W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wot-wg@w3.org > July 2021

[wot-architecture] minutes - 20 May 2021

From: Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2021 17:24:00 +0900
Message-ID: <87czro2b4v.wl-ashimura@w3.org>
To: public-wot-wg@w3.org
available at:

also as text below.

Thanks a lot for taking the minutes, Michael McCool!



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

                             íV DRAFT íV
                            WoT Architecture

20 May 2021

   [2]IRC log.

      [2] https://www.w3.org/2021/05/20-wot-arch-irc


          Daniel_Peintner, Kaz_Ashimura, Michael_Koster,
          Michael_Lagally, Michael_McCool, Ryuichi_Matsukura,





    1. [3]Minutes
    2. [4]Discovery PR #588
    3. [5]carry over requirements to use cases #72
    4. [6]Summary of action items

Meeting minutes


   <mlagally> [7]https://

      [7] https://www.w3.org/2021/04/29-wot-arch-minutes.html

   <mlagally> [8]https://

      [8] https://www.w3.org/2021/05/06-wot-arch-minutes.html

   McCool: ml was not available, so we merged mostly editorial
   PRs, then created a pre-restructure branch so more radical PRs
   would still have a convenient rollback point

   McCool: btw, it seems some people are assuming directories will
   follow the profile but I had not previously considered this to
   be a requirement. But it MAY may sense... we will have to
   explicitly discuss in the next call

   Lagally: any objections to publishing the minutes?

   Lagally: hearing no objections, minutes are approved

  Discovery PR #588

   <kaz> [9]wot-architecture PR 588 - Add Discovery refs, dfn, and

      [9] https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/pull/588

   McCool: basically just added a couple of paragraphs that
   describe the purpose and basic architecture of the Discovery

   McCool: notice the strong emphasis on security and privacy

   Lagally: we should be explicit about what is normative

   McCool: in particular, it is not required that discovery be
   done using WoT Discovery, that there is a WoT TDD, or that
   peer-to-peer is supported
   íK so I would suggest merging this but I can add another
   paragraph in a new PR to make these points explicit
   íK probably a "MAY NOT" assertion? Not sure

   McCool: we probably do want to *encourage* use of WoT
   discovery, but not require it

  carry over requirements to use cases #72

   Lagally: housekeeping, just merge; carried over to use case
   íK is in the repo, not the document

   <mlagally> [10]wot-profile PR 72 - carry over requirements to
   use cases TF

     [10] https://github.com/w3c/wot-profile/pull/72

   McCool: should we reschedule the arch call?

   Lagally: let's try contacting Ben first to see if he has an
   ongoing problem

   Lagally: Summary of action items
   ... Mccool to check the pagination response codes in the
   discovery spec
   ... Ben to double check the list of error codes in WebThings
   Lagally: check error codes of Oracle's digital twin
   ... Daniel to double check node-wot's error codes, are there
   error response payloads?

   <kaz> [adjourned]

Summary of action items

    1. [11]items:

    Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by
    [12]scribe.perl version 131 (Sat Apr 24 15:23:43 2021 UTC).

     [12] https://w3c.github.io/scribe2/scribedoc.html

Received on Monday, 12 July 2021 08:24:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Monday, 12 July 2021 08:24:09 UTC