W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wot-wg@w3.org > February 2020

[TD-TF] mintues - 14 February 2020

From: Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2020 19:53:00 +0900
Message-ID: <87blpogstv.wl-ashimura@w3.org>
To: public-wot-wg@w3.org
available at:

also as text below.

Thanks a lot for taking the minutes, Daniel!



      [1] http://www.w3.org/

                               - DRAFT -

                             WoT-WG - TD-TF

14 Feb 2020


      [2] https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/WG_WoT_Thing_Description_WebConf#Agenda


          Kaz_Ashimura, Taki_Kamiya, Ege_Korkan, Michael_Lagally,
          Tomoaki_Mizushima, Zoltan_Kis, Daniel_Peintner



          kaz, dape


     * [3]Topics
         1. [4]Previous minutes
         2. [5]Virtual f2f
         3. [6]PRs
         4. [7]Issues
         5. [8]Issue
         6. [9]Issue
         7. [10]Issue
         8. [11]Binding templates
     * [12]Summary of Action Items
     * [13]Summary of Resolutions

   <kaz> scribenick: kaz

Previous minutes

   [14]Feb-7 minutes

     [14] https://www.w3.org/2020/02/07-wot-td-minutes.html

   Taki: no problem, so let's approve the minutes

Virtual f2f

   [15]virtual f2f wiki

     [15] https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/F2F_meeting,_16-19_March_2020,_Online

   Taki: the basic schedule discussed
   ... tentatively, March 17 9am EST


   [16]PR 879

     [16] https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/pull/879

   Ege: typo within the schema definition at Appendix B
   ... "subProtocol" to be fixed as "subprotocol"

   Taki: (goes through the changes)
   ... can we fix it?

   Kaz: given it's typo fixing, we should do it

   Taki: any objections?


   Taki: (merges PR 879)

   [17]PR 872

     [17] https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/pull/872

   Kaz: I gave a comment, and the ReSpec developers have updated
   their PR and propose to fix the index.template.html instead of
   ... on the other hand, we might want to concentrate on the
   static HTML version without ReSpec for upcoming REC
   publication, and apply this change to the 2nd-gen spec

   Taki: right
   ... (adds a comment about our plan)

   Daniel: what do you mean by the "Recommendation" and "next

   Kaz: I think we should think about how to manage the HTML
   source for the new specs as well as this ReSpec issue
   ... possibly we can continue to use the current
   "wot-thing-description" for ver. 2.0 (or ver. 1.1)
   ... but it might be clearer to use another repo like
   "wot-thing-description-11" or "wot-thing-desription-20"
   ... can create a GitHub issue about that point

   Lagally: wondering about the effect for the Architecture

   Daniel: seems no effect to "wot-architecture" (URL below)


     [18] https://respec-preview.netlify.com/?spec=https://w3c.github.io/wot-architecture/&version=https://unpkg.com/respec@25.0.0/builds/respec-w3c-common.js


   [19]Issue 878

     [19] https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues/878

   Ege: Initial connection
   ... MQTT or AMQP has some specific assumption of connection to
   a broker
   ... while websockets not
   ... how can we describe it?

   Lagally: does this kind of connection happen each time?

   Ege: if you change the network, socket connection is destroyed

   Lagally: asking about the context of lifecycle
   ... we need to consider that
   ... the term and concept of "session" is important here
   ... there could be multiple sessions

   Zoltan: can we describe the expected action for each case?

   Kaz: I think we should clarify the use cases and the
   requirements within the Binding TF a bit more
   ... maybe we should think about the binding template part and
   the TD part separately
   ... we should clarify how to deal with sessions using various
   connection protocols first
   ... and then think about how to map them with TD's interaction

   Ege: yeah

   Taki: there are possibly many ways to describe it
   ... so we should think about which would be the best

   Daniel: we have some freedom here
   ... so let's pick websocket as an example

   Kaz: this discussion is related to the lifecycle state
   transition discussion during the architecture call

   Lagally: yeah, would help us understand it more if we think
   about this during the next architecture call

   Kaz: we should describe some specific use case for that

   Lagally: Ege, do you think you could describe concrete sequence
   diagram for that discussion?

   Ege: yes, will do

   Kaz: and can you join the next architecture call?

   Lagally: every Thursday, 8am/5pm CET

   Ege: ok, will join the 5pm CET session then

   [20]Issue 854

     [20] https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues/854

   Taki: read-only/write-only behavior
   ... wanted to check the status of this issue
   ... the text referred to might be a bit obsolete?

   Lagally: the language is not really precise, is it?
   ... "state must be retrievable"

   Taki: the latest draft just have "writeOnly"
   ... but it's true the current statement "This state can then be
   retrieved (read) and optionally updated (write)." implies both
   read and write

   Lagally: we could be more explicit

   Taki: (adds comments to Issue 854)

   Kaz: just a quick question
   ... what should we do when we want to prohibit the property to
   be even retrieved?

   Taki: that is the intention of "writeOnly"

   Kaz: can we use "unobserveproperty", for example?

   Daniel: "observeproperty" and "readproperty" are different

   Lagally: maybe we might want to clarify the mechanism here

   Zoltan: theoretically we should have all of "readable",
   "writable" and "observable" separately
   ... we had them separately at some point but may have been


     [21] https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues/810

   Ege: related issue 810 above

   Taki: please create a new issue about your point, Kaz

   Kaz: will do

   <scribe> ACTION: kaz to create a new issue on how to
   permit/prohibit reading property

   <scribe> scribenick: dape

Issue [22]https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues/302

     [22] https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues/302

   Taki: Any update?
   ... last week we were asked to create use-cases
   ... ML provided uses cases as well as Ege
   ... issue with synchronous vs. asynchronous
   ... suggest to continue discussion on Github

Issue [23]https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues/875

     [23] https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues/875

   Taki: talked about it last week also
   ... relates to scripting API. issue 193
   ... we still need to describe it in TD spec
   ... suggest to continue the discussion on Github to finalize
   the solution

Issue [24]https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues/877

     [24] https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues/877

   Taki: about "desired" form
   ... recent comment about NOT changing form entry order

   Zoltan: MMC said that clients can choose form, however
   implementation should not change order to allow for later to
   introduce this mechanism
   ... implicit policy to pick first in order
   ... should there be a text in TD describing such a policy?

   Taki: Open question

   Zoltan: Such a text is not limiting, client can still choose
   either one

Binding templates


     [25] https://github.com/w3c/wot-binding-templates/issues/92

   Ege: would like to discuss
   ... talks about next protocol. Feedback from more people would
   be needed
   ... I listed some "possible" protocols
   ... Besides that no big items to work on
   ... would work on some updates

     [26] https://github.com/w3c/wot-binding-templates/issues/92

   Taki: Fujitsu would like to see work on Echonet

   Ege: Great. Could you/Matsukura-San add comment

   Taki: Yes, will check internally and leave comment

   Ege: My interest is ROS
   ... middleware for robots (XML RPC)
   ... API is specific with subprotocol
   ... OPC-UA, there is binding coming for node-wot

   Daniel: Suggest talking with MCCool and Zoltan about OCF

   Ege: open issue in Bindings with describing payload of specific
   ... e.g. Ikea and OCF
   ... No 'real' news/updates besides MQTT issues
   ... propose and request input for issue 92
   ... CBOR issue in node-wot seems related

   Daniel: Yes, ROS and XML is good example

   Taki: Question: We published Binding templates W3C note. Going
   forward do we continue to update the note?

   Ege: Yes

   Taki: My concern is that updating document, looking at TD
   version 1.1, do we link snapshot?

   Daniel: using dated URI


     [27] https://www.w3.org/TR/2020/NOTE-wot-binding-templates-20200130/

   Taki: I see, should make sure TD uses this URIs. Thanks!

   Ege: Everyone, please prvide input to issue #92

   <kaz> [adjourned]

Summary of Action Items

   [NEW] ACTION: kaz to create a new issue on how to
   permit/prohibit reading property

Summary of Resolutions

   [End of minutes]

    Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by
    David Booth's [28]scribe.perl version 1.154 ([29]CVS log)
    $Date: 2020/02/17 09:20:42 $

     [28] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
     [29] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Monday, 24 February 2020 10:53:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Monday, 24 February 2020 10:53:10 UTC