Meeting Minutes of 15 September 2023 === :::spoiler Document Usage This document is used for all minutes of the WoT CG. After the meeting, the contents will be copied to the GitHub with a PR. === ###### tags: `TPAC` :::spoiler Document Usage This document is used for all minutes of the WoT CG. After the meeting, the contents will be copied to GitHub with a PR. For one week, changes can be requested and then the PR will be merged. After the PR is merged, the content here can be deleted. Document Access: - Everyone has read and commenting access - Cristiano Aguzzi and Ege Korkan can edit the document - Other people can request write access for a meeting - The scribe of the meeting will have write access <!-- Do not change this spoiler container when writing an instance document --> <!-- See for list of emojis --> ::: :::info :date: **Date:** X September 2023 ### :bust_in_silhouette: Participants <!-- This list will copied over from the meeting tool --> - 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 - Ota :writing_hand: **Scribe:** Ege and Cris :computer: **Intro Slides:** :computer: **WoT Intro Slides:** ### :scroll: Agenda - 11:30 - 11:45 Introductions of Participants - 11:45 - 12:00 Short Introduction to Web of Things - Slides - 12:00 - 12:15 Introducing WoT CG - Slides - 12:15 - 13:00 Joint Discussion with WoT WG on Binding Contributions ### Agenda Topic ca: we will explain the work of the CG ### CG WG Distinction ca: cg is open to all whereas wg requires W3C membership ca: also cg does outreach but wg writes recs and notes ### Group Updates ca: we are active on the web. Ege will paste the links ca: we also have a video prepared that teases the tutorial series > ca: plays the video at mm: how is the process ek: we have a workflow. and the TODO: Explain the process mm: which languages? ca: english but we can extend to other languages. ek: but only the text / subtitle mm: someone can review the translation mm: we can incorporate a real application video in order to ka: we should be clear with the distinction between the IG marketing TF mm: maybe we can put a CG logo next to the WoT logo ek: the tutorial series will be published with cg youtube mm: also we should run it by the marketing team of w3c kaz: we can put it in some form in the main page ca: we need to be careful about changing the logo since there are rules about it. ca: we can involve Coralie #### Tutorial Series ca: it is to onboard newcomers. We even explain what is JSON. ca: we have content for 13, videos for 4 ca: there is an initial version of the website at mm: is it possible to get it as pdf? #### Numbers ca: here are numbers ca: Participants: 261 ca: Discord: 81 ca: YouTube Channel: 26 ca: also companies joined sk: I would like to compliment. We see what is happening outside. It is also transparent. #### Introduction to WoT CG ege: this section is more about to revise what CG does in general. ege: WoT CG is 10 years old ege: it was created 10 years ago by Dave ege: we renewed last year August, and we were in the 2022 TPAC. > Ege showing timeline ege: it is an intresting time where we see WoT adopted in the industry ege: currently our mission is community support and outreach. ege: community support -> we host office hours and tutorials ege: outreach is about event organization and chat platform #### Future ege: we keep was is working ege: better integration with WG ege: during TPAC we got ideas for interations ege: other CG propose ideas to WGs ege: there must be existing mechanisims to take inspiration from. #### Bindings contributions ege: WG probably cannot write bindings on its own, this means that we need to branch out and get more bindings from outsiders. ege: I think bindings contributions should be connected to use cases mc: right opc-ua could be an example. I think CG can support. The WG should extablish the document format of the binding document. ege: submission to the registry can be done by other parties mc: cg can support people writing bindings, and guiding them. ege: there could be cases where the binding community is dead and the CG would still be able to write the binding himself. mc: patents might get us into trouble, we have to be careful ege: for bacnet it should be fine as long as it is established that the bacnet is a trademark of Ashrae ege: we can take inspiration from codecs, they might be property codecs. kaz: I agree with McCool. As the CG and WG we should clarify which information needs to published by whom. Liasons should be officially handled by the WG. Generiting binding form the CG is fine. But the document structure and content should be better specified. mc: if a 3rd party writes a binding for a paritcular protocol might be fine, but we have to look into it. #### Use case contributions ege: there might be similar processes involved there. CG could contribute there too. We would discuss this points in this afternoon session. #### Contributions from CGs ege: currently in the charter we sayed that we are not writing specifications documents. So if we want to allow cg to write bindings we have to re-charter mc: it depends on WG, but bindings could be a techinical report. ege: is it really an informative specification? mc: we can make them informative, but I hope it does not invalidate the point of having a binding. ege: registry is always informative kaz: CG can create CG reports, and they can be used as bases for Thing description bindings. ege: the core mechanism should be on the WG. cris: I second the feeling of having bindings normative mc: CG could create informative bindings and wg can take them and make them normative. #### Liasons ege: CG can have liasons, but is only related to CG. They are not related to W3C. ege: we have a document that describe possible liaisons. We could discuss them today > Ege showing a proposal kaz: right, that's why we should decide the levels of interactions. ege: should it be more specific than this? kaz: yes, but this is a good starting point mc: it is a good place to make the relationship official, we could have a list of specific things. There we can clarify CLAs of bindings created by the CG kaz: we can move the liaisons doc into the WoT. ege: in the case we go with external org the CG have to manage them self. We can start by liasons between W3C groups. ege: which one of the the liaison proposal would you like more? mc: I wuold say that we need to make a list not a simple sentence. cris: we should also take into account feature incubation as other groups are doing. > Open discussion on the possible points of the list ege: if we are fine I can send an e mail about the list to both group. mc: it is fine from somebody in the CG come up with idea or a feature. We need to find a way to enforce patent policy mc: but we can put in the list feature proposals and than later on define the process. cris: I would we work on the liasons process? mc: kaz should decide kaz: let's put clarifications on each bullet points. mc: add definitions. ege: good enough, the PR should be reviewed mc: is it WG/IG or WG? ege: is it possible to have a liaisons with both WG/IG ? kaz: 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 interest. seb: we have to look also into other groups. cris: we should watch Solid CG/WG they have strong relationship. ege: in the WebAssembly the CG is very strong mc: in RDF* is similar the CG produce a complete spec and the WG simply finalized it #### Wrap up ege: thank you for time. *adjourned* ## :ballot_box_with_check: Resolutions None ## :exclamation: Action Items None ## :envelope_with_arrow: Feedbacks