W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wot-wg@w3.org > January 2018

[wot-ig/wg] minutes - 10 January 2018

From: Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2018 01:39:08 +0900
Message-ID: <CAJ8iq9XyZb991FE8XUWs6du2UgWTVxpDK09pGmqzMVxHCvOugw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Public Web of Things IG <public-wot-ig@w3.org>, public-wot-wg@w3.org
available at:

also as text below.

Thanks a lot for taking these minutes, Michael Koster!




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

                               - DRAFT -

                               WoT IG/WG

10 Jan 2018


      [2] https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/Main_WoT_WebConf#Agenda


          Kaz_Ashimura, Michael_McCool, Taki_Kamiya,
          Daniel_Peintner, Graeme_Coleman, Toru_Kawaguchi,
          Darko_Anicic, Kunihiko_Toumura, Michael_Lagally,
          Sebastian_Kaebisch, Tomoaki_Mizushima, Michael_Koster,

          Yongjing, Kajimoto, Matthias


          mjkoster, kaz


     * [3]Topics
         1. [4]Quick updates
         2. [5]Next f2f
         3. [6]TF reports
         4. [7]AOB
     * [8]Summary of Action Items
     * [9]Summary of Resolutions

   <kaz> scribenick: mjkoster

Quick updates

   <kaz> [10]Soumya's message on semantic interoperability

     [10] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wot-ig/2018Jan/0000.html

   mccool: there is a Semantic Interoperability workshop at the
   Global IoT summit conference

Next f2f

   mccool: F2F planning, joint meeting with OCF on Friday of the
   OCF/IETF week before our F2F

   <kaz> [11]F2F wiki

     [11] https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/F2F_meeting,_24-29_March_2018,_Prague,_Czech_Republic

   mccool: IETF Hackathon in London the weekend before IETF (March
   ... please start filling in the planning documents for the
   ... we still need to get a local host in Prague

TF reports

   <kaz> [12]Pull Request 363

     [12] https://github.com/w3c/wot/pull/363

   mccool: TD report out
   ... simple JSON serialization discussion in progress since

   Sebastian: there was a new version proposed at the end of the
   year to address some of the Mozilla issues
   ... goal is to arrive at a common serialization
   ... we will invite Mozilla to participate in an upcoming
   meeting to review

   mccool: we will keep this item on the agenda until next week

   <kaz> [13]JSON vs JSON-LD

     [13] https://rawgit.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/master/proposals/simplified-json-ld/

   <benfrancis> Open question: Whether to have separate JSON &
   JSON-LD serialisations or one single serialisation which can be
   parsed as either JSON or JSON-LD

   Sebastian: this document is our counter proposal to address the
   Mozilla issues
   ... there is an advantage in having one serialization to
   simplify the overall deliverable

   benfrancis: the JSON-LD compatible serialization is going to be
   more complex from the JSON perspective, especially using
   JSON-LD 1.0
   ... ongoing discussion in the github issue, also a question of
   how many http links should be in the thing description

   sebastian: can benfrancis join one of the next TD meetings?

   benfrancis: has a time conflict, difficult to schedule in

   sebastian: maybe we can schedule a discussion for the main
   IG/WG meeting, follow up via email

   <inserted> scribenick: kaz

   kaz: let's have further discussion about this offline

   <inserted> scribenick: mjkoster

   mccool: scripting API report?

   dape: had a discussion and considering freezing the spec for
   the plugfest
   ... discussing the issue of a dynamic TD and how elements can
   be created and deleted

   <kaz> [14]issue 82

     [14] https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/issues/82

   dape: a related issue of new things appearing that need to be

   mccool: where do we address the issues of overall architecture
   like this, which cut across groups?

   mjkoster: also plugfest planning questions like how thing
   directories work?
   ... maybe a discovery topic could be taken up

   <inserted> scribenick: kaz

   kaz: could be part of Matsukura-san's plugfest guideline and
   could be included in the main architecture document, but we
   need more discussion

   mjkoster: we didn't have meeting yet
   ... the status is
   ... pull request for another update
   ... worked on before the new year break
   ... created items
   ... template part of TD
   ... next binding meeting, would like to walk through the
   ... to get the publication candidate

   mccool: publication schedule?
   ... each TF needs to review their schedule
   ... (adds "Schedule" to the topics for next week)

   <scribe> scribenick: mjkoster

   mjkoster: for binding templates, complete the review and get a
   first document published

   mccool: security TF report
   ... looking at the operational mode of the device so far,
   starting to look at the life cycle including onboarding,
   commissioning, etc.
   ... referring to an IETF document that describes terminology
   ... working on defining what security we want to deploy (and
   require) at the plugfest
   ... this needs to be driven from use cases
   ... we should use the use cases that we are already developing
   for the plugfest planning
   ... make a list of technologies (oauth...) and work back to use
   case scenarios that will test them
   ... published the first security note before the end of last

   <kaz> [15]security note

     [15] https://www.w3.org/TR/2017/NOTE-wot-security-20171214/


   mccool: topic: any more items to add to the agenda for the next
   web conference?
   ... Should we discuss any technical issues in the remaining

   benfrancis: discuss JSON processing to JSON-LD
   ... JSON-LD 1.1 would make the processing easier and more
   natural representation in JSON

   sebastian: have been in discussion with Greg Kellogg, the
   JSON-LD chair
   ... upcoming feature of key names mapping to property names

   <kaz> [16]JSON LD CG

     [16] https://www.w3.org/community/json-ld/

   kaz: we could see if there can be a W3C recommendation in the
   JSON-LD 1.1 roadmap
   ... theoretically we could make JSON-LD a W3C REC (by creating
   a new WG or brining it to some existing WG) if needed

   benfrancis: worthwhile to follow up on this because it can help
   simplify the JSON
   ... otherwise we could use an algorithm to convert JSON using a
   default context

   mccool: we could use JSON 1.1 as the base for the
   algorithm-driven approach but not refer to a specification

   dape: can we at least mention the 1.1 document if we do this

   kaz: there may be a way to make an informative reference to a
   W3C community group report
   ... but probably not appropriate as a normative reference
   ... if we need a normative reference, we should drive to a W3C
   recommendation on JSON-LD
   ... I'd ask the JSON-LD CG guys about their plan as well

   mccool: adjourn

   <benfrancis> Happy New Year :)

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

   [End of minutes]

    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [17]scribe.perl version
    1.152 ([18]CVS log)
    $Date: 2018/01/10 16:31:53 $

     [17] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
     [18] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Wednesday, 10 January 2018 16:44:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:27:49 UTC