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