[wot-discovery] minutes - 11 January 2020

available at:
  https://www.w3.org/2021/01/11-wot-discovery-minutes.html

also as text below.

Thanks a lot for taking the minutes, Farshid!

Kazuyuki

---
   [1]W3C

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

                             WoT Discovery

11 January 2021

   [2]IRC log.

      [2] https://www.w3.org/2021/01/11-wot-discovery-irc

Attendees

   Present
          Andrea_Cimmino, Christian_Glomb, Cristiano_Aguzzi,
          Farshid_Tavakolizadeh, Jack_Dickinson, Kaz_Ashimura,
          Kunihiko_Toumura, Michael_Koster, Tomoaki_Mizushima,
          Christine_Perey

   Regrets
          McCool

   Chair
          Kaz

   Scribe
          FarshidT, kaz

Contents

    1. [3]Guests
    2. [4]Prev minutes
    3. [5]PR 108
    4. [6]joint call with the Spatial Data on the Web
    5. [7]PR 107
    6. [8]Issue 98
    7. [9]Issue 34
    8. [10]Issue 104

Meeting minutes

  Guests

   <kaz> (Christine is a guest today, and Kaz confirms she is
   aware of the PP)

  Prev minutes

   [11]Jan-4

     [11] https://www.w3.org/2021/01/04-wot-discovery-minutes.html

   no objections to publishing the minutes

   approved

  PR 108

   [12]PR 108 - apply the diff with the FPWD version

     [12] https://github.com/w3c/wot-discovery/pull/108

   Kaz: objections to merge this?

   (none)

   (merged)

  joint call with the Spatial Data on the Web

   Kaz: joint call with the SDW-IG/AR next Monday, Jan 18
   … the Discovery call

   <kaz> Sorry but actually the joint call will be held Tuesday,
   Jan 19 at 11am US Eastern as a separate call

   <kaz> Please see also [13]Kaz's message sent to the Members
   list for the meeting details

     [13] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-wot-wg/2021Jan/0007.html

  PR 107

   [14]https://github.com/w3c/wot-discovery/pull/107 - Update
   SPARQL DDoS ed note

     [14] https://github.com/w3c/wot-discovery/pull/107

   Kaz: will wait for McCool to address Andrea's concern

  Issue 98

   [15]https://github.com/w3c/wot-discovery/issues/98 - Need
   information model for directory

     [15] https://github.com/w3c/wot-discovery/issues/98

   Farshid: we suppose to confirm which proposal is more
   preferable

   Farshid: some people have already voted

   Cristiano: what information will be included? Will it be
   standardized?

   Farshid: it will be just registration data. We can decide later
   if this will be mandatory.

   Andrea: can we extend the model to include metadata for
   filtering items?

   Farshid: we have the type for "Directory" but not yet added to
   TD context. See [16]https://github.com/w3c/wot-discovery/
   issues/54

     [16] https://github.com/w3c/wot-discovery/issues/54

   Cristiano: it may be better to define a separate context for
   TDD instead of adding the class or other vocab to TD's context

   Kaz: Farshid, can you generate a PR for this?

   Farshid: would like to think about Issue 34 on links as well

  Issue 34

   <kaz> [17]Issue 34 - Add links section to directory information
   model

     [17] https://github.com/w3c/wot-discovery/issues/34

   Farshid: need to pick an appropriate relation type

   Farshid: e.g., describedby from [18]https://www.iana.org/
   assignments/link-relations/link-relations.xhtml

     [18] https://www.iana.org/assignments/link-relations/link-relations.xhtml

   Koster: we could pick a registered type, e.g., describedby

   Koster: i think there is a type for collections which may be a
   good option

   Kaz: if we define this, we need to make sure other processors
   understand it

   Farshid: will create a PR including the link and TD models
   inside TDD. Will use describedby relation type instead of
   furtherExploration as it is registered.

   <cris_> +1 for Koster's proposal. collection rel type fits well
   in my opinion

   Koster: allowing multiple relation types is a good idea and
   very useful in directories. It also relieves us from the burden
   of trying to choose one.

   Kaz: I agree.

   Kaz: we can go with describedby and then look into alternatives
   such as "collection" and "item" based on some concrete use case
   and flow.

   Koster: describedby is intended for pointing to another
   resource, describing a resource through certain mean. It could
   even be pointing to some openapi spec.

   Farshid: we can combine it with the content type to specify how
   the resource is described.

   Koster: I agree, the generic describedby relation type can be
   used appropriately in different use cases.

  Issue 104

   <kaz> [19]Issue 104 - Canonicalization requirements for
   directories

     [19] https://github.com/w3c/wot-discovery/issues/104

   Andrea: we don't have an appropriate framing document. Have
   reached out to Sebastian and he is looking into it.

   Cristiano: have you tried to implement anything to address
   framing?

   <kaz> [20]Andrea's updated comments

     [20] https://github.com/w3c/wot-discovery/issues/104

   Andrea: i am experimenting. I have tried a JSON-LD 1.1 library
   and got some input from the maintainers of that library.

   Andrea: the problem is not the conversion, but the lack of the
   frame to do it.

   Kaz: maybe talking with the DID-WG guys would be helpful given
   the JSON-LD WG is in a maintenance mode.

   Kaz: let's continue the discussion during the next Discovery
   call and also possibly during the TD call.

   [adjourned]


    Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by
    [21]scribe.perl version 127 (Wed Dec 30 17:39:58 2020 UTC).

     [21] https://w3c.github.io/scribe2/scribedoc.html

Received on Monday, 15 February 2021 12:38:11 UTC