- From: Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2019 15:38:54 +0900
- To: Public Web of Things IG <public-wot-ig@w3.org>, public-wot-wg@w3.org
Hi groups, As confirmed during the main call yesterday, I've set up the PR Preview capability for all the WoT repos: * wot * wot-architecture * wot-binding-templates * wot-scripting-api * wot-security * wot-security-best-practieces * wot-security-testing-plan * wot-thing-description * wotwg So we can get the rendered HTML by clicking the "Preview" link on each pullrequest without using Statically :) Please note this capability is applied to the upcoming PRs (not for the existing PRs). Thanks, Kazuyuki On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 3:10 AM Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org> wrote: > > available at: > https://www.w3.org/2019/08/21-wot-minutes.html > > also as text below. > > Thanks, > > Kazuyuki > > --- > > [1]W3C > > [1] http://www.w3.org/ > > - DRAFT - > > WoT-IG/WG > > 21 Aug 2019 > > [2]Agenda > > [2] https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/Main_WoT_WebConf#21_Aug_2019 > > Attendees > > Present > Kaz_Ashimura, Michael_McCool, Daniel_Peintner, > Dave_Raggett, Ege_Korkan, Kunihiko_Toumura, > Michael_Koster, Tetsushi_Matsuda, Zoltan_Kis, > Ryuichi_Matsukura, Toru_Kawaguchi, Tomoaki_Mizushima > > Regrets > Michael_Lagally, Taki_Kamiya, Matthias_Kovatsch, > Sebastian_Kaebisch > > Chair > McCool > > Scribe > kaz > > Contents > > * [3]Topics > 1. [4]Online PlugFest > 2. [5]Demo logistics > 3. [6]PR preview > 4. [7]IG Charter > 5. [8]TAG feedback > 6. [9]SDF and One Data Model > 7. [10]TD/Binding issues > 8. [11]PlugFest call? > 9. [12]Panasonic's demo table? > 10. [13]WG Charter call > * [14]Summary of Action Items > * [15]Summary of Resolutions > __________________________________________________________ > > <McCool> agenda: > [16]https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/Main_WoT_WebConf#21_Aug_2019 > > [16] https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/Main_WoT_WebConf#21_Aug_2019 > > <scribe> scribenick: kaz > > McCool: pretty full agenda > > Online PlugFest > > McCool: online plugfest > ... decided to hold it on Aug 29 but some of us wont' be > available > > <McCool> [17]https://doodle.com/poll/nadmz7deszgvsk73 > > [17] https://doodle.com/poll/nadmz7deszgvsk73 > > McCool: so we're holding doodle > ... but we need to pick a concrete date/time as well > ... please respond to the doodle first > > Demo logistics > > [18]Wednesday schedule > > [18] https://www.w3.org/wiki/TPAC/2019 > > [19]Breakout session proposals > > [19] https://www.w3.org/wiki/TPAC/2019/SessionIdeas > > [20]Demo session proposals > > [20] https://www.w3.org/wiki/TPAC2019/Demos > > Kaz: (explains the demo schedule on Wed) > ... we can use the "demos" slot (15:30-16:30) > ... the first question is which to choose, before or after that > for our own plugfest slot (in addition to the common "demos" > slot at 15:30-16:30) > > McCool: maybe before that? > > (no objection) > > Kaz: can create an entry for the session proposal wiki for that > slot > ... the second question is demo table by Panasonic > ... Panasonic is a gold sponsor and has a demo table > ... and ok with sharing it with the whole WoT group > > McCool: great > ... let's have detailed discussion with Lagally > > PR preview > > Kaz: we can use preview option by adding a setting file to the > GH repos > ... can get rendered HTML without statically > > McCool: ok to install them? > > (no objections) > > Kaz: will do > > IG Charter > > McCool: got comments from W3M on Accessibility and I18N > ... and created GH issues for them > > [21]Accessibility comment > > [21] https://github.com/w3c/wot/issues/852 > > [22]I18N comment > > [22] https://github.com/w3c/wot/issues/853 > > McCool: would apply those comments to the draft IG Charter > ... relatively simple PRs > ... if you have any comments, please put them on GH > > Kaz: we need to create PRs > ... I'll get back to the W3M > ... and the Charter will be sent to the AC review after their > approval > > TAG feedback > > McCool: got update from David Baron > > [23]David Baron's comment > > [23] https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/issues/371 > > McCool: (goes through the comment) > ... regarding JSON vs JSON-LD impact on interoperability > ... we should have somebody from the JSON-LD group to get > knowledge > > Kaz: Sebastian and Victor were planning to contact the JSON-LD > guys for the joint session during TPAC > ... but not sure about the progress, though > ... can talk with Ivan Herman and Benjamin Young if needed > > McCool: it seems Sebastian is on vacation but what about > Victor? > > Daniel: not sure > > McCool: so Kaz can contact JSON-LD guys CCing them > > Kaz: ok > > McCool: regarding our own action > ... improve our explainer and describe use cases > ... need to think about actual users > ... will look through the architecture document, etc. > ... to get user-oriented use cases > > Kaz: plugfest scenario could be also a possible use case input > :) > > McCool: yeah > ... anyway we need some high-level use case description > ... if you have any ideas please put them on this GH issue > > [24]UC issue > > [24] https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues/805 > > SDF and One Data Model > > Kaz: any resources? > > Koster: I have some > > McCool: please send the link later > > Koster: ok > > <mjkoster> pointer to OneDM SDF slides: > [25]https://github.com/mjkoster/ODM-Examples/blob/master/sdf/on > edm-wot-20190821.pdf > > [25] https://github.com/mjkoster/ODM-Examples/blob/master/sdf/onedm-wot-20190821.pdf > > <mjkoster> also ppt: > [26]https://github.com/mjkoster/ODM-Examples/blob/master/sdf/on > edm-wot-20190821.pptx > > [26] https://github.com/mjkoster/ODM-Examples/blob/master/sdf/onedm-wot-20190821.pptx > > Koster: [One Data Model] > ... recap > ... one data model is not a new organization but liaison of > existing SDOs > ... Zigbee, OCF, OMA, Google, Comcast, Amazon, ... > ... the tool work and language work done publicly > ... drive to a common set of data models for device definitions > ... across all the vendors and SDOs > ... discussion on what the big problems are > ... weekly meetings > ... since February > ... and 3 f2f meetings > ... [One Data Model - high level process] > ... try to define a model and test the language > ... working on non controversial device models > ... taken from most likely SDOs > ... converge on a single model > ... [One Data Model - Status] > ... JSON language > ... Simple Definition Format - SDF > ... Markdown doc and JSON Schema > ... working in the middle > ... go public with the calendar year > ... [SDF Language] > ... on the language > ... how it relates to TD > ... SDF is plain JSON with JSON Schema (v7) > ... creating portable definitions of devices > ... property/action/event > ... like iotschema but high detail features like bitfields > ... going opposite from iotschema > ... but still mainly a data model > ... define actual devices without defining instance > ... [Composition] > ... we have grouping > ... odmObject has iotschema capability > ... contains a set of properties, actions events > ... odmTHing to group a related set of Objects that work > together > ... a couple layers > ... odmView as well for specific compositions > ... [Data Typing] > ... we have odmData class for data type definitions > ... fully compatible to JSON Schema > ... and subType for uint8, etc. > ... these are additional constraints > ... put into existing mechanism > > McCool: CBOR type payload form OCF? > > Koster: we're defining data constraint > > McCool: not defining any information on payload > > Koster: a lot from One Data Model want to put data constraint > ... this is number, boolian, etc. > ... some of them think about common binding > ... we consider payload handling is part of binding > ... we might say what the preferred type is > ... you could say RGB color is a type > ... but protocol binding would do further thing > ... you can define data type semantically > ... you can say temperatureData as floating number > ... same tradeoff as iotschema > ... [References] > ... JSON Pointer is used to refer to elements in a document > ... definition would be ocf:https://example.com/ocf# > ... [Example] > ... info section > ... title, version, copyright, license > ... namespace > ... definition > ... [Definitions] > ... SDF keywords and Definitions in the Default Namespace > ... almost same as iotschema > ... "Switch", "Value", "on", "off" come from the Definitions in > the Default Namespace > ... just like the definition from iotschema > ... [Definitions (cont)] > ... "enum" is useful for constraints > ... [SDF Documents] > ... links > ... SDF format description document > ... JSON Schema for validation > ... etc. > ... [OneDM SDF FAQ] > ... doesn't compete with TD > ... [OneDM SDF FAQ (cont)] > > McCool: will be available at IETF 106 in Singapore in November? > ... we're planning to join the IETF hackathon > > Koster: won't be able to go to Singapore > ... framing and shapes > > McCool: not sure if we should directly speak with the IETF guys > ... should try to align with One Data Model > > Koster: people can ue this for WoT native devices > ... same terms for annotation > ... you can convert the semantic information > ... application can use high-level concept > > McCool: is Mozilla a member? > > Koster: sent them a pointer > ... they're interested in semantic definition > ... would like to make more examples of TDs > ... JSON and CBOR payloads as well > ... security, protocol binding and payload > ... maybe TD template still has payload > > McCool: Conexxus couldn't attend today but we should talk with > them as well > ... they're more user organization and looking for use cases > > <McCool> [27]https://www.conexxus.org/ > > [27] https://www.conexxus.org/ > > Koster: interesting > ... we're also working with SunSpec > > <McCool> [28]https://sunspec.org/ > > [28] https://sunspec.org/ > > Koster: they have data model > > McCool: maybe Vancouver would be a better place for further > collaboration > > Koster: yeah > ... limited travel availability > > Kawa: could you share your slides? > > Koster: will do > > TD/Binding issues > > McCool: Taki wrote up a message here > > [29]Taki's write-up > > [29] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-wot-wg/2019Aug/0019.html > > McCool: issue 55 on XML > ... should wait for detailed discussion > > Ege: working on examples > ... kind of long-term issue > > PlugFest call? > > Kaz: Lagally is not available, so should skip the call today? > > McCool: that's my suggestion as well > ... please respond to the doodle poll on the online plugfest > ... any other points? > > Panasonic's demo table? > > Kawa: as Kaz mentioned, Panasonic is willing to provide a demo > table > ... but we need to respond to the W3C meeting planner Team > about the setting > ... like the logo panel > > McCool: would be happy if you could mention "WoT" on that > ... but would leave it to you > > Kawa: we don't have any specific opinion > ... our question is whether we (=WoT WG/IG as a whole) would > like to join it or not > > McCool: would take the table > ... we could say "WoT powered by Panasonic", etc. > > Kawa: ok > ... would like to talk about the detail with Kaz and the > meeting planner Team > ... and then get back to the group > > McCool: any possibility of banner poster, etc.? > > Kawa: need to check with the meeting planner Team > ... Kaz, please talk with them > > Kaz: yes, sir! > > WG Charter call > > Kaz: think we should have a call tomorrow > > McCool: please send an invite > > Kaz: will do > > [adjourned] > > Summary of Action Items > > Summary of Resolutions > > [End of minutes] > __________________________________________________________ > > > Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by > David Booth's [30]scribe.perl version 1.154 ([31]CVS log) > $Date: 2019/08/21 18:05:02 $ > > [30] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm > [31] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Thursday, 22 August 2019 06:40:00 UTC