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

[wot-ig/wg] minutes - 20 March 2019

From: Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2019 16:24:33 +0900
Message-ID: <CAJ8iq9V_aa7vsnP8R9hiX649WvjpiZc6ppYjvtikecDAj8nxtA@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 -


20 Mar 2019


      [2] https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/Main_WoT_WebConf#20_Mar_2019


          Kaz_Ashimura, Michael_McCool, Matthias_Kovatsch,
          Michael_Koster, Michael_Lagally, Taki_Kamiya,
          Tomoaki_Mizushima, Daniel_Peintner, Kunihiko_Toumura,
          Yosuke_Nakamura, Tetsushi_Matsuda, Kathy_Giori,
          Ege_Korkan, Zoltan_Kis, Toru_Kawaguchi


          McCool, Matthias

          mjkoster, kaz


     * [3]Topics
         1. [4]Doodle for the workshop PC
         2. [5]One data model update
         3. [6]CR transition
         4. [7]Definition of WoT runtime
         5. [8]JSON-LD resolution
         6. [9]Binding
         7. [10]Scripting
         8. [11]TAG review and CR transition for TD
         9. [12]AOB?
     * [13]Summary of Action Items
     * [14]Summary of Resolutions

   <kaz> Agenda:

     [15] https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/Main_WoT_WebConf#20_Mar_2019

   <kaz> scribenick: mjkoster

Doodle for the workshop PC

   McCool: doodle poll for workshop PC meeting

   <kaz> scribenick: kaz

One data model update

   Koster: there will be a f2f meeting next week in Philadelphia
   ... will put slides on GitHub
   ... interaction afforadance, etc.
   ... definition of one data model should be high level
   ... neutral format
   ... JSON-LD, RDF, etc.
   ... using JSON-LD 1.1 for future purposes
   ... will promote those points
   ... bringing more IoT stakeholders

   [16]https://github.com/mjkoster/ODM-Examples this is the
   contribution I made to One Data MOdel

     [16] https://github.com/mjkoster/ODM-Examples

   McCool: Dan Brickly involved?

   Koster: no
   ... people from our community are invited, though
   ... wanted to make sure what we'll come up with
   ... good thing is a lot of oneM2M presence there
   ... they're also working kind of high-level work too
   ... getting those folks involved is important
   ... neutral format and ontology
   ... event, action and property for interworking

   McCool: we can talk about that the week after

   Koster: ok

   <scribe> scribenick: mjkoster

CR transition

   McCool: we have less time than we expected
   ... the 18th is too late and we would miss the June 30 deadline
   to publish
   ... we need to submit the TD to TAG this Friday
   ... CR transition is two weeks after that
   ... this is a hard date and there is no more room in the
   ... we can overlap the wide review and TAG review
   ... The architecture document is not ready at all, we can wait
   until Monday to start TAG review
   ... the good news is that the explainers are mostly done
   ... we should prioritize the TD explainer to get done by Friday

   <inserted> kaz: the contents of the explainer documents look
   good but the latest PRs should be merged for review.

   <inserted> mm: right. for TD, we should review it during the TD
   call on Friday.

   Lagally: we should try to conclude the Architecture explainer
   at tomorrow's call

   McCool: the explainer is good to go, but the document needs
   more work
   ... we need to globally prioritize TD review
   ... good if we can start arch review on Thursday

   Kaz: can we confirm the schedule with the editors?

   Taki: we need to clarify the outcome of the JSON-LD joint call
   ... we already know what we will need to do

   McCool: is there a PR ready to go?

   Taki: not yet

   McCool: understanding is that the JSON-LD feature was accepted
   and we can go forward with JSON-LD 1.1
   ... we really have no choice, Friday is a hard deadline to
   submit to TAG

   Lagally: on the architecture document, we have 20 open issues
   and adding another one
   ... chapters 7-10 need significant work
   ... it's not going to be easy and maybe not possible
   ... very challenging

   McCool: sat down and sketched out the changes
   ... there is an issue of definition of runtime and security
   ... also other logical inconsistency and language ambiguity

   Lagally: we could have the discussion first in the architecture
   call tomorrow

   Kaz: we can propose the schedule today and finalize it in the
   architecture call tomorrow, and for TD on Friday

   McCool: willing to work over the weekend and need to make sure
   we're all in agreement
   ... we can go one hour longer on Thursday at the TD call
   ... try to free up our schedules to work on this over the next
   few days

   Lagally: propose adding one additional hour on Thursday,
   Friday, and Monday

   McCool: we can re-use the scripting and security slots on
   Monday or have a joint call

   Lagally: concerned that it may be a new topic in the scripting
   call and generate new questions

   McCool: we can use the time Monday to sync up and make the
   final decision

   <mlagally> mlagally: we should try closing on all major issues
   by tomorrow

   McCool: to summarize, we can add the extra hour to TD and arch
   calls and sync up on Monday at the scripting call

   Zoltan: we can use the scripting call for the architecture
   discussion on Monday to sync up

   McCool: then we can use the security call slot on Monday as
   ... will join the scripting call

   <kaz> FYI, scripting time on March 25 (7am EDT):

     [17] https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/converter.html?iso=20190325T110000&p1=137&p2=75&p3=43&p4=136&p5=195&p6=101&p7=1892&p8=33&p9=235&p10=248

Definition of WoT runtime

   <McCool> [18]https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/issues/130

     [18] https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/issues/130

   McCool: the spec says that the WoT runtime is required
   ... but it may or may not be implemented with the scripting API
   ... there are 3 diagrams proposed to explain the building
   blocks that make runtime and scripting separately optional

   Zoltan: this looks good

   Lagally: why do we show consumed thing?

   McCool: runtime is a container for running an application
   ... also contains the thing objects
   ... maybe we can use "language runtime"

   <mkovatsc> I want to comment that I never made the statements
   Michael mentioned

   Zoltan: it may be confusing to have the "runtime" apply to both
   scripts and objects

   McCool: the object is visible to the application as an
   interaction abstraction
   ... in the runtime

   <zolkis> it may be confusing to use the same terms ExposedThing
   and ConsumedThing for Runtime objects and Scripting objects

   Matthias: the software object should be the contract between
   the application and WoT

   Lagally: it should be in the servient implementation chapter

   McCool: this comes up from looking at the required elements
   including security, interactions, protocol bindings

   Lagally: why is exposed thing, consumed thing here?

   Zoltan: they are required in an implementation

   <mlagally> mlagally: these are implementation aspects and
   should be in the servient chapter

   <kaz> (kaz just wanted to suggest we talk about the details on
   runtime definition tomorrow during the architecture call)

   McCool: we need to close the call soon so will continue the
   discussion in the architecture call

JSON-LD resolution

   <McCool> [19]Kaz's message on the JSON-LD WG resolution

     [19] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-wot-wg/2019Mar/0018.html

   <McCool> [20]TD's issue with JSON-LD 1.1 on the json-ld-api
   repo (issue 65)

     [20] https://github.com/w3c/json-ld-api/issues/65

   <McCool> [21]JSON-LD WG call minutes

     [21] https://www.w3.org/2018/json-ld-wg/Meetings/Minutes/2019/2019-03-15-json-ld

   Kaz: Victor and Kaz attended the JSON-LD meeting and discussed
   issue #65
   ... the resolution is that JSON-LD will add container and index
   as we need
   ... the outcome is that we can refer to JSON-LD 1.1

   McCool: so we will be able to have a JSON serialization of the
   TD and a JSON 1.1 serialization

   Kaz: we may include JSON 1.0 also at the editors discretion

   McCool: someone needs to make a PR for these changes

   Kaz: taki, sebastian, and victor should discuss and implement

   Taki: have started the conversation


   McCool: binding templates?

   Koster: will update the document before Monday


   McCool: scripting API?

   Zoltan: plan to publish before the charter runs out

TAG review and CR transition for TD

   McCool: what is the date for the CR transition request?

   Kaz: it depends on the volume of TAG's feedback
   ... the explainer documents are getting ready. now we need to
   submit our review requests to TAG, and talk with them about the


   McCool: AOB?

   Lagally: please look into the issues on the Arch document and
   help resolve by tomorrow's meeting

   McCool: only have 30 minutes for the testing call

   Kaz: let's start the test call in 5 mins

   McCool: adjourned

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

   [End of minutes]

    Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by
    David Booth's [22]scribe.perl version 1.154 ([23]CVS log)
    $Date: 2019/03/21 07:20:24 $

     [22] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
     [23] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Thursday, 21 March 2019 07:25:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:27:52 UTC