- From: Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2020 17:22:50 +0900
- To: public-wot-wg@w3.org
available at:
https://www.w3.org/2020/12/02-wot-td-minutes.html
also as text below.
Thanks a lot for taking the notes, Ege!
Kazuyuki
---
[1]W3C
[1] http://www.w3.org/
WoT-WG - TD-TF
02 Dec 2020
[2]Agenda
[2] https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/WG_WoT_Thing_Description_WebConf#December_2.2C_2020
Attendees
Present
Kaz_Ashimura, Daniel_Peintner, Michael_McCool,
Taki_Kamiya, Sebastian_Kaebisch, Ege_Korkan,
Tomoaki_Mizushima
Regrets
Michael_Lagally
Chair
Sebastian
Scribe
kaz, Ege
Contents
* [3]Topics
1. [4]Plans for the next calls
2. [5]Prev minutes
3. [6]Defer issues to TD 2.0
4. [7]Issue 1011 and PR 1013
5. [8]PR 1013
6. [9]Issue 1003 and PR 1012
7. [10]Issue 950 and PR 995
8. [11]Remaining issues
9. [12]Issue 890 - Consider adding keyword to describe
synchronous actions
10. [13]Issue 1010 -
https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues/10
10
11. [14]Issue 1007 -
https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues/10
07
* [15]Summary of Action Items
* [16]Summary of Resolutions
__________________________________________________________
<kaz> scribenick: kaz
Plans for the next calls
Sebastian: we'll have a call on 9th and 16th
... then may skip 23rd
Daniel: Scripting do the same
Sebastian: Dec 30 and Jan 6 will be cancelled
Prev minutes
[17]Nov-25
[17] https://www.w3.org/2020/11/25-wot-td-minutes.html
Sebastian: (goes through the minutes)
... any objections to approve them?
(none)
(approved)
[18]Nov-18
[18] https://www.w3.org/2020/11/18-wot-td-minutes.html
Sebastian: (goes through the minutes)
... any objections to approve them?
(approved)
Defer issues to TD 2.0
[19]possible issues to be deferred to 2.0
[19] https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues?q=is:issue+is:open+label:"Defer+to+TD+2.0"
Sebastian: those are the issues can't be solved for 1.1
... would break the compatibility with 1.0
... for example, issue 803 should be deferred
[20]Issue 803
[20] https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues/803
Sebastian: if you think some of them should be addressed for
1.1, please let me know
... will continue to review the remaining issue and identify
which to be deferred to 2.0
Issue 1011 and PR 1013
PR 1013
[21]Issue 1011
[21] https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues/1011
Sebastian: "5.4" appears twice within the title of section 5.4
[22]PR 1013
[22] https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/pull/1013
Sebastian: PR 1013 fixes the Issue 1011
Daniel: there was a section number of "5.4" directly put there,
so removed it
Sebastian: any objections?
(none)
(merged)
(Issue 1011 also closed)
Issue 1003 and PR 1012
[23]Issue 1003
[23] https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues/1003
[24]PR 1012 which fixes Issue 1003
[24] https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/pull/1012
Sebastian: merged 1012
... and closed Issue 1003
Issue 950 and PR 995
[25]Issue 950
[25] https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues/950
[26]PR 995 which fixed Issue 950
[26] https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/pull/995
Sebastian: (goes through the PR)
... (also quickly skim the preview)
... merges PR 995
... and closed Issue 950
Remaining issues
Issue 890 - Consider adding keyword to describe synchronous actions
[27]Issue 890
[27] https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues/890
Sebastian: (goes through the issue)
McCool: need to handle error response
Ege: got a comment from Ben Francis too
[28]Ben's comments
[28] https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues/890#issuecomment-616682122
Kaz: would agree Ben and think adding synchronization
capability to TD would be too much
... maybe we could reuse the existing synchronizing mechanism
Ege: this use case itself is just discussing synchronous
invocation vs asynchronous
Kaz: if we use asynchronous mechanism, we need to manage the
time synchronization of each data communication
<McCool> (note that "synchronous" just means that response
happens only after action is complete, and can include
success/failure in that response)
Kaz: I do understand the point "here" is not time
synchronization
... however, if we provide asynchronous invoking of a Thing, we
should provide additional time synchronization capability to
mashup multiple Things in the end
McCool: it's important to think about the ordering of actions
Kaz: yeah, at least we should provide some mechanism to manage
the order of expected invocations
Sebastian: in that case, can you create another issue on that
viewpoint, Kaz?
Kaz: will do
<scribe> ACTION: kaz to create another issue on management of
the order of events/invocations (possibly time synchronization
in the end)
Sebastian: your assumption is many IoT use cases would require
asynchronous communication?
Ege: right
Sebastian: I asked about that because we need to see which
communication pattern is really needed
... maybe we should ask Michael Lagally about Oracle Cloud as
well
McCool: we should make asynchronous default
Kaz: but it depends on the protocols' capability
... UDP-based protocols would allow it
... but how to handle it with HTTP-based protocols?
Ege: would cause a timeout
McCool: we need to come back to how to handle the errors
Sebastian: seems it would be useful to have the capability of
"asynchronous" itself
... but how to deal with it?
... Ege, can you work on a PR?
... maybe together with Lagally?
Ege: ok
<scribe> scribenick: Ege
Issue 1010 -
[29]https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues/1010
[29] https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues/1010
Sebastian: Do you want to add exclusiveMaximum as well
Ege: not really, but they just exist in JSON Schema
Sebastian: They exist in XML Schema as well? but are not
heavily used
McCool: Also mathematically, these terms are inclusive
... Not sure about how much exclusiveMin/Max are used
... We should update our definitions to be aligned with JSON
Schema
Daniel: I think that the overhead from our side to add
exclusive min max is not high
Sebastian: Not sure if there is enough interest in this
Daniel: But what happens when the models exist elsewhere?
[30]http://json-schema.org/understanding-json-schema/reference/
numeric.html
[30] http://json-schema.org/understanding-json-schema/reference/numeric.html
at the end of this
McCool: I am for including this term
Sebastian: any objections to include it?
(no objections)
Ege: The older versions have boolean for exlusive min max
McCool: How do we handle versions of JSON Schema
... what if they include breaking changes
Ege: There is a breaking change regarding items
McCool: Could you create an issue?
Ege: yes creating now
Sebastian: So we should clarify this in the 1.1
Issue 1007 -
[31]https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues/1007
[31] https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues/1007
<kaz> [32]5.3.2.4 NumberSchema
[32] https://w3c.github.io/wot-thing-description/#numberschema
<inserted> scribenick: kaz
McCool: we've been discussing canonicalization during the
discovery calls
... wondering about if the framing discussion would be useful
to this issue
Sebastian: what would be the concrete proposal here?
Ege: remove the word "Only" here
Sebastian: ok
Kaz: removing "Only" from all of "minimum", "maximum" and
"multipleOf" here?
Ege: yes, all of them related to IntegerSchema
Kaz: but that means they would be applicable to the other types
as well
... is that OK?
... also removing "Only" from all the definitions at 5.3.2.4,
5.3.2.5 and 5.3.2.7?
Ege: yes
Kaz: however, would it be really the right thing for us to
remove "only" here for the Thing Description as a
specification?
McCool: the generator should be strict and the parser should
allow it
... technically, we should use different terms to avoid the
problem with the parser
Kaz: yeah
... given the time, let's talk about this next week again
Sebastian: would like to see the backward compatibility too
[adjourned]
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: kaz to create another issue on management of the
order of events/invocations (possibly time synchronization in
the end)
Summary of Resolutions
[End of minutes]
__________________________________________________________
Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by
David Booth's [33]scribe.perl version ([34]CVS log)
$Date: 2020/12/16 08:19:16 $
[33] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
[34] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Wednesday, 16 December 2020 08:22:55 UTC