📅 Date: 15 September 2023
- Ege Korkan
- Cristiano Aguzzi
- Kaz Ashimura
- Robert Winkler
- Sebastian Kaebisch
- Mahda Noura
- Kunihiko Toumura
- Michael McCool
- Robert Winkler
- Hiroki Endo
- Tomoaki Mizushima
- Minyong Li
- Andrei Ciortea
- Kudzai Manditereza
- Hiroshi Ota
- Yoshitomo Sakuma
- Salvatore Catardi
✍️ Scribe: Ege and Cris
💻 Intro Slides: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1lX4l2pUdsSQ0PV7WtWLFt60hnOwk3JOpl2IC6V5Zxq8/edit?usp=sharing
💻 WoT Intro Slides: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/10USa8y243TLeFP1vA-NjQEpP2OJcUydyJGMjcMbOu1w/edit?usp=sharing
- 11:30 - 11:45 Introductions of Participants
- 11:45 - 12:15 Introducing WoT CG
- 12:15 - 13:00 Joint Discussion with WoT WG on Binding Contributions
Cristiano Aguzzi: we will explain the work of the CG
Cristiano Aguzzi: CG is open to all whereas WG requires a W3C membership
Cristiano Aguzzi: Also cg does outreach but WG writes recs and notes. So they are different in the work as well.
Cristiano Aguzzi: we are active on the web. Ege will paste the links
Cristiano Aguzzi: we also have a video prepared that teases the tutorial series
Cristiano Aguzzi: plays the video at https://www.w3.org/2023/09/TPAC/group-updates.html#wot
Michael McCool: how is the process
Ege Korkan: we have a workflow. A storyline is submitted that explains what the tutorial will be about
Ege Korkan: Then, a slideset is created and reviewed. From that, the video is created together with the voiceover and also reviewed using the PR text.
Ege Korkan: You can see PRs that show it.
Michael McCool: which languages?
Cristiano Aguzzi: English but we can extend to other languages.
Ege Korkan: but only the text/subtitle
Michael McCool: someone can review the translation
Michael McCool: we can incorporate a real application video.
ka: we should be clear with the distinction between the IG marketing TF
Michael McCool: maybe we can put a CG logo next to the WoT logo
Ege Korkan: the tutorial series will be published on CG YouTube
Michael McCool: also we should run it by the marketing team of w3c
Kazuyuki Ashimura: we can put it in some form on the main page
Cristiano Aguzzi: we need to be careful about changing the logo since there are rules about it.
Cristiano Aguzzi: we can involve Coralie
Cristiano Aguzzi: it is to onboard newcomers. We even explain what is JSON.
Cristiano Aguzzi: we have content for 13, videos for 4
Cristiano Aguzzi: there is an initial version of the website at https://incandescent-praline-942129.netlify.app/
Michael McCool: is it possible to get it as a PDF?
Cristiano Aguzzi: here are the numbers
Cristiano Aguzzi: Participants: 261
Cristiano Aguzzi: Discord: 81
Cristiano Aguzzi: YouTube Channel: 26
Cristiano Aguzzi: also companies joined
Sebastian Kaebisch: I would like to compliment you. We see what is happening outside. It is also transparent.
Ege Korkan: this section is more about revising what CG does in general.
Ege Korkan: WoT CG is 10 years old
Ege Korkan: it was created 10 years ago by Dave
Ege Korkan: we renewed last year in August, and we were in the 2022 TPAC.
Ege showing timeline
Ege Korkan: it is an interesting time. We see WoT adopted in the industry
Ege Korkan: currently our mission is community support and outreach.
Ege Korkan: community support -> We host office hours and tutorials
Ege Korkan: outreach is about event organization and chat platform
Ege Korkan: we keep was is working
Ege Korkan: better integration with WG
Ege Korkan: during TPAC we got ideas for interactions
Ege Korkan: other CGs propose ideas to WGs
Ege Korkan: there must be existing mechanisms to take inspiration from.
Ege Korkan: WG probably cannot write bindings on its own, meaning we need to branch out and get more bindings from outsiders.
Ege Korkan: I think bindings contributions should be connected to use cases
Michael McCool: right opc-ua could be an example. I think CG can support it. The WG should establish the document format of the binding document.
Ege Korkan: submission to the registry can be done by other parties
Michael McCool: CG can support people in writing bindings, and guiding them.
Ege Korkan: there could be cases where the binding community is dead and the CG would still be able to write the binding himself.
Michael McCool: patents might get us into trouble, we have to be careful
Ege Korkan: for BACnet, it should be fine as long as it is established that the BACnet is a trademark of ASHRAE
Ege Korkan: we can take inspiration from codecs, they might be property codecs.
Kazuyuki Ashimura: I agree with McCool. As the CG and WG, we should clarify which information needs to be published by whom. Liaisons should be officially handled by the WG. Generating binding from the CG is OK. However, the document structure and content should be better specified.
Michael McCool: if a 3rd party writes a binding for a particular protocol might be fine, but we have to look into it.
Ege Korkan: there might be similar processes involved there. CG could contribute there too. We will be able to talk about these points in this afternoon's session.
Ege Korkan: currently in the charter we say that we are not writing specifications documents. So if we want to allow CG to write bindings we have to re-charter
Michael McCool: it depends on WG, but bindings could be a technical report.
Ege Korkan: is it an informative specification?
Michael McCool: we can make them informative, but I hope it does not invalidate the point of having a binding.
Ege Korkan: registry is always informative
Kazuyuki Ashimura: CG can create CG reports, and they can be used as bases for Thing description bindings.
Ege Korkan: the core mechanism should be on the WG.
Cristiano Aguzzi: I second the feeling of having bindings normative
Michael McCool: CG could create informative bindings and WG can take them and make them normative.
Ege Korkan: CG can have liaisons, but are only related to CG. They are not related to W3C.
Ege Korkan: we have a document that describes possible liaisons. We could discuss them today
Ege showing a proposal
Kazuyuki Ashimura: right, that's why we should decide the levels of interactions.
Ege Korkan: should it be more specific than this?
Kazuyuki Ashimura: yes, but this is a good starting point
Michael McCool: it is a good place to make the relationship official, we could have a list of specific things. There we can clarify the CLAs of bindings created by the CG
Kazuyuki Ashimura: we can move the liaisons doc into the WoT.
Ege Korkan: in the case we go with external org the CG has to manage themself. We can start by liaisons between W3C groups.
Ege Korkan: which one of the liaison proposals would you like more?
Michael McCool: I would say that we need to make a list not a simple sentence.
Cristiano Aguzzi: we should also take into account feature incubation as other groups are doing.
Open discussion on the possible points of the list
Ege Korkan: if we are fine I can send an e-mail about the list to both groups.
Michael McCool: it is fine for somebody in the CG to come up with an idea or a feature. We need to find a way to enforce patent policy
Michael McCool: but we can put in the list feature proposals and then later on define the process.
Cristiano Aguzzi: would we work on the liaison process?
Michael McCool: kaz should decide
Kazuyuki Ashimura: let's put clarifications on each bullet point.
Michael McCool: add definitions.
Ege Korkan: good enough, the PR should be reviewed
Michael McCool: is it WG/IG or WG?
Ege Korkan: is it possible to have a liaison with both WG/IG?
Kazuyuki Ashimura: given that we usually treat WG/IG as a joint entity it would be ok. But please remember that the members of WG and IG are different and have different interests.
Sebastian Kaebisch: we also have to look into other groups.
Cristiano Aguzzi: we should watch Solid CG/WG they have a strong relationship.
Ege Korkan: in the WebAssembly the CG is very strong
Michael McCool: in RDF* is similar the CG produces a complete spec and the WG simply finalized it
Ege Korkan: thank you for time.
adjourned
None
None