. [10]Minutes of the previous call
              2. [11]New architecture slot
              3. [12]WoT profiles
              4. [13]Repo pull requests
              5. [14]PR 22
     * [15]Summary of Action Items
     * [16]Summary of Resolutions

Call 1

   scribenick: kaz

Prev minutes

   <kaz> [17]July-23

     [17] https://www.w3.org/2020/07/23-wot-arch-minutes.html

   <inserted> scribenick: kaz

   Lagally: approved


   [18]Doodle results

     [18] https://doodle.com/poll/wtxn2wffxvd8fuvy

   Lagally: the current marketing slot on Thursday would work for

   <mlagally_> proposal: Starting on Aug 6th the architecture call
   will take place at 2pm-4pm UTC. (EDT: 10am-noon)

   RESOLUTION: Starting on Aug 6th the architecture call will take
   place at 2pm-4pm UTC. (EDT: 10am-noon)

   <mlagally_> There will be no Architecture and Use Case calls
   between August 8th and Aug. 21st.


   Lagally: Sebastian has volunteered
   ... how about you, Mizushima-san?

   Mizushima: ok

   Lagally: so will add your name to the Editor's list on

     [19] https://w3c.github.io/wot-profile/

   Mizushima: ok

   Lagally: (adds Mizushima-san as the third Editor to
   ... (also specifies "ED" as the specStatus)
   ... (applies same edits to wot-usecases as well)

     [20] https://github.com/w3c/wot-profile/blob/master/index.html)

   [21]WoT UseCases

     [21] https://w3c.github.io/wot-usecases/

Issue 4

   [22]wot-profile issue 4

     [22] https://github.com/w3c/wot-profile/issues/4

   Kaz: I'm not 100% sure what Daniel really means here
   ... does he suggest we make "4.2 Protocol Binding" a separate
   section 5?

   Lagally: that's a possible solution, I think
   ... (goes through the related issue 8)

   [23]wot-profile issue 8

     [23] https://github.com/w3c/wot-profile/issues/4

   Lagally: (adds a comment to issue 8)

   [24]Lagally's new comment

     [24] https://github.com/w3c/wot-profile/issues/8#issuecomment-666164728

   Lagally: (also creates a new issue)

   [25]new issue

     [25] https://github.com/w3c/wot-profile/issues/19

   Lagally: we should define protocol constraints which are common
   across different protocols
   ... (going back to issue 4)

   [26]issue 4

     [26] https://github.com/w3c/wot-profile/issues/4

   Lagally: think now we can close this issue itself
   ... (issue 4 closed)
   ... (and adds an Editor's note to the spec draft too)

   Constraints for additional protocols can be defined in a future
   version of this section "4.2 Protocol Biding" of the
   specification, or, already included in the current version.

   [call 1 adjourned]

Call 2

   <scribe> scribenick: cris

Minutes of the previous call

   <kaz> [27]July-23

     [27] https://www.w3.org/2020/07/23-wot-arch-minutes.html

   Lagally: we discussed about WoT-profiles
   ... we defer also a couple of issues to next version
   ... we still have an open call for editors
   ... can we approve the minutes?
   ... ok approved

New architecture slot

   McCool: I have conflict for the suggested schedule

   <kaz> [28]doodle results

     [28] https://doodle.com/poll/wtxn2wffxvd8fuvy

   Lagally: I am trying to accommodate every need

   <mlagally_> proposal: Starting on Aug 6th the architecture call
   will take place at 2pm-4pm UTC. (EDT: 10am-noon)

   RESOLUTION: Starting on Aug 6th the architecture call will take
   place at 2pm-4pm UTC. (EDT: 10am-noon)

   Kaz: if McCool can resolve one of the his two conflict can we
   have normal call?

   Lagally: is a two hour call so people can join

   Kaz: just to be clear, we won't repeat the same discussion for
   the first hour and the second hour during the two hours, but
   will have agenda topics for two hours. Right?

   Lagally: exactly is a two hour call with a fixed agenda

   <kaz> ACTION: kaz to allocate a 2-hour call for architecture

   Lagally: can you allocate the two hour call?

   Kaz: yes, just added the action item for me

   Lagally: we did some housekeeping of the wiki, now should be
   less confusing

WoT profiles

   Lagally: let's look into the draft

   <kaz> [29]initial draft

     [29] https://w3c.github.io/wot-profile/

   Lagally: it is good to have an early initial draft to have
   feedback as soon as possible
   ... in this morning call we clean up a little bit the draft
   ... can you please became an editor?

   Sebastian: yes, please

   Lagally: anybody else want to join to the editor group?
   ... ok let's keep the call for editors open until the next week

Repo pull requests

   Lagally: PR #20
   ... sebastian made some observations

   <kaz> [30]PR 20

     [30] https://github.com/w3c/wot-profile/pull/20

   Sebastian: the core term implies that the component should be
   always present
   ... however it is not what we should mention in the document
   ... we have to be careful with the "core" term

   McCool: actually it means that the consumer must at least be
   able to consume core TDs.

   (Cristiano leaves and Kaz takes over the scribe's role)

   <inserted> scribenick: kaz

   McCool: core does state the minimum set
   ... we need a kind of converse set
   ... maybe we need a core description for Thing for consumers
   ... so think the word "core" is appropriate here

   Lagally: issue with naming question?
   ... there are several issues on the repo
   ... at least it's not exclusive

   McCool: is that you could in TD use MQTT?
   ... guarantee the consumer could have interactions
   ... if a consumer is satisfied with a profile, that could be
   ... we have some fundamental problem with "what profile is
   like" here

   Sebastian: for me it's an issue with naming
   ... assumption of implementing system for a constraint device
   ... the core means I still need to implement that

   McCool: profile is for interoperability

   Lagally: there is one thing to think about separately
   ... the protocol chapter is still kind of weak

   [31]5.2 Protocol Binding - preview from PR 22

     [31] https://pr-preview.s3.amazonaws.com/w3c/wot-profile/pull/22.html#protocol-binding

   Lagally: we need to think about the same data model for
   different protocols

   Kaz: would agree with McCool, and think we should clarify what
   we mean by "profile" and "core profile"

   Lagally: should include a small set of protocols?
   ... HTTP could be the default one

   Ben: agree
   ... interoperability is the main purpose
   ... HTTP could be the mandatory protocol
   ... am also wondering if "core profile" is appropriate
   ... more interested in constraint protocol
   ... if we agree we should have some profile, we can name it

   <sebatian> +1 to Ben's comment

   Lagally: it's not possible create a generic consumer
   ... whole Internet is the target
   ... we have to consider constraint devices though TD is still
   open for various things

   Ben: we should agree what the scope of the "profile"
   ... maybe a conflicting requirement there

   Lagally: we've been discussing our requirements

   [32]requirements for profiles

     [32] https://github.com/w3c/wot-profile/blob/master/REQUIREMENTS/requirements.md

   Lagally: should we specify profile for HTTP
   ... and then MQTT with the same data model?

   Ben: if we try some open-ended data model, the consumer has to
   support HTTP and MQTT

   McCool: need to define implementation complexity too

   Sebastian: agree with Ben
   ... we already have similar mechanism
   ... content type assuming JSON-LD encoding
   ... profile is a kind of guideline for implementation
   ... have to be careful about forcing the mechanism to all
   ... because many companies would not prefer that
   ... profiles should not mandatory

   Lagally: profiles are not mandatory
   ... nobody must implement it
   ... if somebody wants to implement it, that's fine

   Sebastian: ok
   ... but note that "core profile" implies all the implementers
   have to implement it

   Lagally: people can do what they want

   McCool: it's not forcing people to do that
   ... like the suggestion we think about the name later

   Lagally: with respect to the naming
   ... would like to keep it healthy
   ... let's pick a good name later

   McCool: btw, the requirement is not really strong
   ... we have to have a concept of interoperability
   ... need to go back to the requirements

   Lagally: ok
   ... let's go back to the PR 20 itself

   Lagally: would suggest we copy the comment to an issue

   Sebastian: already created an issue

   <McCool> McCool: need to say "out-of-the-box" interoperability
   ... we can't just have, for instance, data model
   interoperability, but not protocol interoperabilty
   ... the goal is that two things that satisfy the same profile
   should "just work" together

   Lagally: so would suggest we merge PR 20 itself
   ... any objections?

   McCool: ok

   Lagally: (merged PR20)
   ... and another one

PR 22

   [33]PR 22

     [33] https://github.com/w3c/wot-profile/pull/22

   Lagally: adding a conformance section here

   McCool: may need to add a script to highlight the RFC2119

   Lagally: ok
   ... (goes through the changes)

   McCool: explanation on the RFC2119 keywords?
   ... boilertemplate, e.g., within the TD draft
   ... within the "Conformance" section

   Lagally: already defined
   ... and duplication within Terminology section to be removed

   McCool: ok

   Lagally: basically saying everything is normative here
   ... we have to get Chapter 4 to be in a good shape
   ... have to agree to the content
   ... still a lot of homework there

   McCool: yeah
   ... JSON Schema is normative here. right?

   Lagally: should be normative

   McCool: do we write assertions first or schema?

   Lagally: would start with human-readable part
   ... suggest we add this conformance section
   ... any comments?

   (no objections)

   Lagally: (merges PR 22)
   ... btw, making changes to the images as well

   [34]Profiles.png WoT Profiles.png

     [34] https://github.com/w3c/wot-profile/blob/master/images/WoT

   Kaz: would be better not to include whitespace within the file
   name :)

   Lagally: good point :)

   Sebastian: should have naming discussion as well at some point

   McCool: should get back to definition

   Lagally: there are still 15 issues on the wot-profile repo

   Sebastian: can close issue 18

   Lagally: (close it)

   [35]Issue 18

     [35] https://github.com/w3c/wot-profile/issues/18

   McCool: might want to identify some of the issues as "retiring"
   and close them safely

   Lagally: need to leave
   ... let's continue the discussion during the next call


Summary of Action Items

   [NEW] ACTION: kaz to allocate a 2-hour call for architecture

Summary of Resolutions

    1. [36]Starting on Aug 6th the architecture call will take
       place at 2pm-4pm UTC. (EDT: 10am-noon)
    2. [37]Starting on Aug 6th the architecture call will take
       place at 2pm-4pm UTC. (EDT: 10am-noon)

   [End of minutes]

    Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by
    David Booth's [38]scribe.perl version ([39]CVS log)
    $Date: 2020/08/02 15:01:09 $

     [38] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
     [39] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Monday, 10 August 2020 08:01:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Monday, 10 August 2020 08:01:24 UTC