- From: Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2021 21:42:13 +0900
- To: public-wot-wg@w3.org
available at: https://www.w3.org/2021/01/18-wot-discovery-minutes.html also as text below. Thanks a lot for takng the minutes, Christiano! Kazuyuki --- [1]W3C [1] https://www.w3.org/ WoT Discovery 18 January 2021 [2]Agenda. [3]IRC log. [2] https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/WG_WoT_Discovery_WebConf#18_January_2021 [3] https://www.w3.org/2021/01/18-wot-discovery-irc Attendees Present Andrea_Cimmino, Christian_Glomb, Christine_Perey, Cristiano_Aguzzi, Farshid_Tavakolizadeh, Kaz_Ashimura, Kunihiko_Toumura, Michael_McCool, Tomoaki_Mizushima Regrets - Chair McCool Scribe cris Contents 1. [4]Guests 2. [5]Schedule and publication requirements 3. [6]Joint meeting on AR use cases 4. [7]Issue 54 5. [8]PR 110 6. [9]PR 109 7. [10]PR 107 Meeting minutes Guests Kaz: we have Christine as a guest Schedule and publication requirements McCool: about implementation report do you need it before PR transition? Kaz: yes, we need implementation plan the report for PR but we need to provide the implementation report plan including the assertions for CR. McCool: (noting down deadlines in the agenda) <McCool> [11]Thing Description implementation report [11] https://w3c.github.io/wot-thing-description/testing/report.html McCool: (showing example of an implementation report) McCool: I have to deal with the fact that need to generate test cases for our assertions McCool: failures are not a big problem as long as we have a least two passing implementations. McCool: some features cannot be test automatically. Manual assertion cover this use-case. Implementers just state that they comply with a particular feature of the specification Farshid: could we maybe script all of this tests? maybe with Github Actions? McCool: you can't always test all the assertion in the specification. However automated testes are useful. We can talk about it. First I'll try to adapt the work done in TD assertion testing. … the next plug fest is a good place to start talking about how to improve our testing workflow McCool: last year we prepared a list of failing tests as a implementation plan Farshid: for linksmart thing directory we have already a bunch of unit tests. Also the APIs are covered Joint meeting on AR use cases <kaz> [12]Issue 955 on the joint meeting about AR use cases [12] https://github.com/w3c/wot/issues/955 McCool: tomorrow we'll have a meeting with Spatial Data on the Web IG McCool: there's a meeting link in issue 955 of wot repository Christine: which IRC channel should we use? McCool: I'll propose wot-uc Christine: agree McCool: this meeting is more on AR … Christine brought up differences in how geospatial queries are done in AR … I hope to discuss about it tomorrow … by the way AR = Augmented Reality. Digital objects are overlaid on a real world video … about the Geolocation queries I was thinking about a point-radius method. … but in AR field of view is more relevant Christine: It is important to instruct users where is the device. (i.e., device behind you; turn around to interact) Christine: we use the terms of 6 degree of freedom when we are referring to if the user can look up or down. … body area networks have tons use-cases in industrial use-cases McCool: it is the problem of the "semantic" locations (i.e., arm, leg, living room...) McCool: ideally there are two orthogonal problems. Geospatial should work regardless "semantic" locations. Kaz: robotics and Autonomous vehicles are typical use-cases. McCool: I'll catch more input tomorrow and I report them in a PR or document. McCool: any other issues to discuss? Farshid: there're some comments Issue 54 <kaz> [13]Issue 54 - Need to define the added Directory TD vocabulary [13] https://github.com/w3c/wot-discovery/issues/54 McCool: issue #54 McCool: terms for TD should go to the Thing Description document Farshid: should we had to the TD context … or another context? McCool: it should be another context Cristiano: I agree McCool: (capturing the statement in a comment) McCool: we can close combo scheme issue McCool: I am currently working other PRs for security. I worked also for alternateResposes. McCool: about #43, how to identify a directory from a TD? <kaz> [14]Issue 43 - Define the WoT-Directory type somewhere (eg in new version of context, in 1.1) [14] https://github.com/w3c/wot-discovery/issues/43 McCool: we could check a context file used … but it is a bit implicit. it is better to use the type keyword … we could use both. … but it doesn't stop others to use our terms for their goals … I prefer to move the type to the core TD vocabulary. Cristiano: my point is that we need the context file anyway McCool: probably is best to talk with TD task force McCool: I'll cross reference the isse there Farshid: remember that we need a type for links. McCool: is there an issue about this topic? Farshid: yes it is. <kaz> [15]Issue 54 [15] https://github.com/w3c/wot-discovery/issues/54 McCool: any more issues to be linked in the issue? Farshid: yeah the full list is already in the first issue <kaz> [16]TD Issue 1033 - Consider defining additional vocabulary supporting Discovery [16] https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues/1033 PR 110 <kaz> [17]PR 110 - Update README.md to point at WOT-Usecases repo [17] https://github.com/w3c/wot-discovery/pull/110 McCool: we have a PR from Christine. However, she hasn't the permission to contribute McCool: We'll ping sebastian to propose her as an Invited expert PR 109 <kaz> [18]PR 109 - Correct combo scheme [18] https://github.com/w3c/wot-discovery/pull/109 Farshid: #109 just a minor edit McCool: it is fine, merged PR 107 <kaz> [19]PR 107 - Update SPARQL DDoS ed note [19] https://github.com/w3c/wot-discovery/pull/107 McCool: #107 needs more discussion <kaz> [adjourned] Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by [20]scribe.perl version 127 (Wed Dec 30 17:39:58 2020 UTC). [20] https://w3c.github.io/scribe2/scribedoc.html
Received on Monday, 15 February 2021 12:42:22 UTC