Re: CfC: Call for resolution to publish WoT Profiles as a Group Note

Dear WoT Working Group,

I would like to follow up on this based on the discussions we've had in
recent Main and Profiles teleconferences, as well as additional discussions
I've had with Kaz and the group chairs with input from Philippe.

You will recall that we set a deadline of 31st July 2025 to publish WoT
Profiles 1.0 as a Group Note <https://www.w3.org/policies/process/#Note>,
so that we could move on to working on Use Cases & Requirements for WoT
Profiles 2.0 to be published by 31st October 2025. This was meant to
reflect the fact that whilst the Working Group no longer intended to pursue
WoT Profiles 1.0 as a W3C Recommendation, the document in its current state
is a useful point of reference for use with the WoT 1.x family of
specifications. We neither wanted to misrepresent its status as a formal
standard with W3C-wide approval, nor discourage its implementation as the
only way to provide out-of-the-box interoperability guarantees in WoT 1.0.

Unfortunately we have been advised that under the latest W3C Process
Document, switching tracks
<https://www.w3.org/policies/process/#switching-tracks> from the
Recommendation Track to the Note Track now requires approval of the W3C
Legal Counsel. This could be very lengthy process involving contacting each
individual contributing organisation for legal approval, and would
therefore not be feasible within our required timeline. We therefore need
to find an alternative approach to the next publication of this document.

*Discontinued Draft*

Officially a Working Draft that is no longer intended to continue along the
Recommendation Track should be published as a Discontinued Draft
<https://www.w3.org/policies/process/#discontinuedREC>. However, there is a
consensus in the Working Group that this would not accurately reflect the
current status of the document.

This status is intended for abandoned technical reports which are no longer
intended to be maintained, and should have no substantive changes compared
with the previous published version. In contrast, WoT Profiles 1.0 has
undergone intensive work over the last four months to ready it for
publication, with significant differences from the last Working Draft. The
work has not been abandoned, and we intend to work on a WoT Profiles 2.0
specification.

Members of the Working Group are concerned that publication as a
Discontinued Draft could discourage implementation and ultimately harm
interoperability on the Web of Things.

*Candidate Recommendation*

If we do not wish to publish WoT Profies 1.0 as a Discontinued Draft, then
another option is to revisit our original resolution to switch tracks
(since that is no longer feasible), and instead try to continue along the
Recommendation Track. The next stage along that track is a Candidate
Recommendation <https://www.w3.org/policies/process/#RecsCR>.

Having discussed this option in the last Profiles call, it seems that there
is still not broad enough consensus to pursue the current document to W3C
Recommendation.

I sent a proposal
<https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wot-wg/2025Aug/0011.html> to
the Working Group mailing list of a way we could modify the WoT Profiles
1.0 specification to reduce the normative parts down to just the profiling
mechanism itself (which has broad consensus and significant implementation
experience), and split the individual profiles out into separate Group
Notes using a Embedded Registry
<https://www.w3.org/policies/process/#embedded-registry> approach.

However, having looked into the requirements for a transition to Candidate
Recommendation <https://www.w3.org/policies/process/#transition-cr> (which
include wide review <https://www.w3.org/policies/process/#dfn-wide-review> and
a minimum 28 day review period), as well as the complex additional
requirements of the Registry Track
<https://www.w3.org/policies/process/#registries>, it has become apparent
that a Candidate Recommendation would not be feasible within our available
time-frame either.

Taking this path would also not allow us time to work on Use Cases &
Requirements for Profiles 2.0.

*Working Draft*

Having discussed this in an informal chat following the Main call today, we
concluded that the only remaining option between now and the end of the
current Working Group Charter period (and my current grant funding) may
therefore be to publish the current Editor's Draft as a new Working Draft
<https://www.w3.org/policies/process/#RecsWD>.

Whilst another Working Draft would not be a change from the current Working
Draft status, it would be a significantly improved and polished document
which invites implementation and can form the basis for further work on
Profiles 2.0. We would then technically still have the option to pursue the
document to Candidate Recommendation in a future charter period, or to keep
it as a Working Draft until such a time as we have a Profiles 2.0
specification, at which point we may wish to publish Profiles 1.0 as a
Discontinued Draft.

*Call for Consensus*

Unfortunately we were not able to hold a formal Profiles call today to
discuss this due to low attendance, but following an informal chat the task
force agreed to continue the discussion asynchronously.

In the interests of time I am therefore going to send a Call for Consensus
to the Working Group mailing list today for the publication of a Working
Draft, with the intention of discussing this further in the Main call next
week and potentially publishing a Working Draft as soon as next Wednesday.
This would allow the Profiles Task Force to shift our focus to working on
Use Cases & Requirements for Profiles 2.0.

In the meantime please feel free to reply here, or to the new Call for
Consensus email, with any comments or questions.

Kind regards

Ben

--
Ben Francis
Co-moderator, Profiles Task Force

On Tue, 5 Aug 2025 at 15:57, Ben Francis <ben@krellian.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, 4 Aug 2025 at 10:48, Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org> wrote:
>
>> the latest W3C Process (specifcally its section 6.3.13.1 [a]) says
>> that we should publish a draft, which we have given up to bring to
>> REC, as an "Discontinued Draft" instead of a "Note". So I'll talk with
>> Philippe about that today.
>
>
> Thank you for highlighting this, Kaz. Have you received any feedback on
> this from Philippe?
>
> In my view "Discontinued Draft" would not accurately represent the current
> status of this document. It has undergone significant changes and
> improvements <https://w3c.github.io/wot-profile/#changes-from-wd> since
> the last Working Draft (i.e. it has not had "no substantive change compared
> to the previous publication" as per the description in the W3C Process
> Document), and I don't think it would be accurate to say that the Working
> Group decided to "abandon work on the report". In fact we have spent the
> last three months working intensively to get the document ready for
> publication. In terms of implementation experience I would suggest that it
> is at least as mature as the WoT Scripting API
> <https://www.w3.org/TR/wot-scripting-api/>, which is published as a Group
> Note.
>
> If the W3C are not happy for us to move this document from the
> Recommendation track to the Note track then I think we will need to
> re-visit the resolutions made by the profiles task force
> <https://www.w3.org/2025/05/07-wot-profile-minutes.html#b8e8> and wider working
> group <https://www.w3.org/2025/05/21-wot-minutes.html#335a> to publish
> WoT Profiles as a Group Note. The choice presented to the group was between
> a Candidate Recommendation and a Group Note, not between a Candidate
> Recommendation and a Discontinued Draft, and it's possible the group may
> have made a different decision had this been known at the time.
>
> If it is not possible to move the document from the Recommendation track
> to the Note track for procedural reasons then my personal preference would
> actually be to continue along the Recommendation track and try to work
> towards publishing it as a Candidate Recommendation instead. I think the
> document is actually now in quite a good state, and it's possible that the
> clarifying assertions recently added to the Profiling Mechanism section may
> help alleviate concerns that some members have had in the past, and that
> actually this is the best version of Profiles we can define within the
> constraints of WoT 1.x. With further work on implementation and testing it
> may be feasible for Profiles 1.0 to become a W3C Recommendation, though
> that would inevitably delay the start of work on Profiles 2.0.
>
> I am still happy to publish WoT Profiles 1.0 as a Group Note ¹ (as per the
> current group consensus) if the W3C will allow it, but if this is not
> allowed then I would suggest that we will need to re-visit the Working
> Group's original decision.
>
> Hopefully you will have more information in time for us to discuss this in
> the Main and/or Profiles call tomorrow.
>
> Kind regards
>
> Ben
>
> 1. Something to bear in mind is that if for Profiles 2.0 we take a
> registry approach like the WoT Bindings Registry as has been discussed,
> it's possible that the actual profile specifications themselves may end up
> being Group Notes, and only the specification of the profiling *mechanism*
> forms part of a W3C Recommendation. So Profiles as Group Notes may actually
> be a long term plan as well.
>
>
>