W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wot-wg@w3.org > July 2021

[TD-TF] minutes - 28 April 2021

From: Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2021 16:54:24 +0900
Message-ID: <87o8b82ci7.wl-ashimura@w3.org>
To: public-wot-wg@w3.org
available at:
  https://www.w3.org/2021/04/28-wot-td-minutes.html


also as text below.

Thanks a lot for taking the minutes, Michael McCool!

Kazuyuki

---
   [1]W3C

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


                             íV DRAFT íV
                             WoT-WG - TD-TF

28 April 2021

   [2]Agenda. [3]IRC log.

      [2] https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/WG_WoT_Thing_Description_WebConf#Apr_28.2C_2021

      [3] https://www.w3.org/2021/04/28-wot-td-irc


Attendees

   Present
          Cristiano_Aguzzi, Daniel_Peintner, Ege_Korkan,
          Kaz_Ashimura, Michael_Koster, Michael_McCool,
          Sebastian_Kaebisch, Tomoaki_Mizushima, Victor_Charpenay

   Regrets
          -

   Chair
          Sebastian

   Scribe
          McCool

Contents

    1. [4]Agenda
    2. [5]review minutes Apr 21
    3. [6]publication plan
    4. [7]PRs
         1. [8]PR 1077
         2. [9]PR 1095
         3. [10]PR 1098
         4. [11]PR 1099
         5. [12]PR 1102
         6. [13]PR 1103
         7. [14]PR 1104
         8. [15]PR 1108
         9. [16]PR 1109
        10. [17]PR 1110
        11. [18]PR 1111
        12. [19]PR 1113

Meeting minutes

  Agenda

   Sebastian: main task today will be preparing for our TD 1.1 WD
   update

  review minutes Apr 21

   <kaz> -> https

   [20]https://www.w3.org/2021/04/21-wot-td-minutes.html Apr-21

     [20] https://www.w3.org/2021/04/21-wot-td-minutes.html


   Sebastian: was canonicalization merged?

   McCool: yes, but were some minor issues, so I made issues and a
   PR to address some of them

   Sebastian: what about validation?

   McCool: validation still WIP, will really only finalize after
   testfest when we are sure what can be automatically tested

   Sebastian: any objections to publishing the minutes?
   íK no objections, will publish.

  publication plan

   Sebastian: still have one week to bring in new features, then
   will be making call for review
   íK aiming for resolution on May 19 for a new WD

  PRs

    PR 1077

   [21]PR 1077 - WIP: Extend JSON-LD context to allow for
   round-tripping to/from N-Triples

     [21] https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/pull/1077


   Sebastian: what is status?

   Victor: still in progree

   Sebastian: think it can be finished by next week?

   Victor: maybe
   íK no impact on the draft itself; is ontology work

   McCool: would be useful to have framing normative for
   directories

   Victor: what is being frozen this week?

   McCool: discovery is not frozen yet, the WD is just an update
   íK also, JTD, just published, is a good place to direct testing
   for framing

   McCool: see also some issues about array ordering being
   maintained
   íK please look at new assertions on TD Processors in
   Canonicalization section

    PR 1095

   [22]https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/pull/1095 PR
   1095 - Two step generation of the TD from a TM

     [22] https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/pull/1095


   generation of TD from TM

   Sebastian: created a set of assertions for each step

   McCool: note that we need two implementations for everything...

   Cristiano: have tried to frame this process so we can test the
   output
   íK don't force implementers to actually use the two-step
   approach

   McCool: is everything testable with JSON Schema?

   Cristiano: not sure, the "extends" relation may be tricky
   íK also, last step about filling in forms may be difficult

   McCool: also security; "securityDefinitions" might be defined
   separately, then combined with the TM to create the TD (by
   selecting security scheme definitions for each interaction)

   McCool: I see though that the wording is based on the output,
   so...

   McCool: I find "complemented" a little vague, but will have to
   think if there is better wording that would be more specific

   Sebastian: still this is a big improvement over the current
   draft

   Sebastian: suggest we merge and iterate

   McCool: also ok with that

   Cristiano: however some issues with running the renderer... CLI
   does not quite work
   íK opened issue #18 on vc's repo

   Sebastian: ok, will merge

    PR 1098

   [23]PR 1098 - Fix multiple TD model definitions

     [23] https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/pull/1095


   Sebastian: this fixes various things that suddenly became
   arrays, base went missing, securityDefinitions missing,
   security changed to an object instead of a string, etc.
   íK so this PR brought back all these missing definitions

   McCool: can confirm that security and securityDefinitions are
   now correct

   McCool: +1 on merging, critical for other things I want to get
   done...

   Sebastian: merging

   McCool: would be nice btw to have a directory structure that
   clearly distinguished input and output files

   Victor: are comments in the render script

    PR 1099

   [24]PR 1099 - fix: default op values for HTTP

     [24] https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/pull/1099


   added readOnly to the example

   the HTTP protocol binding, simplifies things

   McCool: see ege has reviewed

   Sebastian: merged

    PR 1102

   [25]PR 1102 - Update Terminology Section

     [25] https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/pull/1102


   mention Thing Model, Partial TD, etc: say definitions are
   defined in Arch document, and removes it from TD spec, so there
   is a single place where the definition is made, in Architecture

   McCool: I think the future we should get rid of the etc.

   Sebastian: agree

   McCool: ok for now, though

   Sebastian: let's edit it and remove the etc. now; also need to
   resolve conflict

   Sebastian: (fixes both problems)

   Daniel: should terms be in lexi order?

   Sebastian: semantic clustering seems to work better, will leave
   it that way
   íK conflict was just about introduction of Thing Model,
   resolved.

   Sebastian: merged

    PR 1103

   [26]https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/pull/1103 PR
   1103 - Introduce Thing Icon

     [26] https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/pull/1103


   Sebastian: updates relation type with new entry, "icon"
   íK and it is an IANA name
   íK also added tm: to tm:extends
   íK also new entry in Links, "sizes", to give different sizes for
   icons; sim to HTML

   McCool: HeightxWidth should be Height x Width
   íK or maybe {Height}x{Width}

   Sebastian: can make that edit...

   Sebastian: seems I also forgot to edit the template... (fixes)
   íK never mind the definition needs to be edited in the ontology,
   not the template...
   íK and the validation...
   íK (done)
   íK there is a conflict, but is index.html, not critical
   (generated)

   Sebastian: merged

   Cristiano: should we be adding some validation about this to
   the JSON schema, e.g. for sizes?

   Sebastian: that would be nice

   Cristiano: I will try to update the JSON schema appropriately

   Sebastian: coordinate with Ege

   McCool: may need to add some tests

    PR 1104

   [27]PR 1104 - Address multiple DataSchema issues

     [27] https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/pull/1104


   Sebastian: no pattern, and also a bug (maxLength should apply
   only to strings)

   Sebastian: discussion related to general compatibility with
   JSON schema; should we have full compatibility?
   íK right now we cover most/all of it
   íK not far away from full compliance

   Ege: I will look into it, I also don't think it's a lot

   McCool: I think we should specify the DATE at which we were
   aligned, and the exceptions (eg no support for $ref, etc)

   Sebastian: also we use "default"...

   McCool: not clear if "default" is now in the JSON Schema spec;
   perhaps Ege can check while he is doing the feature review

   <Ege> [28]https://tools.ietf.org/html/

   draft-handrews-json-schema-validation-01#section-10.2

     [28] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-handrews-json-schema-validation-01#section-10.2


   Ege: default is in the JSON Schema spec, but is an annotation

   <Ege> [29]https://tools.ietf.org/html/

   draft-handrews-json-schema-validation-01

     [29] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-handrews-json-schema-validation-01


   McCool: also, are we citing the IETF (draft) version?
   íK we need to pick a specific version and make sure our
   reference is correct

   Sebastian: ok, let's collect fixes and discuss merging next
   time

   note this PR addresses multiple issues

   Sebastian: also some issues about subset of JSON schema used,
   and whether additional terms can be used from JSON Schema; but
   without a prefix

   McCool: I wonder if we should allow random vocab without a
   prefix
   íK if we insisted on having a prefix, then the validator could
   catch spelling mistakes, e.g. property/properties

   Ege: we allowed extra stuff because lots of JSON Schemas have
   extra stuff in them that are not in the JSON Schema spec

   Kaz: technically, all the additional properties other than the
   default namespace should be specified by the additional
   namespaces, e.g., JSON Schema. Also we should refer to the
   following latest IETF draft for JSON Schema Validation from TD.

   <kaz> [30]latest IETF draft for JSON Schema Validation (2020)

     [30] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bhutton-json-schema-validation-00


   McCool: perhaps tools can have strict mode, but can turn off in
   case of extra stuff in schemas

   Sebastian: there is another issue about "format" being removed
   from JSON Schema
   íK do we remove it from TD spec?

   Ege: ok if stick to particular version
   íK there is also an issue with items

   McCool: think we should stick to one version for 1.x, and
   update version in 2.0
   íK could mark "format" as deprecated though

   Koster: we also should update the ontology; unfortunately JSON
   Schema does not provide an official ontology

   Sebastian: suggest thinking more about this and will check next
   week

    PR 1108

   [31]PR 1108 - consumer forms selection

     [31] https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/pull/1108


   Sebastian: how to deal with multiple forms. Added a paragraph
   providing guidance: pick one that works, use it as long as
   possible

   Sebastian: merged

    PR 1109

   [32]PR 1109 - restrict more uri variables

     [32] https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/pull/1109


   Sebastian: need to restrict URL for simple types

   Sebastian: forbids use of objects and arrays

   McCool: I had some minor nits, would rather see a class for
   "SimpleDataSchema", but having a comment is better than nothing

    PR 1110

   [33]PR 1110 - Add contentType default to canonicalization
   examples

     [33] https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/pull/1110


   McCool: fixes bug in example, "contentType" has a default so
   needs to be included in canonical form

    PR 1111

   <kaz> [34]PR 1111 - Add fracsec rule to dateTime in Canonical
   TD

     [34] https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/pull/1111


   [35]https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/pull/1111


     [35] https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/pull/1111


   this means that fractional seconds must be serialized according
   to JCS and must not have trailing zeros

    PR 1113

   [36]PR 1113 - add tm:required and tm:ref generation

     [36] https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/pull/1113


   Ege: worked on tm:ref and tm:required

   Ege: examples are only for interactions; can it be used
   elsewhere?

   McCool: an example might be to have a TM with
   securityDefinitions that I can pull in...

   Sebastian: in SDF, can it be used everywhere?

   Koster: yes, it can be used everywhere, but the resulting
   object needs to be valid, i.e. you need to bring in an Object
   where and Object is expected

   McCool: what about pulling in same thing twice? Do we pull in
   refs and then validate?

   Koster: could have overrides

   McCool: think we should have a general assertion that the
   result of dereferencing tm:refs should result in a valid file
   (TM or TD)

   McCool: we could have simple rule that duplicates are not
   allowed
   íK could also do overriding, but more complicated to define

   McCool: what is SDF rule?

   Koster: overriding. new duplicate definitions replace existing
   ones
   íK but also say "meaning should not be changed"
   íK which is hard to test, so more user-beware

   Ege: also validation is an issue
   íK format for json-pointer not quite right

   McCool: really need a URL with a json-pointer as a fragment
   identifier

   <Ege> [37]https://w3c.github.io/

   wot-thing-description/#objectschema

     [37] https://w3c.github.io/wot-thing-description/#objectschema


   McCool: perhaps can use a pattern like "{url} # json-pointer"

   Sebastian: hard to understand

   McCool: think we just need an informative paragraph explaining
   how it works

   Sebastian: ok, added some notes to the PR

   <sebastian> [38]https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/

   issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3A%22PR+needed%22

     [38] https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues?q=is:issue+is:open+label:"PR+needed"

   [adjourned]


    Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by
    [39]scribe.perl version 131 (Sat Apr 24 15:23:43 2021 UTC).

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

Received on Monday, 12 July 2021 07:54:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Monday, 12 July 2021 07:54:32 UTC