- From: Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2020 17:17:53 +0900
- To: public-wot-wg@w3.org
available at:
https://www.w3.org/2020/11/25-wot-td-minutes.html
also as text below.
Thanks a lot for taking the minutes, Sebastian!
Kazuyuki
---
[1]W3C
[1] http://www.w3.org/
WoT-WG - TD-TF
25 Nov 2020
[2]Agenda
[2] https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/WG_WoT_Thing_Description_WebConf#November_25.2C_2020
Attendees
Present
Kaz_Ashimura, Michael_McCool, Michael_Lagally,
Sebastian_Kaebisch, Taki_Kamiya, Ege_Korkan,
Michael_Koster, Tomoaki_Mizushima
Regrets
Chair
Sebastian
Scribe
sebastian, kaz
Contents
* [3]Topics
1. [4]new WoT web page
2. [5]Status TD 1.1
3. [6]TD 2.0 roadmap
4. [7]Issue 999
5. [8]Issue 1003
6. [9]Issue 983
7. [10]Issue 977
8. [11]Issue 1005
* [12]Summary of Action Items
* [13]Summary of Resolutions
__________________________________________________________
new WoT web page
<inserted> scribenick: sebastian
need some short abstract about the task forces
including the task forces leaders
<kaz> [14]Welcome page
[14] https://w3c.github.io/wot-marketing/
McCool: we should use a template for each section
<kaz> [15]TD-TF
[15] https://w3c.github.io/wot-marketing/activities/tf-td/
<kaz> [16]Ege's issue 85
[16] https://github.com/w3c/wot-marketing/issues/85
McCool: there is an issue from Ege that gives an overview about
the current content of all the task force wiki pages
McCool: we should agree on a template
... who can help here to create a template?
Ege can provide a template.
Ege: Which points should be covered?
McCool: Main page has the most contents and covers many points
Ege: Discovery can be also used to create template
Kaz: Daniel developed an CSS file for the webpage. Shall we use
this for the template as well?
McCool: Prefer the wiki style
... we should keep the wiki structure
Kaz: we should have the detail structure of the MD files for
task forces
... should discuss this in the marketing call
Ege: [17]https://w3c.github.io/wot-marketing/activities/tf-td/
is html file which will be not changed
... only the content of the wiki page will changed like the
agenda
[17] https://w3c.github.io/wot-marketing/activities/tf-td/
Kaz: I'm OK with writing the details of each TF's activity
using, but the discussion on the structure of the whole pages
should be done during the marketing call
Lagally: +1 that the structure should be agreed during
marketing call
Ege will prepare a proposal for the next marketing call
next week marketing call is canceled
so, will discuss this one week after
Please other TF should also think about the content
Lagally: Yes, should be not that complicated to provide some
sentences about the scope of the TF
<Ege> [18]https://github.com/w3c/wot-marketing/pull/99/files
[18] https://github.com/w3c/wot-marketing/pull/99/files
Status TD 1.1
Kaz: we should also provide the last minute changes in the
index.html in github master
<kaz> [19]Kaz's editorial updates for publication (Member-only)
[19] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-wot-wg/2020Nov/0015.html
TD 2.0 roadmap
There were some discussion about TD 2.0 roadmap
McCool: we should provide a CR 1.1 version in March to be on
time
<kaz> [20]Milestones calculator, fyi
[20] https://w3c.github.io/spec-releases/milestones/?fpwd=2020-11-24
McCool: it's quite tight in schedule
... different option such as work in parallel on TD 2.0 and TD
1.1
I think this is not a good idea
Kaz: if we can not finish or start the work on TD 2.0 we need
to get rechartered for ver 2.0 and some more possible
additional deliverables
<kaz> scribenick: kaz
Kaz: wondering about the actual "roadmap" for 2.0 version
McCool: let's get a poll about deferring the 2.0 version to the
next Charter
... need to discuss during the main call as well, though
<McCool> summary it seems we are leaning towards deferring 2.0
to the next charter and focusing on 1.1 in this charter
Issue 999
[21]Issue 999
[21] https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues/999
Sebastian: provided an example
... (put the example TD to edi{TD}or)
[22]Sebastian's comment including the example
[22] https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues/999#issuecomment-730421965
McCool: need a list of placeholders?
(like "URL_PLACEHOLDER, ID_PLACEHOLDER", ...)
[23]Lagally's comment
[23] https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues/999#issuecomment-733655164
Lagally: also versioning should be mandatory
McCool: yes, it should be mandatory
... we should put version identifier in the id and "version"
metadata
Ege: how to handle major/minor/patch versions?
McCool: several different views possibly
... TD is instance of model
... if we have a new version of TD, what would happen?
Ege: depending on the use cases
... some people might think semantic versioning wouldn't work
for API versioning
<Ege>
[24]https://w3c.github.io/wot-thing-description/#example-31
[24] https://w3c.github.io/wot-thing-description/#example-31
Ege: version for instance and version for modl
Sebastian: (loos into Issue 1000)
... example of Eclipse Vorto model
<Ege>
[25]https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues/947
[25] https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues/947
[26]Issue 1000
[26] https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues/1000
Sebastian: would it make sense to add "model" term to
"version"?
McCool: another possibility is that Thing Model's version
number simply refers to the version of the Thing Model
specification
Lagally: would be confusing
McCool: that's true
Sebastian: what should we do then?
McCool: for Thing Model, should only have "model"
... without link
Sebastian: ok
"version" : {"model" : "1.0.0"},
Sebastian: let's quickly do that
... (reusing the "version" container, skip `instance` nd
introduce a new term `model`)
... (adds an updated example to Issue 1000)
McCool: we could think about DID here
[27]Sebastian's latest comment
[27] https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues/999#issuecomment-733805049
version definition for the model:
"version" : {"model" : "1.0.0" },
version definition for the instance:
"version" : {"instance": "1.0.0",
"model" : "1.0.0" },
"links" : [{
"rel" : "instanceOf",
"href" : "<address of the TM model>"
}],
Issue 1003
[28]Issue 1003
[28] https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues/1003
[29]table within section "5.4 Default Value Definitions"
[29] https://w3c.github.io/wot-thing-description/#x5-4-default-value-definitions
Kaz: note there is "5.4" twice within the section title
Sebastian: right
... (creates an issue on that)
... regarding the issue 1003 itself, would it make sense to
have more detailed description on op?
(no objections)
Sebastian: Ege, can you create a PR for this?
Ege: ok
[30]Sebastian's updated comment
[30] https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues/1003#issuecomment-733810744
Issue 983
[31]Issue 983
[31] https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues/983
Sebastian: there is actually a section for Multilanguage
([32]https://www.w3.org/TR/wot-thing-description11/#multilangua
ge)
... (adds a comment)
[32] https://www.w3.org/TR/wot-thing-description11/#multilanguage)
[33]Sebastian's comment
[33] https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues/983#issuecomment-733812960
Issue 977
[34]Issue 977
[34] https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues/977
Sebastian: the IP address where the TD comes from
McCool: model is meant to be more abstract
... directory entry for discovery needed
Ege: IP address possibly changes based on the environment for
mobile usage, etc.
McCool: maybe you could describe the device itself
... would suggest we write up a use case for that
Kaz: agree we should generate a use case description about this
... related to how to deal with session lifecycle
McCool: two possible issues
... no IP address
... and change of IP address
Kaz: no IP address specification for Thing Model may imply
dynamic address assignment
... there are several possible settings
[35]updated comment
[35] https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues/977#issuecomment-733824110
Issue 1005
[36]Issue 1005
[36] https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues/1005
Sebastian: some of the combinations should be prohibited
... e.g., both readOnly and writeOnly as "true"
McCool: maybe JSONSchema guys know how to avoid it
Koster: should be compatible with oneDM
McCool: readable/writable would be clearer
Sebastian: (adds Henry Andrews for JSON Schema and Mchael
Koster for SDF)
[37]updated comment
[37] https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues/1005#issuecomment-733829256
[adjourned]
Summary of Action Items
Summary of Resolutions
[End of minutes]
__________________________________________________________
Minutes formatted by David Booth's [38]scribe.perl version
1.152 ([39]CVS log)
$Date: 2020/12/16 08:15:23 $
[38] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
[39] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Wednesday, 16 December 2020 08:17:58 UTC