- From: Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2020 18:14:37 +0900
- To: public-wot-wg@w3.org
available at:
https://www.w3.org/2020/04/17-wot-td-minutes.html
also as text below.
Thanks a lot for taking the minutes, Ege!
Kazuyuki
---
[1]W3C
[1] http://www.w3.org/
- DRAFT -
WoT-WG - TD-TF
17 Apr 2020
[2]Agenda
[2] https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/WG_WoT_Thing_Description_WebConf#Apr_17.2C_2020
Attendees
Present
Kaz_Ashimura, Tomoaki_Mizushima, Daniel_Peintner,
Ege_Korkan, Sebastian_Kaebisch, Taki_Kamiya,
Michael_Koster, Zoltan_Kis
Regrets
Chair
Sebastian
Scribe
Ege, kaz
Contents
* [3]Topics
1. [4]Agenda review
2. [5]Previous minutes
3. [6]Repository
4. [7]Issue 842
5. [8]Issue 889
6. [9]Issue 890
7. [10]Issue 892
8. [11]Binding templates
* [12]Summary of Action Items
* [13]Summary of Resolutions
__________________________________________________________
<kaz> scribenick: Ege
Agenda review
<kaz> [14]Agenda
[14] https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/WG_WoT_Thing_Description_WebConf#Apr_17.2C_2020
Kaz: given the discussion during the main call, maybe we should
ask Farschid from Frauenhofer to join the TD call as well at
some point
Sebastian: he can join any calls now. Let's ask him to join the
discovery call first
Previous minutes
<kaz> [15]Apr-3 minutes
[15] https://www.w3.org/2020/04/03-wot-td-minutes.html
Sebastian: (reviewing the last minutes)
... Any objection to publish the last minutes?
... no objection it seems, publishing
Repository
<kaz> [16]wot-thing-description repository
[16] https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description
Sebastian: Should we keep the repository as it is or make a new
one
... I tried to understand how other groups do it
Kaz: jsonld didn't use github for the first version
Daniel: there are many pitfalls to creating a new repository
Kaz: I also agree with Daniel
Ege: Also you would need to copy the issues but their labels as
well. For a project of this size, it is dangerous and checking
that we copied correctly would be a difficult manual task
Sebastian: regarding versioning, we can keep the v1.1 idea and
if the changes are substantial, we can do a version 2.0
<kaz> [17]https://github.com/w3c/imsc
[17] https://github.com/w3c/imsc
<kaz> Kaz: IMSC example above. TTWG manages several versions of
IMSC spec within one repo
Kaz: IMSC example shows that they have different branches for
different versionss
Sebastian: so let's do it like this. I will organize this until
next week
<kaz> (note that we should add links for the recommendation
version on the README.md :)
<sebastian> proposal: the group decided to keep the TD
repository for the next version. The repository will be
organized in similar way as IMSC by TTWG.
RESOLUTION: the group decided to keep the TD repository for the
next version. The repository will be organized in similar way
as IMSC by TTWG.
Sebastian: should we have a requirement that a 1.0 processor
can process 1.1 but just not understand the new keywords
... json-ld 1.1 is a substantial change for example
Ege: but I think a 1.0 parser will not fail trying to parse 1.1
?
Sebastian: but it will not be able to understand new terms and
ways to parse it
Taki: new implementations are starting and it would surprise
them if we publish a new REC in 6 months that breaks their
implementations
Zoltan: we need to be able to tell two versions when consuming
and producing them
... a service can automatically convert them
... if the changes are backwards compatible, you can nearly
omit the versioning since it would be automatic
Kaz: I also agree with Zoltan and Taki
<kaz> Kaz: we could add features but should not change the
meanings/behaviors of the existing features so that the v1.1
processor could safely process the v1.0 TD instances
[18]https://semver.org/
[18] https://semver.org/
Ege: I also agree with the rest, also semantic versioning is
against incrementing the second number of the version there is
a breaking change
Sebastian: so it is good to see that the group has a consensus
on that. We don't need to decide now
Issues 842
[19]Issue 842
[19] https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues/842
[20]Related PR 891
[20] https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/pull/891
Daniel: the problem was that the fix was not in the working
version
Sebastian: then let's merge
... and close the issue
Issues 889
<kaz> [21]Issue 889
[21] https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues/889
Sebastian: he wants to define the length of a string
<kaz> [22]JSON Schema in RDF
[22] https://www.w3.org/2019/wot/json-schema
Sebastian: we can update the JSON Schema vocabulary to include
these
Ege: I am not against adding these two words, it not a big
addition anyways, but I would force people to document their
implementations and provide input for the implementation report
so that we don't have to generate dummy TDs
<scribe> ACTION: ege will follow up on isssue 889
issue 890
<kaz> [23]Issue 890
[23] https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues/890
Koster: I am not sure if this is the appropriate term to use
Kaz: you should reformulate the issue to clarify the
requirements. possibly waiting until some action is done and/or
some event is received
(some more discussion about Ege's idea)
<kaz> scribenick: kaz
[24]SMIL 3.0
[24] https://www.w3.org/TR/REC-smil/smil-timing.html
[25]SCXML as state transition controller as another fyi
[25] https://www.w3.org/TR/scxml/
Kaz: maybe what you want is something similar to SMIL or might
be SCXML
... but we'd like to understand what you want a bit more
precisely
... so would suggest you elaborate your use cases a bit more
scribenick: Ege
Sebastian: Ege will work on reformulating the issue and make it
clearer
Issue 892
scribenick: kaz
[26]Issue 892
[26] https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues/892
Ege: HTTP binding for providing historical events
... would ask Victor for opinions
Zoltan: what would be the benefit to include this into the
standard?
Sebastian: motivation for the use case?
Zoltan: similar example with telephone systems
... keeping call history, etc.
... but should be handled separately
Koster: not sure how to deal with this, maybe something is
missing, though
... but how to build into TD's interaction affordance
Zoltan: more like fetching status
Sebastian: maybe we should involve Ben as well
Kaz: yeah, think this is related to TD management mechanism
like state transition
... we should clarify the requirements a bit more
Taki: some industry use case values projection
... but we need to clarify the use case about how to handle it
Sebastian: yeah, good point to ask the proposer
Ege: yeah, the way how to handle the history would not be
compatible with the current TD
Sebastian: we need more clarifications
<Ege> [27]https://github.com/RoboPhred/wutwot/
[27] https://github.com/RoboPhred/wutwot/
Ege: link for this proposer's implementation above
Sebastian: JS-based?
... (looks into the repo)
... interesting
... maybe we can invite this guy to our meeting
Binding templates
<Ege> [28]https://github.com/w3c/wot-binding-templates/pull/95
[28] https://github.com/w3c/wot-binding-templates/pull/95
Ege: created a PR 2 weeks ago
... basically, here I collected examples from Issues
... Zoltan and Koster have given comments
[29]diffs
[29] https://pr-preview.s3.amazonaws.com/w3c/wot-binding-templates/95/cc021b8...ccf1ee1.html
Ege: removed section 4.4
... there were problems with examples
... id in brightness, etc.
... was not clear how to add new binding
... the examples have many diffs but minor changes
... would like to merge this PR 95
... any objection?
(no objections)
Ege: merged
... any other updates regarding vocabularies?
[30]CoAP vocabulary within the repo
[30] https://github.com/w3c/wot-binding-templates/blob/master/ontology/coap.ttl
Ege: how to handle that?
... and any updates?
Sebastian: should organize the TD repo as well for the JSON
Schema resources
Ege: where to put it?
Sebastian: make sense to collaborate with IETF
... not sure where to put the resources at the moment
... but should start collaborative work
... could start with people who are already involved
Ege: we should be careful about method code vs human readable
features
... no consumers (=application developers) use codes
Koster: people would use names though codes are also defined
Ege: we should work on MQTT as well
Koster: TD doesn't have to care about the detail
Ege: we just care about vocabulary used by TD
Sebastian: btw, who created this coap.ttl file?
Ege: think it's done by Victor several years ago
... (adds comments to Issue 93)
[31]Issue 93
[31] https://github.com/w3c/wot-binding-templates/issues/93
[32]Ege's new comments
[32] https://github.com/w3c/wot-binding-templates/issues/93#issuecomment-615102104
Ege: anything else?
(none)
[adjourned]
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: ege will follow up on isssue 889
Summary of Resolutions
1. [33]the group decided to keep the TD repository for the
next version. The repository will be organized in similar
way as IMSC by TTWG.
[End of minutes]
__________________________________________________________
Minutes formatted by David Booth's [34]scribe.perl version
1.152 ([35]CVS log)
$Date: 2020/04/27 09:12:34 $
[34] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
[35] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Monday, 27 April 2020 09:14:23 UTC