AW: [TD] TD Restructuring minutes - 26 October 2016

Please also find attached the presented slides.

Please note, I will move the issue [1] to the TD lifecycle discussion and close issue [2] and [3].

[1] https://github.com/w3c/wot/issues/254

[2] https://github.com/w3c/wot/issues/258

[3] https://github.com/w3c/wot/issues/255




> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Yingying Chen [mailto:yingying@w3.org]
> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 26. Oktober 2016 11:04
> An: Public Web of Things IG
> Betreff: [TD] TD Restructuring minutes - 26 October 2016
> 
> available at https://www.w3.org/2016/10/26-wot-td-minutes.html.

> 
> also as text below.
> 
> Best Regards,
> Yingying
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
>     [1]W3C
> 
>        [1] http://www.w3.org/

> 
>                        WoT TD restructuring meeting
> 
> 26 Oct 2016
> 
>     [2]Agenda
> 
>        [2] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-wot-ig/2016Oct/0014.html

> 
>     See also: [3]IRC log
> 
>        [3] http://www.w3.org/2016/10/26-wot-td-irc

> 
> Attendees
> 
>     Present
>            Kaz_Ashimura, Daniel_Peintner, Dave_Raggett,
>            Gregg_Kellogg, Uday_Davluru, Yingying_Chen,
>            Takuki_Kamiya, Sebastian_Kaebisch, Dave,
>            Victor_Charpeney, Katsuyoshi_Naka
> 
>     Regrets
>     Chair
>            Sebastian
> 
>     Scribe
>            Yingying
> 
> Contents
> 
>       * [4]Topics
>           1. [5]Logistics
>           2. [6]Discussion about JSON-LD 1.1
>           3. [7]Properties vs Actions
>           4. [8]Other issues
>       * [9]Summary of Action Items
>       * [10]Summary of Resolutions
>       __________________________________________________________
> 
>     <kaz> scribenick: yingying_
> 
>     <kaz> scribe: Yingying
> 
>     [Sebastian is going through the agenda]
> 
> Logistics
> 
>     Sebastian: All the use cases and proposals regarding on the TD
>     are all on github.
>     ... there are many going on. The deadline for closing for this
>     action is next week.
>     ... does it make sense to extend one week?
>     ... We need put in new information to current practice
>     document.
>     ... We need also sometime to implement it. And online PlugFest
>     preparation also needs time.
>     ... please use github repository to add your stuff regarding
>     the TD
> 
> Discussion about JSON-LD 1.1
> 
>     Sebastian: there is a github issue on it from Dave.
> 
>     <kaz> [11]issue-259
> 
>       [11] https://github.com/w3c/wot/issues/259

> 
>     Sebastian: what will JSON-LD 1.1 impact the TD?
>     ... which we would like to see in JSON-LD 1.1? what kind of
>     opportunities are there?
>     ... could you introduce yourself @1?
> 
>     gregg: I am the editor of JSON-LD 1.0.
> 
>     <kaz> [12]JSON-LD 1.0
> 
>       [12] https://www.w3.org/TR/json-ld/

> 
>     gregg: I am trying to put things forward in the community
>     group. There are request index format for accessing data.
>     ... array form is not already convenient.
>     ... language can be used as index.
>     ... for using index token there are several ways.
>     ... the key value is id and the object value will be no
>     definitions.
>     ... the idea is to have a top level index that object whose
>     keys were ids
>     ... best practices for doing that will be indicated.
> 
>     sebastian: main perspective is that TD should be a format that
>     should be very easy to use such that the web developer use it
>     just as use other JSON object format.
>     ... web developers like easy representation and like to use
>     JSON.
>     ... we can combine these JSON format and can simply integrate
>     the semantics.
>     ... JSON-LD does not allow you to use it as use JSON.
>     ... are we going to rely on that?
> 
>     Victor: you are collecting requirements for new version of
>     JSON-LD?
> 
>     gregg: just community group no wg.
>     ... far too many features to integrate in 1.1 release. one of
>     them is closely related to framing or semantics.
>     ... beginning of next to start work on it.
>     ... there are small group and easy to make consensus.
>     ... 2 years the community draft will be ready.
>     ... the group is actively developing and would be good to track
>     their development
> 
>     sebastian: is there something similar to W3C recommendation?
> 
>     gregg: we need a wg chartered with updating JSON-LD.
> 
>     <sebastian> sorry Dave, you will be the next
> 
>     gregg: short timeline there could be but couldn't say yet.
> 
>     dave: we need to build way of using JSON for web developers.
>     timeline is critical. Now we will setup WG to develop TD spec.
>     The time would be short.
>     ... we can use their proposals and feed into JSON-LD later.
>     ... there are quite lot of use cases and requirements that we
>     can feed into the community group.
> 
>     victor: community group is working on another version.
> 
>     <kaz> [13]proposed WoT WG Charter
> 
>       [13] https://www.w3.org/2016/09/wot-wg-charter.html

> 
>     kaz: proposed WG charter does not say we would like to use
>     JSON-LD, JSON or others specifically. those data models are
>     just examples of possible data models for Thing Description..
>     ... we should compile our requirements for expected updated
>     version to the community group or new created wg for JSON-LD.
> 
>     sebastian: yes. it's not mentioned in the proposed charter.
>     ... it's said we need to rely on semantic technology.
>     ... it's a difficult thing. 2 important things: 1. JSON-LD is
>     enough to use in TD. are developers satisfied with it? should
>     we go into more details for reviews by web developers.
>     ... how would you like to communicate with JSON-LD 1.1
>     community group.
>     ... another point is whether we need to make changes on it.
>     ... if people are not satisfied we need to find other solution.
> 
>     victor: how big is the community group for JSON-LD 1.1? are
>     there any members who are willing to contribute?
> 
>     gregg: hundreds of member. from 5 years people started working
>     on it.
>     ... could not say now how the group will response to our
>     request. probably after we have a proposal, it could be seen.
> 
>     <kaz> [14]JSON-LD CG participants
> 
>       [14] https://www.w3.org/community/json-ld/participants

> 
>     gregg: don't know if it's possible to add your own extension to
>     the recommendation.
>     ... biggest advantage is that active works are going on to
>     support more RDF concept to JSON-LD.
> 
>     victor: wondering just contribute to the community group or
>     just rely on their work.
>     ... about referencing others' work, need to ask W3C staff.
> 
>     dave: we see different targets for TD. Powerful device/gateway
>     can do a lot of things. for constraint device, json-ld is
>     already too much.
>     ... would be problematic to reference document from community
>     group in the spec.
> 
>     victor: I just use JSON for constraint device instead of
>     JSON-LD.
> 
>     <Victor> sorry, we've been disconnected
> 
>     dave: agree on that point. but need to think about way in
>     JSON-LD for supporting constraint devices.
> 
>     <sebastian> we are back
> 
>     gregg: reasonable to have such an extension for constraint
>     device, giving subset of JSON-LD for that purpose.
> 
>     kaz: we should clarify our requirements on JSON-LD. maybe not
>     in the TD document but in our UCR document.
> 
>     victor: true. let's try to do that if we need to do that
>     clarification for JSON-LD new version.
> 
>     sebastian: JSON-LD just one year usage in plugfest is nice from
>     people's feedback.
>     ... it's quite accepted and understood by the group.
>     ... we have to ask more the web developers whether it's ok for
>     current TD structure.
>     ... for the constraint devices, serialization format and
>     compression format were discussed in the group.
>     ... EXI wg is also working on it for very constraint devices.
> 
>     daniel: what dave said is not only related to serialization but
>     how to prescribe the features of JSON-LD for constraint
>     devices.
>     ... I would prefer to use what already exits in JSON-LD rather
>     than starting from scratch again.
>     ... creating another new abstract format is not acceptable
> 
>     sebastian: how to continue the discussion?
>     ... Dave, would it be possible to involve more web developers
>     in the discussion?
> 
>     dave: we are lack of channels to reach out web developers
>     community. We maybe can more use the open source projects.
>     ... some experiments are more research focus. We still need to
>     attract more SMEs to the group.
> 
>     sebastian: after TD restructuring, for this more flexible,
>     easier to use than the original version, we need to reach out
>     the community to hear their feedbacks.
> 
>     dave: we could find more people who have experiences on it.
> 
>     kaz: we could reach out for W3C Members and non-Member
>     communities more for comments on it, but the detail should be
>     discussed and planned within not this TD Restructuring TF but
>     the WoT Comm TF.
> 
>     yingying: we agreed in Beijing F2F meeting that the IG needs to
>     be involved for implementation related issues as they could not
>     be handled in communication TF as there are just few people in
>     it.
> 
>     kaz: we could discuss whether it should be handled in
>     communication TF in another place later.
> 
>     yingying: yes.
> 
>     sebastian: thanks a lot for gregg to call in so late in the
>     night.
>     ... it would be nice to contact gregg for anything related to
>     JSON-LD.
> 
> Properties vs Actions
> 
>     [sebastian is going through the properties vs actions table]
> 
>     -> [15]https://github.com/w3c/wot/issues/255 issue 255
> 
>       [15] https://github.com/w3c/wot/issues/255

> 
>     sebastian: we should rely on URI which is more flexible.
>     ... what are you thinking about it?
>     ... another approach is @id proposed by victor. However it's
>     not so commonly used by web developers. I would recommend the
>     URI.
> 
>     dave: do we need more terms what is the URI for? what is the
>     relationship?
>     ... to identify endpoint, URI is generic.
> 
>     victor: URI here is the identifier for the resource.
>     ... maybe more precise term for it?
> 
>     dave: the scope and value for this URI?
> 
>     victor: endpoint is more related to service but now it's
>     related to resource. More opinions on it?
> 
>     dave: I think URI is fine for that.
> 
>     [some discussions on the URI proposal]
> 
>     sebastian: I would close this issue.
> 
> Other issues
> 
>     -> [16]https://github.com/w3c/wot/issues/254 issue 254
> 
>       [16] https://github.com/w3c/wot/issues/254

> 
>     sebastian: everybody agreed on it. My proposal is to move this
>     issue to the discussion on lifecycle which is led by
>     kajimoto-san.
> 
>     [sebastian summarized the benefits for having the template]
> 
>     sebastian: my suggestion is to close this issue.
> 
>     -> [17]https://github.com/w3c/wot/issues/264 issue 264
> 
>       [17] https://github.com/w3c/wot/issues/264

> 
>     sebastian: please comment on this new issue.
> 
>     -> [18]https://github.com/w3c/wot/issues/256 issue 256
> 
>       [18] https://github.com/w3c/wot/issues/256

> 
>     sebastian: could dave give some update on the compound
>     properties issue?
> 
>     dave: would be useful to collect use cases on it.
> 
>     sebastian: could you also post your proposal on it?
> 
>     dave: I will dig it out on the github.
> 
>     -> [19]https://github.com/w3c/wot/issues/263 issue 263
> 
>       [19] https://github.com/w3c/wot/issues/263

> 
>     sebastian: UI field proposed in TD. Please comment on it.
>     ... these are all the issues. please continue working on it. I
>     will send the status of the github issues to IG mailing group.
>     ... extend the deadline for 1 week.
>     ... next week we will have a review on what the new TD looks
>     like.
>     ... thank you.
> 
>     [adjourned]
> 
> Summary of Action Items
> 
> Summary of Resolutions
> 
>     [End of minutes]
>       __________________________________________________________
> 
> 
>      Minutes formatted by David Booth's [20]scribe.perl version
>      1.148 ([21]CVS log)
>      $Date: 2016/10/26 08:59:15 $
> 
>       [20] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm

>       [21] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/

> 
>