W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wot-wg@w3.org > August 2019

[wot-ig/wg] minutes - 21 August 2019

From: Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2019 03:10:04 +0900
Message-ID: <CAJ8iq9Xq+A2M9tTt7RqBB0dX+ugbUS8gm35h1r5yEVc77nbsNA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Public Web of Things IG <public-wot-ig@w3.org>, public-wot-wg@w3.org
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 Wednesday, 21 August 2019 18:11:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:27:53 UTC