W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wot-ig@w3.org > October 2020

[WoT vF2F][DRAFT] minutes - Day 1, 5 October 2020

From: Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 07 Oct 2020 19:03:36 +0900
Message-ID: <87362qic93.wl-ashimura@w3.org>
To: public-wot-ig@w3.org, public-wot-wg@w3.org
available at:
also as text below.

Thanks a lot for taking the minutes, Daiel and Sebastian!



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

                               - DRAFT -

                     WoT-IG/WG vF2F Meeting - Day 1

05 Oct 2020


          Kaz_Ashimura, Michael_McCool, Hiroshi_Ota,
          Kunihiko_Toumura, Michael_Lagally, Takio_Yamaoka,
          Sebastian_Kaebisch, Jeff_Jaffe, Daniel_Peintner,
          Ryuichi_Matsukura, Ege_Korkan, Cristiano_Aguzzi,
          David_Ezell, Ken_Ogiso, Tomoaki_Mizushima


          McCool, Sebastian

          Kaz, Daniel, Sebastian


     * [2]Topics
         1. [3]Scribes
         2. [4]Logistics
         3. [5]Architecture
         4. [6]Prev minutes
         5. [7]Architecture draft
         6. [8]Thing Model
         7. [9]WoT Profile
     * [10]Summary of Action Items
     * [11]Summary of Resolutions

   <kaz> scribenick: kaz


   kaz, daniel and sebastian


   [12]vF2F wiki

     [12] https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/F2F_meeting,_October_2020

   McCool: call logistics above
   ... several guests for today
   ... IRC channels is #wot
   ... resources on GitHub
   ... schedule
   ... PlugFest done last week, Sep 28-Oct 2
   ... today Architecture/Profiles
   ... Oct 7: Use cases, requirements and liaisons
   ... Oct 13: joint meetings with DID and PUB
   ... Oct 14: joint meeting with APA
   ... Oct 15: joint meeting: with WN
   ... Oct 20: Discovery
   ... Oct 21: TD and Thing Model
   ... Oct 22: Scripting, Security, etc.


   Lagally: holding 2-hour call every week
   ... version to be published as a FPWD now
   ... clean up a bit, e.g., for ReSpec
   ... topics: FPWD review - go over the draft
   ... then requirements
   ... trying to identify requirements for standardization
   ... terminology as well
   ... then two presentations
   ... Sebastian on Thing Model requirements, Koster on OneDM
   ... anything else for today?

Prev minutes


     [13] https://www.w3.org/2020/10/01-wot-arch-minutes.html

   Lagally: discussion with the Pub BG Chair for the joint meeting
   ... FPWD publications, OneDM/Thing Model, ...
   ... any objections for publishing the minutes?


   Lagally: approved

Architecture draft

   [14]latest draft

     [14] http://w3c.github.io/wot-architecture/

   Lagally: no ReSpec errors now
   ... would like to identify owners of unassigned sections after
   the FPWD publication
   ... this is the FPWD version, and the Architecture TF is OK
   with publishing the draft
   ... (goes through the sections of the draft)
   ... Introduction, Conformance, Terminology, Application
   Domains, System Topologies
   ... not perfect yet
   ... short section on System Integration
   ... then Requirements
   ... we'll detailed discussion later
   ... then Abstract WoT System Architecture
   ... WoT Building Blocks which talks about the related WoT specs
   ... Thing Model, Core Profile and Discovery have been added
   ... then Abstract Servient Architecture
   ... would like to go through the newly added sections
   ... and see go or no-go for the FPWD publication

   Kaz: (as I mentioned the other day) we need to add the diffs
   from the v1 version within Appendix A "Recent Changes"

   Sebastian: right. it would be helpful.
   ... Taki is working for TD spec too

   Lagally: ok
   ... created an issue on that

   [15]Issue 545

     [15] https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/issues/545

   Lagally: had a conversation with Matthias
   ... he's not active anymore and to be moved to the
   Acknowledgement section
   ... some more as well
   ... also would like to get some more new
   ... created another issue on that

   [16]Issue 542

     [16] https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/issues/546

   Lagally: Terminology
   ... definition for "Thing Model", etc.

   Sebastian: I have a definition within the TD draft

   McCool: would be more convenient to have the definition within
   the Architecture spec so that we can refer to the document for

   Lagally: Sebastian, please make a Pullrequest to transition the
   definition from TD to Architecture

   Sebastian: ok

   [17]Issue 547 on terminology for Thing odel

     [17] https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/issues/547

   Lagally: goes through the use cases (Application Domains/
   System Topologies)
   ... Editor's note for "5.5 Edge Devices"
   ... "TODO: (McCool) Check if the current text still fits with
   recent edge computing activities."

   McCool: nothing incorrect here
   ... should say "expand" instead of "check"

   Lagally: ok

   McCool: expand to capture the recent activities

   Lagally: ok
   ... probably need a proof read as well
   ... new issue on "align languages use case vs application

   [18]Issue 548

     [18] https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/issues/548

   Lagally: then "7. Requirements"
   ... Editor's note saying "TODO: New requirements from new use
   cases need to be added here."

   McCool: links to the requirements on the GitHub would suffice

   Lagally: ok
   ... creates a new issue for that

   [19]Issue 549

     [19] https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/issues/549

   Lagally: section 7.2 also has the same note
   ... then "8.1 System Components"
   ... "TODO: Create introductory text that introduces the
   concepts from the succeeding chapters."
   ... also "8.1.2 Thing Models"
   ... "TODO: Create section."

   Sebastian: there is a PR

   Lagally: 8.1.4 Intermediaries
   ... "TODO: add reference."
   ... then "8.4 Lifecycle"
   ... need references

   McCool: any resources the other W3C groups?

   Kaz: what about IETF ACE, etc.?

   McCool: that is rather related to device lifecycle and would
   like to see application lifecycle

   Kaz: in that case, we might want to see the multimodal
   lifecycle note

   <jeff> [/jeff needs to drop off.]

   McCool: might make sense though that's kind of old

   [20]Issue 552 on lifecycle intro text

     [20] https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/issues/552

   s/application lifecyle/information lifecycle/

   McCool: note that we have PRs not yet merged on LD proof, etc.
   ... and related discussion on how directory is managed for
   ... think LD proof should has enough features

   Lagally: what about "information lifecycle"?

   McCool: need to have discussion on information in a device and
   metadata like TD
   ... put together the obvious things and then non-obvious things

   Lagally: what is the difference?

   McCool: examples of obvious things are cameras to take photos
   ... to be moved to the other devices
   ... sometimes you might want to include personal data
   ... so it's not "TODO or Not-TODO" question

   Lagally: the requirements depend on the scenarios

   McCool: two large categories here
   ... 1. data management
   ... 2. metadata management
   ... probably separate lifecyle for both
   ... data management should be discussed with the Privacy group

   Lagally: let me capture the points within an issue

   Kaz: Michael McCool should be able to work on that but people
   are encouraged to provide use case scenarios for this

   McCool: yeah

   Lagally: can assign this issue to you, McCool?

   McCool: yeah
   ... please put labels for discovery, past FPWD and security

   Lagally: done
   ... creates two more issues for lifecycle

   [21]Issue 554

     [21] https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/issues/554

   [22]Issue 555

     [22] https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/issues/555

   <scribe> scribenick: dape

   Lagally: old editors note right before 8.7

   <inserted> [23]8.7 Protocol Bindings

     [23] https://w3c.github.io/wot-architecture/#sec-protocol-bindings

   Lagally: Question to Sebastian: additional oepration types

   Sebastian: None planned
   ... default operation for unsubsribe event planned
   ... current text is fine as is

   Lagally: Building block sections
   ... 9.2. Thing Model is new
   ... 9.3. Core Profile is new
   ... 9.4. Discovery is new

   Sebastian: working on intro text for 9.2. Thing Model

   Lagally: Introduction text for 9.3. and 9.4. is planned for
   past FPWD

   McCool: Can expand editors text for 9.4. but actual update is
   planned for later

   Lagally+McCool: cross-referencing between Architecture and the
   other docs like Discovery and TD to be handled by Kaz

   Lagally: Sections 10+ do not contain 1.1. changes
   ... need changes sections for 1.1
   ... 9 issues left for FPWD (Architecture)

   <inserted> [24]Issue 558

     [24] https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/issues/558

   Daniel: FYI: JSONLD has a former editors list in the top of the

   Lagally: Talked with M. Kovatsch but he perefered to move it to

   Zoltan: Seems to be common to have editors kept together

   Lagally: no strong opinion
   ... suggest keep it as it is

   Kaz: we can also check commit history. please note the Editors
   list was imported from the WoT Architecture 1.0 version, so we
   need to clarify who would be the active contributors.

   McCool: Suggest leaving it as is
   ... suggest moving it out to improve citation

   Kaz: Will check with Panasonic, but publishing the FPWD with
   the current Editors list is fine.

   Lagally: Issue#546, marked as "past FPWD"
   ... Would like to ask Sebastian to take over
   ... 8 minutes break before ThingModel topic starts

   <kaz> [8min break]

Thing Model

   Sebastian: Would like to start with requirement document for
   thing model
   ... see
   ... many use cases for thing models
   ... - digital twin use case
   ... - mass production use case
   ... - simulation use case
   ... essentially use cases where we don't need actual TD
   ... Requirements:
   ... - defining common elements
   ... - minimum requirements

     [25] https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/blob/master/REQUIREMENTS/thing-models.md

   <Mizushima> -->
   MENTS/thing-models.md thing model

     [26] https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/blob/master/REQUIREMENTS/thing-models.md

   Sebastian: - possible to define partial (or template based)
   security definitions

   <inserted> [27]10. Thing Model from the TD draft

     [27] https://w3c.github.io/wot-thing-description/#thing-model

   Sebastian: At the moment section "10. Thing Model" is in TD
   ... content comes from Annex C
   ... previous name was "Thing Description Template"
   ... still discussing content type requirement
   ... We are trying for formalize the chapter right now
   ... also work on text about differences between "TD" and "Thing
   ... object oriented programming paradigm: class vs instance
   ... Thing Model defines model for a thing: common metadata,
   no/partial security, no protocol or template

   Lagally: Figures contains term "template". Is thera definition?

   Sebastian: Not yet

   McCool: coming from URI template

   Lagally: Need to explain how missing data is completed

   McCool: 2 options
   ... 1. omit
   ... 2. named values
   ... problems like name collisions may arise

   Sebastian: Chapter 10 is still under construction
   ... The TD follows the ThingModel and includes missing
   ... instance specific data

   McCool: for security it is good to know the type of security
   ... but the authorization server does not need to be known in

   Sebastian: Links make more sense in instances

   McCool: depends on link relation types
   ... some kind of links may be in Thing Model

   Lagally: Good point
   ... brings multiple inheritance back
   ... how can a TD be implementing 2 Thing Models
   ... eg. switch and a lamp

   Sebastian: extension feature will be addressed
   ... technical solution is not decided yet
   ... re-use what we have?
   ... JSON schema, JSON-LD, ...
   ... need technical evaluation

   McCool: Closeley related to modularity
   ... maybe avoiding certain conflicts
   ... aligning with oneDM structure

   Ege: w.r.t. multiple inheritance: prefer using "one" ThingModel
   but add support merging 2 thing models into one

   Lagally: Makes sense

   Sebastian: Agree also
   ... should clarify the approach

   Cristiano: there is not only inheritance but also composition
   ... need to clarify when to use what

   Lagally: Agree, we will see both types

   <McCool> McCool: agree with idea of doing composition of thing
   models (ideally still with modules) and then single inheritance
   ("implements" relation from TD to TM)

   Lagally: how do we put things together

   Sebastian: Please have a look at new section 10 in TD document
   ... there are new assertions
   ... introduces also @type "ThingModel"
   ... there is also a new "placeholder identifier"

   Lagally: Issue how to escape double brackets

   Sebastian: We have an issue with that regard

   <McCool> McCool: think we should follow existing systems in
   that regard (example is "mustache")

   Sebastian: Note: TD document contains Thing Model definition

   <inserted> [28]PR 540

     [28] https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/pull/540

   Sebastian: I prepared PR#540 for architecture
   ... added 2 paras explaining Thing Model

   Lagally: Any comments/questions?
   ... propose merging
   ... no objections --> approved
   ... need to resolve conflict first
   ... PR#539
   ... comes from Zoltan

   Zoltan: Made more changes
   ... scope is device lifecycle
   ... please let me know if there is something more or missing

   Lagally: Suggest to take what we have and improve later (if
   ... suggest resolving merge conflicts and merging
   ... Need "owners" for FPWD issues

   Sebastian: BTW, resloved merge conflict

   Lagally: Okay, then let's merge PR 540

   <inserted> [29]PR 540

     [29] https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/pull/540

   Lagally: back to "owners" for issues
   ... I will take some

   McCool: can take issue#549

   <kaz> [30]Issue 549

     [30] https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/issues/549

   Zoltan: Note: huge merge conflicts but can solve them

   Lagally: Time check? Agenda check
   ... carry over to architecture call on Wednesday

   <kaz> [31]Updated agenda for today

     [31] https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/F2F_meeting,_October_2020#Oct_5

   Lagally: 5 minutes break

   <kaz> [5min break]

   <kaz> scribenick: sebastian

WoT Profile

   Lagally: Specification is in early stage
   ... it has many editors note
   ... many details are missing

   <Mizushima> --> [32]https://w3c.github.io/wot-profile/
   wot-profile draft

     [32] https://w3c.github.io/wot-profile/

   Lagally: however, good base for discussion
   ... we need active contributions, implementations, etc.
   ... which features should be adopted, which are common ground,
   ... we need some feedback, how the current assumptions work

   McCool: there are different use cases such as out of the box
   interoperability. are there more missing?

   Lagally: first concentrate on OTB interop.

   <Ege> [33]https://github.com/w3c/wot-profile/issues/37

     [33] https://github.com/w3c/wot-profile/issues/37

   McCool: we need also discussion about extensions like geo
   location in the TD
   ... however, we should limit the extensions

   Ege: I provided a review as an issue
   ... there are two concerns

   <kaz> [34]5.1.22 Recommended practice

     [34] https://w3c.github.io/wot-profile/#recommended-practice-

   Ege: one is about events
   ... web sockets are very open
   ... other comments about small feadbacks

   Lagally: many details, we should go over in detail

   issue [35]https://github.com/w3c/wot-profile/issues/37

     [35] https://github.com/w3c/wot-profile/issues/37

   Ege: What makes the enum special?

   Lagally: is type safety and based on simple types

   Chris: A concrete example could help with the enums

   Ege: "format" is not supported anymore in JSON Schema

   Seb: use a different term?

   Ege: No, its a different mechanism
   ... Type is a must, but what is about photos?
   ... there needs better explaination when JSON is used as
   content type

   Lagally: However, we just describe Thing Model Data Types there
   ... Should there be an assertion saying terms not in TD are not
   allowed for DataSchema, i.e. anyOf

   Ege will provide a specific issue

   Ege: misstake about the input of actions. It allows objects

   Lagally: We running out of time. Cont. in the next call

   Ege: Regarding security, shall all scopes be supported?

   McCool: We should follow the security guidelines.

   Lagally creates an issue about the different OAuth2 options

   Lagally: continue on Wed. about the inputs from Ege

   Ege: Current draft of WoT Profile is not ready for FPWD,
   especially the Event part

   Lagally: Will be more feedback expected?

   Daniel: I will read the current status

   Cristiano: I will also review

   McCool wraps up

   Kaz: How should be the title name of the Arch 1.1?
   ... something like "wot-architecture11"?

   Sebastian: dot or without?

   McCool: I think "wot-architecture-1-1" is better
   ... what did the JSON-LD spec do?
   ... is there a convention?

   <kaz> JSON-LD uses [36]https://www.w3.org/TR/json-ld11/ for
   their 1.1 version
   ... and different groups use various notations
   ... TTWG uses [37]https://www.w3.org/TR/ttml-imsc1.1/ for IMSC
   ... ARIA WG uses[38]https://www.w3.org/TR/accname-1.1/ for
   "Accessible Name and Description Computation 1.1"

     [36] https://www.w3.org/TR/json-ld11/
     [37] https://www.w3.org/TR/ttml-imsc1.1/
     [38] https://www.w3.org/TR/accname-1.1/

   [Day 1 adjourned]

Summary of Action Items

   [NEW] ACTION: DP to check the Security section and fix #252

Summary of Resolutions

   [End of minutes]

    Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by
    David Booth's [39]scribe.perl version ([40]CVS log)
    $Date: 2020/10/07 10:00:48 $

     [39] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
     [40] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Wednesday, 7 October 2020 10:03:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 7 October 2020 10:03:48 UTC