- From: Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2021 16:54:24 +0900
- 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/
– DRAFT –
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?
… no objections, will publish.
publication plan
Sebastian: still have one week to bring in new features, then
will be making call for review
… 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
… 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
… also, JTD, just published, is a good place to direct testing
for framing
McCool: see also some issues about array ordering being
maintained
… 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
… 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
… 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
… 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.
… 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
… 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"
… and it is an IANA name
… also added tm: to tm:extends
… also new entry in Links, "sizes", to give different sizes for
icons; sim to HTML
McCool: HeightxWidth should be Height x Width
… or maybe {Height}x{Width}
Sebastian: can make that edit...
Sebastian: seems I also forgot to edit the template... (fixes)
… never mind the definition needs to be edited in the ontology,
not the template...
… and the validation...
… (done)
… 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?
… right now we cover most/all of it
… 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?
… 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
… 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
… do we remove it from TD spec?
Ege: ok if stick to particular version
… there is also an issue with items
McCool: think we should stick to one version for 1.x, and
update version in 2.0
… 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
… could also do overriding, but more complicated to define
McCool: what is SDF rule?
Koster: overriding. new duplicate definitions replace existing
ones
… but also say "meaning should not be changed"
… which is hard to test, so more user-beware
Ege: also validation is an issue
… 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