W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wot-ig@w3.org > October 2017

[TF-LD] minutes - 29 September 2017

From: Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2017 23:00:42 +0900
Message-ID: <CAJ8iq9UgTSfU+ruJVwcztMLN9AE3z-UWxwqQfh5QgDwON-yeJQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Public Web of Things IG <public-wot-ig@w3.org>
Sorry for the delay.

The minutes from the LD call on Sep. 29 are available at:
  https://www.w3.org/2017/09/29-wot-minutes.html

also as text below.

Thanks a lot for taking these minutes, Maria!

Kazuyuki

---

   [1]W3C

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

                               - DRAFT -

                             WoT IG - TF-LD

29 Sep 2017

   See also: [2]IRC log

      [2] http://www.w3.org/2017/09/29-wot-irc

Attendees

   Present
          Kaz_Ashimura, Danh_Le_Phuoc, Dave_Raggett, Maria_Poveda,
          Michael_Koster, Taki_Kamiya, Darko_Anicic,
          Victor_Charpenay, DarkoAnicic, Maxime_Lefran├žois,
          Aparna_Thuluva, dsr

   Regrets
   Chair
          Darko

   Scribe
          mariapoveda

Contents

     * [3]Topics
          + [4]proposals for plugfest
          + [5]Maxime's updates
     * [6]Summary of Action Items
     * [7]Summary of Resolutions
     __________________________________________________________

   <kaz> scribenick: mariapoveda

proposals for plugfest

   In the TD call the use of capabilities of serviants in the
   plugfest has been discussed

   we will have TD semantically enriched

   search could be done

   still a challenge to be used

   [8]Darko's slides on "Web of Things - Thing Description
   Recipes"

      [8] https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/images/e/ec/W3C-WoT-LD-Recipes-2017-09-29.pdf

   second scenario about the use of recipes for search

   you can also search for recipes, they are stored in the same
   format

   Darko shows an example of recipe about motion detector light
   switch

   explanation of the workflow for the recipe implementation

   mkoster: question about subscriptions, input and actions

   ?:question about loading the script in the devices

   participants are supposed to implement and deploy, quite
   manually

   dave: how do I retrieve and classify motion devices according
   to their capabilities? are there slides about that ?

   darko: we could show different lamps available and related
   capabilities, and do the discover and browse their features
   somehow

   dave: use taxonomies? scripts?

   mkoster: triggering a user dialog is an interesting idea

   kaz: do you want to use the recipe approach for the plugfest
   during TPAC?

   darko: yes

   any proposal to bring to the plugfest?

Maxime's updates

   updates on the process to let us agree in decisions to be push
   to the WG

   <mlefranc>
   [9]https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wot-ig/2017Sep/0
   000.html

      [9] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wot-ig/2017Sep/0000.html

   (mjkoster leaves)

   the td ontology will be a normative reference, part of the
   recommendation

   maxime: will be the td ontology a recommendation or a note?

   darko: rdf documents are not normative aspects

   kaz: if the document is under the TR we can not update that,
   but in other area should be
   ... we will need to update the rdf ontology, right?
   ... we can make the ontology itself a normative deliverable
   ... that is kind of dangerous in order to update it

   victor: the documentation is based on the rdf

   dave: there is a process for dealing with updates
   ... sometimes it is better not to be too prescriptive

   kaz: is the rdf file part of the deliverable?

   victor: not really but it feeds the table

   kaz: we can generate the documentation the based on the rdf
   regardless where it is located

   maxime: in ssn the ontology is not the recommendation

   [10]https://www.w3.org/TR/2013/REC-prov-o-20130430/ in prov-o
   it is a recommendation

     [10] https://www.w3.org/TR/2013/REC-prov-o-20130430/

   but the ontology is in this namespace
   [11]http://www.w3.org/ns/prov-o

     [11] http://www.w3.org/ns/prov-o

   <Zakim> dsr, you wanted to ask about what process we use to
   evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of alternative ideas? My
   concern is that ideas need plenty of incubation before a

   dave: it seems to be about maturity in specifications

   kaz: having the ontology in TR will need more discussion in the
   general call. also if we really want to make the ontology an
   additional Recommendation, we need to update our Charter

   dave: it can be moved through the process of spceficiation as
   it gets more mature, used...

   dave, please let me know if I got your idea wrong

   maxime shows the case of ssn ontology

   alignments are not part of the ssn ontology but a separate file

   <victor> (Kaz, just for the record, I insisted on the fact that
   there is no reason to update the RDF file once the Rec is
   fixed. However, if most Recommendations follow the same process
   and don't standardize the asocated RDF spec, I'm not against
   it.)

   <DarkoAnicic> thanks Maria for scribing

   <kaz> [ adjourned ]

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

   [End of minutes]
     __________________________________________________________


    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [12]scribe.perl version
    1.152 ([13]CVS log)
    $Date: 2017/10/02 07:50:08 $

     [12] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
     [13] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Friday, 13 October 2017 14:01:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 13 October 2017 14:01:51 UTC