- 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