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

[wot-ig/wg] minutes - 15 January 2020

From: Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2020 10:51:01 +0900
Message-ID: <875zgo5th6.wl-ashimura@w3.org>
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 01:51:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Monday, 3 February 2020 01:51:09 UTC