- From: Kaebisch, Sebastian <sebastian.kaebisch@siemens.com>
- Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2017 14:30:01 +0000
- To: Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@emse.fr>, "public-wot-wg@w3.org" <public-wot-wg@w3.org>
Dear Antoine, many thanks for your mail and for the detailed feedback. We will definitely take your comments into account for the next draft version. In tomorrow's TD web meeting I will give a short overview about your review. Maybe you have also time for joining? Web meeting details can be found here: https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/WG_WoT_Thing_Description_WebConf Many thanks again! Best wishes Sebastian > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: Antoine Zimmermann [mailto:antoine.zimmermann@emse.fr] > Gesendet: Mittwoch, 20. September 2017 10:30 > An: public-wot-wg@w3.org > Betreff: Re: Publication of the three WoT-related FPWDs - 15 September 2017 > > Dear WoT WG, > > > Here is a review of the recently published draft of TD. The issues I point out are > mostly editorial and easily addressed. Since I did not participate in the discussions so > far, I'm not judging the relevance of the terms nor propose important additions. I > focused on the internal consistency of the documents. > > > In Example 1, there is: > > "outputData": {"type": "string"}, > > "type" is not defined in the context document, nor "string". It could be interpreted as: > > "outputData": {"@type": "xsd:string"}, > > but later in the spec, a property "type" is mentioned. However, the property is > described only after it has been used many times in examples. What type of value > should be used with this property is not clear either. It is not defined in the ontology. > Also, the confusion between "type" and "@type" is easy to make, but from reading > the whole spec it becomes clear that "type" is not assumed to mean the same as > "@type". > > > After Example 1: "announced within the endoind (SP?) structure" -> endoind??? > > > Section 5.1: "a small set of vocabulary. .. this vocabulary" -> "a small > vocabulary" or "a small set of terms" > > > There is a mismatch between what's in Figure 1 and what's defined in the > context document at http://w3c.github.io/wot/w3c-wot-td-context.jsonld > (or at https://www.w3.org/ns/td/w3c-wot-td-context.jsonld, which is the > same): > > in Fig.1 -- in context doc > ======================================= > td:base -- td:baseURI > td:DataSchema -- NOT DEFINED > td:inputData -- td:hasInputData > td:interaction -- td:providesInteractionPattern > td:InteractionPattern -- td:Interaction > td:link -- td:isAccessibleThrough > td:mediaType -- td:hasMediaType > td:name -- td:hasName > td:outputData -- td:hasOutputData > td:security -- td:implementsSecurity > td:Security -- NOT DEFINED > td:writable -- td:isWritable > > The context document currently uses URIs in the namespace > http://iot.linkeddata.es/def/wot# . This should be updated. > > In Fig.1 again, there are some typographic inconsistencies: > - In the class td:Thing, the doand I am not proposing uble colon is > separated from the attribute with a space, while it's not in other classes; > - The first colon after td:base is in red, the second is separated > with a space, and the type is not separated with a space, as opposed to > other attributes; > - On the arrow from td:InteractionPattern to td:Link, the word "link" > is in a smaller font than the other characters; > - On the arrow from td:Property to td:DataSchema, the word "output" is > in a smaller font than the other characters + the cardinality has an > extra space before the double dots. > > There are also many mismatches between the examples, the documentation, > the context document and the ontology file (at > https://www.w3.org/ns/td/td.ttl). > > In the context doc, the td:base of a td:Thing and the td:href of a > td:Link must be resources identified by a URI, while in the spec, they > must be something of type xsd:anyURI, and in the ontology, they must be > plain character strings. > > In Sec.6.1, first table: > The description of "@context" says that the value must be > https://w3c.github.io/wot/w3c-wot-td-context.jsonld. Then, in the text > after the table, it says it's > https://www.w3.org/ns/td/w3c-wot-td-context.jsonld. All examples are > using the github file. > > "Each Thing Description instance in JSON-LD MUST this context > information embedded" -> must *have* > > > Some examples have keys in red, some have keys in grey. > > The examples are using properties that are neither defined, declared, > nor described anywhere. E.g., "fields", "value", "minimum", "maximum", > "minItems", "maxItems". > > > Somewhere in the spec, the URIs of the vocabulary terms should be provided. > > > About the ontology file at https://www.w3.org/ns/td/td.ttl: > It declares prefixes that are not used: geo:, wot:, xml:, doap:, foaf:, > prov:. > The base is set to http://iot.linkeddata.es/def/wot#. > The ontology itself is identified as http://iot.linkeddata.es/def/wot#, > although the vann:preferredNamespaceUri is http://www.w3.org/ns/td#. > I'm not sure the license (CC-BY 4.0) is appropriate. > The dc:publisher is http://www.oeg-upm.net/, but this version of the > ontology should be published by the W3C. > The rdfs:range of td:inputData and td:outputData should be set to > td:DataSchema. > The rdfs:domain of td:link should be td:InteractionPattern and the > rdfs:range should be td:Link. > The rdfs:domain of td:security should probably be td:Thing and its > rdfs:range should be td:Security. > The range of td:base should be xsd:anyURI. > The range of td:href should be xsd:aniURI. > The property td:required, used in examples and declared in the context > document, should be defined in the ontology. > The definition of td:name excludes the possibility to add a language tag. > td:isWritable is not used in the spec, it should be td:writable. > The use of owl:allValuesFrom instead of rdfs:range makes the ontology > more complex (outside RDFS), harder to understand for a non specialist > and in the case of this spec, not justified. In fact, several of them > are redundent with existing rdfs:range. The case of owl:someValuesFrom > is different and can be justified, but I'm not sure it is really useful. > > > Best, > --AZ > > On 20/09/2017 07:01, Kazuyuki Ashimura wrote: > > I am pleased to announce that the Web of Things Working Group [1] has > > published the following three First Public Working Drafts: > > > > 1. Web of Things (WoT) Architecture: > > ------------------------------------ > > This version: > > https://www.w3.org/TR/2017/WD-wot-architecture-20170914/ > > Latest published version: > > https://www.w3.org/TR/wot-architecture/ > > Latest editor's draft: > > https://w3c.github.io/wot-architecture/ > > > > This document describes the abstract architecture for the W3C Web of > > Things, which consists of three initial building blocks, i.e., (1) > > WoT Thing Description, (2) WoT Scripting API and (3) WoT Binding > > Templates. > > > > 2. Web of Things (WoT) Thing Description: > > ----------------------------------------- > > This version: > > https://www.w3.org/TR/2017/WD-wot-thing-description-20170914/ > > Latest published version: > > https://www.w3.org/TR/wot-thing-description/ > > Latest editor's draft: > > https://w3c.github.io/wot-thing-description/ > > > > This document describes a formal model and common representation for > > a Web of Things Thing Description. A Thing Description describes the > > metadata and interfaces of Things, where a Thing is an abstraction > > of a physical entity that provides interactions to and participates > > in the Web of Things. > > > > 3. Web of Things (WoT) Scripting API: > > ------------------------------------- > > This version: > > https://www.w3.org/TR/2017/WD-wot-scripting-api-20170914/ > > Latest published version: > > https://www.w3.org/TR/wot-scripting-api/ > > Latest editor's draft: > > https://w3c.github.io/wot-scripting-api/ > > > > This document describes a programming interface representing the WoT > > Interface that allows scripts run on a Thing to discover and consume > > (retrieve) other Things and to expose Things characterized by > > Properties, Actions and Events. > > > > > > Please contribute to those drafts using the following Issue sites on > > the group's GitHub repositories: > > - WoT Architecture: https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/issues > > - WoT Thing Description: https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues > > - WoT Scripting API: https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/issues > > > > For feedback on security and privacy considerations, please use the > > following WoT Security and Privacy Issue site, as they are > > cross-cutting over all our documents: > > https://github.com/w3c/wot-security/issues > > > > General comments should be sent to this list <public-wot-wg@w3.org>, > > the public email list for the Web of Things Working Group. > > > > [1] https://www.w3.org/WoT/WG/ > > > > Best regards, > > > > Kaz Ashimura, for the Web of Things Working Group co-Chairs > > >
Received on Thursday, 21 September 2017 14:30:35 UTC