W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wot-ig@w3.org > January 2016

[TF-AP] minutes - 13 January 2016

From: Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2016 00:08:53 +0900
Message-ID: <CAJ8iq9WHzYRz=wRPg2DkWQxT2dc_H8sKWVFYMcsv=2LGZjjOag@mail.gmail.com>
To: Public Web of Things IG <public-wot-ig@w3.org>
available at:
  https://www.w3.org/2016/01/13-wot-ap-minutes.html

also as text below.

Thanks for taking notes, Dave!

Kazuyuki

---
   [1]W3C

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

                               - DRAFT -

                             WoT IG - TF-AP

13 Jan 2016

   [2]Agenda

      [2]
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wot-ig/2016Jan/0011.html

   See also: [3]IRC log

      [3] http://www.w3.org/2016/01/13-wot-ap-irc

Attendees

   Present
          Johannes_Hund, Joerg_Heuet, Matthias_Kovatsch,
          Sebastian_Kaebisch, Daniel_Peintner, Dave_Raggett,
          Toru_Kawaguchi, Louay_Bassbouss, Claes_Nilsson,
          Ari_Keraenen, Arne_Broering, Frank_Reusch,
          Michael_Koster, Taki_Kamiya, Yingying_Chen,
          Kaz_Ashimura, Carsten_Bormann, Katsuyoshi_Naka,
          Dan_Romascanu

   Regrets
   Chair
          Johannes

   Scribe
          dsr

Contents

     * [4]Topics
         1. [5]Topics/contributions for F2F
         2. [6]Plugfest howtos and preparation
         3. [7]Review proposed TF-AP breakout topics
         4. [8]Working group items “API” and “protocol bindings”
     * [9]Summary of Action Items
     * [10]Summary of Resolutions
     __________________________________________________________

   <scribe> scribenick: dsr

   Dave explains why we have had to change the call details.

   Johannes runs through the agenda
   [11]https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wot-ig/2016Jan/
   0011.html

     [11]
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wot-ig/2016Jan/0011.html

   Any additions to the agenda? [no]

   Kaz: some of us have been unable to get our payments through
   and have asked Soumya for help.

   Dave: Soumya is working with a colleague to resolve this, and
   if necessary we can resolve this some otherway onsite during
   the meeting.

Topics/contributions for F2F

   Johannes: Are there any contributions that you can share with
   us in respect to the face to face agenda?
   ... You can also send detail on the mailing list, and we will
   also see what we can for remote participation.

Plugfest howtos and preparation

   <kaz> [12]Nice f2f wiki

     [12]
https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/F2F_meeting_2016,_January,_26th_%E2%80%93_28th,_France,_Nice#Monday.2C_25th_of_January.2C_Plugfest

   Johannes: that page includes a collection of links on how-to’s
   etc.
   ... There are several topics: security, registry & discovery,
   scripting and HATEOAS.
   ... Louay’s proposal covers scripting APIs
   ... In respect to HATEAOS there is a proposal to have a joint
   plugFest and plugREST event
   ... any questions or feedback?

   Dave: I am working with Tibor Pardi on a remote demo on
   security in cooperation with Oliver - this is for the NodeJS
   web of things server project we started last year.

   Johannes: please fill out the plugfest participants table

   Dave: I hope we can do so on Friday - Tibor has also been busy
   recently

Review proposed TF-AP breakout topics

   Johannes: I am collecting topics for break outs - we have some
   initial ideas in the agenda

   <kaz> [13]TF AP topics

     [13]
https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/F2F_meeting_2016,_January,_26th_%E2%80%93_28th,_France,_Nice#TF_AP_Agenda

   The draft agenda:

   <inserted>

   Finalizing Tech landscape

   WoS scripting APIs

       General design decisions, opinionated base principles

       APIs for registering and discovery (joint discussion with
   DI?)

       Security considerations and security handling in APIs
   (joint with SP)

       APIs for the physical thing interaction a.k.a. “southbound
   API” (johnnyfive-like vs. data-driven/thing-driven)

   Clarification / formulation of the relevant WG item

   Protocol bindings

       Definition of the interface nature between W3C and protocol
   SDOs

       IRTF T2T: WoT over RESTful protocols (HTTP, CoAP)

       Invited experts from others SDOs, such as XSF or BT SIG

       Clarification / formulation of the relevant WG item

   Plugfest wrap-up

       Findings

        Next steps

   AOB & next steps for TF-AP

   <inserted> ]]

   Johannes briefly introduces each of the agenda items

   Johannes notes that there will be an XMPP standard foundation
   summit will occur on the same day

   <jhund> parallel meeting: XMP Standards Foundation Summitnin
   Brussels

   we will see if it is possible to have a remote joint session

   <michael> OIC are also having the member meeting in Bangkok

   There is also a parallel OIC meeting. We weren’t able to get
   someone from OIC for this face to face.

   <michael> 1/24 - 1/29

   <michael> I will be in Bangkok

   Johannes: we will also discuss implementation feedback from the
   plugfest etc. and a roadmap for what we want to cover before
   the April face to face.

   Johannes invites people to add new agenda items to the wiki as
   appropriate

Working group items “API” and “protocol bindings”

   <jhund>
   [14]https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/Proposals_for_WoT_WG_work_it
   ems

     [14] https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/Proposals_for_WoT_WG_work_items

   Johannes discusses the proposed work items for the Working
   Group that are on the wiki page above

   It would be very good to have other people commenting and
   adding their support etc.

   we want to clarify each of the proposed work items with a very
   clear scope.

   This includes the expected deliverable(s) for each item.

   If you cannot attend the face to face we still want to hear
   from you, either on the wiki or via email

   Johannes strongly encourages participation from many voices on
   the working group charter

   He points to the comments in the wiki on the scripting API
   related deliverables

   <kaz> [15]Scripting API

     [15]
https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/Proposals_for_WoT_WG_work_items#Web_of_Things_scripting_API

   Dave: Given that different programming languages will have
   different API design conventions, we need to clarify our aims
   here as a single API definition will have some assumptions in
   respect to design conventions.

   Johannes: we should try to keep it as portable as possible

   Dave: suggest a two level approach, a functional definition
   independent of design conventions and normative instantiations
   for specific design conventions, e.g. promises and JavaScript

   Johannes: we could also consider a low level basic API that can
   be used to implement high level APIs for specific contexts

   Carsten: is there a narrow waist (thin part) in the stack of
   layers, and is this a programming API or is it a web API?

   I would like us to focus on Web APIs

   Johannes: an interesting point, I am not sure it is one or the
   other

   Carsten: with web APIs for the narrow waist, we still get
   interoperability

   Johannes: we need APIs at the scripting level for generality

   Carsten: many of these things are hard to discuss in the
   abstract, we need concrete examples

   Johannes: agreed

   Daniel: I wanted to come back to the term Web API, for me that
   is similar to WebIDL, and that is where I want to focus on

   Carsten: there is active discussion on how to describe Web APIs
   with several formats vying for this.

   <michael> RAML, RESTdesc, Hydra,

   <michael> HAL

   In the T2TRG we’ve been using HAL as one way to describe these
   interfaces, the jury is still out there

   Dave: I am interested in APIs at the application level that
   respects the decoupling protocols, message formats and
   communications patterns - this is a critical point for the
   generality of the web of things as a platform of platforms. We
   can have APIs for other layers but these should be a separate
   discussion

   Carsten: I don’t think this is possible as it will be necessary
   to expose some of the low layer details

   Dave: application code will have access to metadata e.g.
   communications and security metadata

   Johannes summarises the discussion

   One position is to provide protocol layer API, another is to
   provide higher level APIs

   Michael: it isn’t a matter of either-or, it is more about APIs
   at different asbtraction layers, we need both

   Dave: agrees

   Carsten: APIs need to match the design abstractions for a
   protcol. If you avoid that you are likely to have a leaky
   mechanism that leaks info across layers

   Dave: I agree with Carsten that to proceed effectively, we need
   some concrete examples

   Louay: regarding the abstraction level, we already have that
   from thing descriptions (properties, actions and events). This
   was an input to the API I proposed

   Johannes: we can proceed from the thing model, and we can
   proceed from the protocol layer

   We don’t need either-or rather we need to clariify the use
   cases for each API

   Louay: the W3C 2nd screen API is already an abstract API with
   at least 2 implementations.

   This is one example of an abstract API that runs on top of
   different protocols

   Michael: I have been abstracting REST APIs, and this provides a
   consistent approach across protocols

   Carsten: I completely agrees with Michael, but rather it works
   with a shim protocol on top of the full protocols, and we
   should be careful in what we say

   Michael: you’re right I was focusing on hypertext
   ... but these protocols are just transport layer and doesn’t
   provide the application layer abstraction

   Johannes: we should bring in the people who have been using
   specific protocols, e.g. OIC who have worked on REST over XMPP,
   this wasn’t accepted by all though. I think we need to keep the
   question of app level vs protocol evel

   <michael> REST over XMPP was the OIC discussion

   Dave: presents abstract layer diagram and invites us to be
   careful to identify which layers we dealing with and to find a
   set of use cases the stress the solutions

   Carsten: some of the protocols span layers, e.g. XMPP, treating
   HTTP as just a transport leads you down the SOAP path

   Kaz: some discussion on OIC in Sapporo, and we should
   investigate OIC’s approach further

   UPnP consortium has merged their work into OIC, and we now have
   a liaison with OIC as a consequence. also we got some data
   model proposal from them. (will forward it to the group later)

   Dave: unfortunately we couldn’t get someone from OIC for the
   January F2F, but hope to do so in future either in a telecon or
   the April F2F

   <michael> I will be working on OIC data models and protocols
   but I'm not up to speed yet

   Johannes: yes there is an OIC meeting at the same time …
   ... industrial alliances may be focusing on a solution for a
   particular problem space, where as we need to find
   commonalities across problem spaces

   I agree that we need to talk to different alliances, but we
   won’t be picking one, rather finding a way to define an
   abstraction that enables interoperability across platforms.

   Is that good enough for today?

   Dave: sounds good to me, let’s take this forward to the face to
   face

   <kaz> +1

   Johannes: we will need to work on the technology landscape -
   there is a document skeleton on GitHub and will try to move
   this forward by the face to face.

   We had a good discussion with lots of energy! My thanks to
   everyone.

   Please don’t forget to register for the face to face (deadline
   is this Friday) we will look into the problems with the payment
   mechanism. If you have an implementation for the plugfest
   please add yourself to the participant’s table.

   Tomorrow there is will be full IG telecon in preparation for
   the F2F

   scribe: end of meeting.

   p.s. the slide Dave showed is slide 18 in
   [16]http://www.w3.org/2016/01/web-of-things.pdf

     [16] http://www.w3.org/2016/01/web-of-things.pdf

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

   [End of minutes]
     __________________________________________________________


    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [17]scribe.perl version
    1.144 ([18]CVS log)
    $Date: 2016/01/13 15:07:10 $

     [17] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
     [18] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Wednesday, 13 January 2016 15:10:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 13 January 2016 15:10:08 UTC