- From: Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2020 13:01:02 +0900
- To: public-wot-wg@w3.org
available at:
https://www.w3.org/2020/07/09-wot-arch-minutes.html
also as text below.
Thanks,
Kazuyuki
---
[1]W3C
[1] http://www.w3.org/
- DRAFT -
WoT Architecture
09 Jul 2020
[2]Agenda
[2] https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/WG_WoT_Architecture_WebConf#Agenda
Attendees
Present
Call 1: Kaz_Ashimura, Tomoaki_Mizushima,
Michael_Lagally, Cristiano_Aguzzi, Ryuichi_Matsukura
Call 2: Kaz_Ashimura, Michael_Lagally, Michael_McCool,
Tomoaki_Mizushima, David_Ezell
Regrets
Chair
Lagally
Scribe
cris, kaz
Contents
* [3]Topics
1. [4]Call 1
1. [5]Prev minutes
2. [6]vF2F
3. [7]Use case repo
4. [8]Architecture schedule
5. [9]Architecture document
6. [10]Profile strawman proposal
2. [11]Call 2
1. [12]What happened during the 1st call
2. [13]Prev minutes
3. [14]Profiles
* [15]Summary of Action Items
* [16]Summary of Resolutions
__________________________________________________________
<kaz> scribenick: cris
Call 1
lagally showing other works about WoT ...
showing the main page of the W3C WoT WG
Lagally: showing wiki and agenda of today
... approval of the previous minutes
... is anything else to be discussed today?
Prev minutes
Lagally: showing the minutes of the past two calls
<kaz> [17]June-18
[17] https://www.w3.org/2020/06/18-wot-arch-minutes.html
Lagally: are there any concerns about the minutes?
... minutes are approved
vF2F
<kaz> [18]draft minutes
[18] https://www.w3.org/2020/06/22-26-wot-vf2f-minutes.html
Lagally: showing slides about vF2F meeting
<kaz> [19]Summary slides on Architecture and Use Cases - slide
4 has the summary table
[19] https://github.com/w3c/wot/blob/master/PRESENTATIONS/2020-06-online-f2f/2020-06-26-Architecture-Use Cases-Wrapup-Lagally.pdf
Lagally: we have 15 responders and we did a live prioritization
on the vF2F
... now 13 use cases have owners
... we added also owners for energy smart grid
... also manufacturing has now a owner
... we had also Josh in call who stated that accessibility was
under specified and we need to work together
... so this is the summary. I haven't seen any pull request
meanwhile
... it is fair, everybody needed a little break after vF2F
Kaz: talked with the MEIG chairs about media use cases and
talked with the Agriculture CG chair about agriculture use case
... they are happy to help us on Use Cases and Requirements
... no need to update the table
Lagally: do you think they are going to join us in the today
call
Kaz: probably they will. Maybe in the next week I'll invite
them
<inserted> scribenick: kaz
Kaz: also Cristiano has some ideas on water management and open
field
Cristiano: yeah, would generate PRs
<cris> Cristiano: I saw a PR about agriculture use case. There
are some similarity with my proposal. I think I should post my
proposal anyway. What do you think?
Kaz: also we should put the summary on the GH repo as well
Lagally: give me an ACTION :)
<inserted> scribenick: cris
Lagally: let's discuss this in the Use Case call
<kaz> ACTION: Lagally to put the use case summary on the GH MD
as well
Lagally: showing Use Case Roadmap. October is the final
deadline
... anyway let's discuss later
... we have 3 concurrent work itens: architecture, profile spec
and requirements analysis
... now spec changes were made, just a couple of diagrams and
comments. We need to change that soon
... showing a recap of WoT Profile specifications
... core profile is important and summarize the effort of past
Plug Fests.
... showing a picture of WoT Core Profile
... it is a subset of the standard affordances and bindings
... showing Architecture Roadmap. we need more input. For
example we need a lifecycle chapter
... the first draft of this should be done in July
... also in July we are working on Profiles, Requirements and
Use Cases in parallel.
... we need to define next steps for Architecture specs based
on contributions
... I going to upload this slide so that we have a reference
... so about this proposed roadmap. There is some info on the
wiki. A list of scheduled F2F meeting and deliverables
... goes into each items of the list
... WoT profile repo. We use this as a first draft
... I'll spend some time on this document. There are some
issues that I need to fix
... Lifecycle. Zoltan and I worked together on diagrams and
requirements
Use case repo
Lagally: we have a document skeleton, some issues and PRs
... we have volunteers to editing the skeleton document
... we are going cover details in the UC call
Architecture schedule
Lagally: going over each item of the wiki schedule
... modifying the wiki schedule adding documents that we are
going to the right position
... Arch document and profile documents happened in Q3
... we need more discussion on Profile document because it
needs to be ready for publication
... let's complete it for the end of the month and then in
September refine it
Architecture document
<inserted> [20]Issue 522
[20] https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/issues/522
Lagally: updating issues and reviewing them
... showing a starting point for discovering diagram
<inserted> [21]Issue 523
[21] https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/issues/523
Lagally: right now we have it together with other life cycles
diagrams. It is convenient for editing everything in place.
Later we can move it in other drawing.
... referencing the diagram inside the issue
<inserted> [22]Issue 524
[22] https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/issues/524
Lagally: issue 524 is similar to issue 523
... just copy&past the reference to the diagram showed before
... other issues
... we need to clean up github issues.
... showing a subset of the issues that are more recent. They
are due to September
... we are two months. does anybody object to this plan
... or has concerns?
Kaz: let's try it and modify the plan later if needed :)
Lagally: I am afraid of summer breaks that could slow the
process
Profile strawman proposal
<kaz> [23]Profile proposal
[23] https://w3c.github.io/wot-profile/
Lagally: pretty solid starting point on core profile
... we need more work on protocol bindings. Ask Ege for
contributions
... motivitions and deployment section are pretty solid and
describes some scenarios
... in Methodology there is the definition of a Profile
... which basically constraints what can be stated in a TD in
order to give guarantees
... on the document there is a list of possible constraints
... WoT core profile is following the some structure of TD
document
... this section describe a set of rules for each element of
the TD spec
... please preview this section before the next call
... we are at the end of the call
... people please review chapter 1 to 4.1 of Profile Spec
<kaz> [24]profile proposal doc
[24] https://w3c.github.io/wot-profile/
Lagally: closing let's meet in UC call
<kaz> [Call 1 adjourned]
__________________________________________________________
Call 2
<kaz> scribenick: kaz
<scribe> agenda:
[25]https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/WG_WoT_Architecture_WebConf#
Agenda
[25] https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/WG_WoT_Architecture_WebConf#Agenda
What happened during the 1st call
McCool: wot-usecases repo
... use case summary slides
[26]slightly updated summary slides
[26] https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/blob/master/presentations/2020-06-26-Architecture-Use Cases-Wrapup-Lagally-updated-9.7.pdf
Lagally: slide 11
... Architecture TF Roadmap
... 4 documents: architecture 1.1 spec, profile spec,
requirements, and use cases
... btw, we should be shifting to a bit earlier time
... started to consider that possibility
Kaz: will you create a doodle poll for that purpose?
Lagally: yes
McCool: regarding the roadmap
... we should pick some concrete/realistic dates
Lagally: let's first work on the tracks and then dates next
McCool: ok
Lagally: architecture 1.1 spec
... first draft for lifecycle and new terminology in July
... additional chapters based on contributions in August
McCool: publishing a FPWD is good
... Oct as a milestone is also good for the next F2F
... should get internal consensus on the deadline
... wondering about the gap (excepted interval) between CR and
PR
Kaz: we can consult with the calculator but the shortest period
is 28 days
... note that we need to get 2 implementations for each feature
for that purpose
Lagally: put initial updated dates to the schedule section of
the WoT wiki
... Architecture 1.1: lifecycle/new terminolgy in July
... additional spec chapters in August, Spe, Oct
... (Prioritization table)
... goes through the use cases
... agriculture use case is already there
... in July
... then new contributions in July, August, September and
October
McCool: where to put the requirements descriptions?
Lagally: should go into the Architecture document
... possibly include patent-sensitive content
McCool: could be OK to have requirements informatively
Kaz: usually W3C groups, e.g., IGs, generate use cases and
requirements documents as informative notes
... so I'd like to follow the precedents if possible and see
which part really requires RF patent policy
... mainly because we want to get input from experts outside,
e.g., MEIG, Agriculture CG, Voice Interaction CG and other SDOs
Lagally: ok
... let's wait until we really get inputs
... also let's ask for volunteers during the next call
... and let's use the rest of the call for administration
... FPWD by the end of this month
... let's review the prev minutes now
Prev minutes
[27]June-18
[27] https://www.w3.org/2020/06/18-wot-arch-minutes.html
Lagally: any concern to approve them?
(none)
Lagally: approved
Profiles
Lagally: we have a dedicated repo
[28]wot-profile repo
[28] https://github.com/w3c/wot-profile
Lagally: USE-CASES area
... and also REQUIREMENTS area
<mlagally>
[29]https://github.com/w3c/wot-profile/blob/master/REQUIREMENTS
/requirements.md
[29] https://github.com/w3c/wot-profile/blob/master/REQUIREMENTS/requirements.md
[30]REQUIREMENTS
[30] https://github.com/w3c/wot-profile/tree/master/REQUIREMENTS
Lagally: many of the points mentioned within the use cases are
described here
McCool: need to make a decision on which requirements are
actually required for our use cases
Lagally: valid point
... should see if we have one or more supporters for the
requirements
McCool: the ones with multiple supporters would be important
... security, etc., are important even if there is one
supporter, though
... requirements are related to what we want/will accomplish in
the spec
<mlagally>
[31]https://github.com/w3c/wot-profile/blob/master/REQUIREMENTS
/requirements.md
[31] https://github.com/w3c/wot-profile/blob/master/REQUIREMENTS/requirements.md
Kaz: looking at priority would mean not only for identifying
the importance but also for identifying possible volunteers for
the spec description
... and the second part is more important, I think
... so let's ask people about their priority and interest
... and also ask them to volunteer for the spec work :)
Lagally: can we agree to focus on the initial ones here?
McCool: fine
<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
<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, subject to group feedback
<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
[32]strawman draft
[32] https://w3c.github.io/wot-profile/
Lagally: asked all to review it during the 1st call
... core profile without protocol binding
... the chapter sequence follows the one from the TD spec
McCool: minor point but should be careful about the characters
Lagally: didn't invent any new terms
McCool: it's about:
The length of id , description and descriptions values is
limited to 512 characters.
The length of title and titles values is limited to 64
characters.
]]
McCool: should be bytes from the i18n viewpoint?
Lagally: right
... we're out of time for today
... so would like you all to review the draft offline
... need a proper review and then discussion during the next
call
... AOB for today?
(none)
[adjourned]
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: Lagally to put the use case summary on the GH MD
as well
Summary of Resolutions
1. [33]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 [34]scribe.perl version ([35]CVS log)
$Date: 2020/07/09 19:26:08 $
[34] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
[35] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Friday, 17 July 2020 03:59:47 UTC