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

[TD-TF] minutes - 12 May 2021

From: Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2021 16:58:53 +0900
Message-ID: <87lf6c2caq.wl-ashimura@w3.org>
To: public-wot-wg@w3.org
available at:

also as text below.

Thanks a lot for taking the minutes, Daniel!



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

                             íV DRAFT íV
                             WoT-WG - TD-TF

12 May 2021

   [2]Agenda. [3]IRC log.

      [2] https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/WG_WoT_Thing_Description_WebConf#May_12.2C_2021

      [3] https://www.w3.org/2021/05/12-wot-td-irc


          Cristiano_Aguzzi, Daniel_Peintner, Ege_Korkan,
          Kaz_Ashimura, Michael_Koster, Michael_McCool,
          Ryuichi_Matsukura, Sebastian_Kaebisch, Tomoaki_Mizushima



          dape, kaz


    1. [4]Preliminaries
         1. [5]Draft minutes approval
         2. [6]next TD meeting 1h later
    2. [7]Publication plans
         1. [8]Issue 1127
    3. [9]Propose closing issues
         1. [10]Issue 841
         2. [11]Issue 897
         3. [12]Issue 1068
         4. [13]Issue 957
    4. [14]Issues
         1. [15]Which is better to actuate devices, invoking
            ACTION or writing PROPERTY? #1020
    5. [16]Open PRs
         1. [17]More fixes to canonicalization #1129
         2. [18]fix: ReSpec rendering issue #1132
         3. [19]fix: some typos and misspellings #1133
         4. [20]fix: tweak minor example bugs #1136
         5. [21]Comments - Call for Review of WoT Thing
            Description 1.1 specification and resolution to
            publish update #1137
    6. [22]Issue 1127 (revisited)

Meeting minutes


    Draft minutes approval


     [23] https://www.w3.org/2021/05/05-wot-td-minutes.html

   Sebastian: tackled many PRs
   íK security, validation, icon links
   íK profile term
   íK new terms for dataSchema
   íK updates in terminology section
   íK introduce ThingModel namespace
   íK canonicalization improvements

   Sebastian: Call for working draft review

   Sebastian: any objections?

   <all>: none -> minutes approved

    next TD meeting 1h later

   Sebastian: Kaz has conflict
   íK start 1 hour later and have a 1 hour call

  Publication plans

    Issue 1127

   <kaz> [24]Issue 1127 - Publish updated WD for Thing Description

     [24] https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues/1127

   Sebastian: Started call for review
   íK collect issues in [25]https://github.com/w3c/


     [25] https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues/1127

   Sebastian: got already feedback
   íK e.g., KotisK about trust and security
   íK should check with McCool
   íK got comments about broken links
   íK we do not use final namespaces yet
   íK for previous drafts we had an intermediary page

   Sebastian: can add note making clear that namespaces are not

   Sebastian: any opinion?

   Cristiano: Note seems a good idea to me
   íK temporary URLs sound good too

   Sebastian: in previous drafts we used "working" namespaces
   íK changed to final URL in CR phase

   Kaz: 2 comments
   íK 1. KotisK is official invited expert, we can invite him
   íK 2. w.r.t. namespace, if we really need it, we can allocate an
   additional namespace for TM, but the bigger question is about
   whether we really want to include the TM feature as a normative
   feature within the CR version of the TD spec.

   Sebastian: have to leave for 10 minutes....

   <kaz> [ Kaz proposes we talk about the other topics during
   Sebastian's absence. ]

  Propose closing issues

   <Ege> [26]https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/


     [26] https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues?q=is:issue+is:open+label:"Propose+closing"

    Issue 841

   [27]Issue 841 - Add "multipleOf" term to NumberSchema and

     [27] https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues/841

   Ege: Any objections to close?

   -> none -> proceed with closing

    Issue 897

   [28]Issue 897 - TDT shall allow to define placeholders

     [28] https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues/897

   Ege: placeholders are available
   íK propose to close

   -> no objections -> proceed with closing

    Issue 1068

   [29]Issue 1068 - uriVariables needs to be more limited

     [29] https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues/1068

   Ege: discussion with Cristiano in issue

   Cristiano: somewhat related

   Ege: Parts are in the spec
   íK think should be note instead of normal text

   Daniel: +1

   Cristiano: Suggest to close original issue and create another

   Ege: makes sense
   íK created issue 1138

   <kaz> [30]Issue 1138 - Making the uriVariables recommendation
   paragraph an editor's note/

     [30] https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues/1138

   -> no objections to close original issue -> proceed with


     [31] https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues/957

   Kaz: w.r.t. previous issue 1138, note would mean not normative
   íK if we don't need this sentence we can use ed. note

   Ege: I think it is a note for *new* systems..
   íK kind of a recommendation

   Kaz: if the text is included in this section (normative
   sections) ... and it does not include MUST, SHOULD etc
   íK not sure if we need to convert it to note

   Ege: It is about visibility ... since it is a recommendation

   Kaz: Nicer to have a specific section how to use uriVariables
   íK subsubsection etc

   Ege: Seems unnecessary to me

   Kaz: contentType might need a dedicated section also

   Ege: Makes sense

   Cristiano: +1

   Ege: makes linking easier also
   íK will create issue

    Issue 957

   <kaz> [32]Issue 957 - Unsubscribing and unobserving are not in
   default values

     [32] https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues/957

   Ege: Closing issue 957


    Which is better to actuate devices, invoking ACTION or writing
    PROPERTY? #1020

   [33]Issue 1020 - Which is better to actuate devices, invoking
   ACTION or writing PROPERTY?

     [33] https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues/1020

   Sebastian: MatsukuraSan asks when to use Action and/or Property

   Matsukura: original idea is very simple
   íK table shows standards
   íK all standards define property
   íK some define actions
   íK property defined to actuate physical things
   íK Echonet Lite just defines properties
   íK natural to map Echonet Lite properties to WoT properties
   íK TD is not crystal clear
   íK suggest to improve the situation

   Sebastian: Make clear when to use actions?
   íK most use-cases can use properties

   Cristiano: Do we have a concrete ECHONET example that maps to

   Kaz: During the vF2F meeting in March, Matsuda-san explained
   the latest status of ECHONET Lite Web API specification
   including action/history handling
   íK page 16 in PDF
   íK we should wait for their concrete use case description and
   expected TD binding, etc.

   <kaz> [34]Matsuda-san's slides on ECHONET Lit Web API

     [34] https://github.com/w3c/wot/blob/main/PRESENTATIONS/2021-03-online-f2f/2021-03-15-ECHONET-Lite-WebAPI-ECHONET-Consortium.pdf

   Cristiano: there are plans to add actions?

   Kaz: I believe action is already in work based on Matsuda-san's
   presentation above, and we were planning to think about
   possible binding based on some concrete use case and
   íK So I'm a bit confused, and would suggest we should ask
   ECHONET as a whole about their latest status and their expected
   direction again.

   Matsukura: action in ECHONET is very special
   íK property is used almost everwhere
   íK action in ECHONET is a very special case

   Sebastian: Would be good to understand why the mapping is not
   working smoothly
   íK ECHONET participants in PlugFest would be very good
   íK suggest to continue discussion in issue
   íK Matsukura-san, may I ask you to provide a statement about
   difference between property and action

   Matsukura: Sure

   Cristiano: similar discussion. Not clear whether write
   operation returns value?
   íK not clear in TD spec
   íK we should try to be more clear

   <cris> good question daniel :)

   Daniel: writing property in ECHONET, does it return a value

   Matsukura: I think just success or failure
   íK will check though

   Sebastian: Discussion in profile about whether PUT returns a
   value also
   íK page 20 in PDF shows that payload echoes the value

   Kaz: w.r.t. action, see page 21
   íK suggest to check the latest status with ECHONET

   Sebastian: will mention ECHONET procedure in wot-profile PR#77

   Kaz: we need a use case and actual data description, also.
   íK given Matsuda-san as the official liaison contact gave the
   description on the latest status of the ECHONET Lite Web API
   based on his slides during the vF2F in March and clarified he
   would continue to be the liaison contact, probably we should
   ask Matsukura-san to work with Matsuda-san to provide further
   clarification about ECHONET's latest status and their preferred

   <mjk> The OCF API CoAP binding for update also returns the

   Sebastian: Matsukura-san, can you talk with the ECHONET people?

   Matsukura: will do

   Koster: OCF API CoAP binding for update also returns the value
   íK use POST (instead of PUT) .. because of partial updates

   Cristiano: is this a profile issue or is this a broader issue?
   íK seems more an architecture issue
   íK we seem to have use-cases

   Koster: feature of TD whether to expect a return value

   Ege: different aspect: action does not need input/output
   íK write property is different

   Cristiano: Agree, different design choice

   Koster: for the industry we need some flexibility
   íK model *looks* like property but is action...
   íK different return value might mean it is an action

   Cristiano: +1

   Ege: +1

   <ryuichi> +1

   Sebastian: clarifications with ECHONET are useful also

   Koster: it is in some SDF discussions also ...

   Sebastian: actions to me was always somethings that takes time

   Koster: we need to figure out best practices

   Sebastian: Okay... let's get back to this the next week
   íK Thanks, Matsukura-san!

   Ege: FYI: related issue: observe vs event

   Sebastian: Agree, same kind of category

  Open PRs

    More fixes to canonicalization #1129


     [35] https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/pull/1129

   McCool: new rules
   íK talked with Victor also
   íK security objects were inlined
   íK re-frame from RDF reversal needs to recreate name
   íK base was an issue also
   íK base cannot be changed in Canonicalization process
   íK cleaning up corner cases

   Sebastian: Should we merge it?

   McCool: not controversial .. but no review yet
   íK created wd-update-candidate branch
   íK review should be done in this branch

   Sebastian: rendered version in main branch only

   Daniel: not sure if this is overly comlpicated.. could hold
   back merging

   McCool: should not change reviewed document
   íK typos could be merged
   íK bigger PRs should not be merged

    fix: ReSpec rendering issue #1132


     [36] https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/pull/1132

   Daniel: just escapes the "{{"

   Sebastian: Suggest to merge
   íK no objections -> merged

    fix: some typos and misspellings #1133


     [37] https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/pull/1133

   Sebastian: no concerns --> merging

    fix: tweak minor example bugs #1136


     [38] https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/pull/1136

   Daniel: just fixes examples

   Sebastian: no objections -> merging

    Comments - Call for Review of WoT Thing Description 1.1
    specification and resolution to publish update #1137


     [39] https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues/1137

   Daniel: bug w.r.t. MultiLanguage

   Sebastian: Yes, we should fix that

   McCool: suggest hold of creating a branch
   íK merge my PRs later

   Sebastian: makes sense

   McCool: Will work on my PRs in the meantime

   Sebastian: I will create a PR for issue 1137
   íK I also suggest to update abstract, see [40]https://

     [40] https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues/1127

   McCool: Seems more than just a bugfix
   íK maybe discuss it in main call

   Sebastian: plan to use initial example for ThingModel

   McCool: main call discussion next week?

   Sebastian: Agree

  Issue 1127 (revisited)

   Kaz: We need to go back to issue 1127
   íK missed some points
   íK need to clarify what is normative
   íK e.g., ThingModel

   McCool: I think ThingModel should be normative

   Kaz: either way is fine. We just need to be clear

   McCool: mark it as "at risk" is an alternative

   Sebastian: FYI: Editdor project is implementing ThingModel

   McCool: I am also not concerned

   Sebastian: It used to be part of the Appendiex, and I'm not
   sure if it should be included in the TD spec, though

   kaz: in that case, we can identify the Thing Model feature as a
   feature at-risk anyway
   íK if we can get sufficient implementations, that's fine and
   íK I wanted to make sure about this point before our sending out
   the call for review request

   Sebastian: ok


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

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

Received on Monday, 12 July 2021 07:58:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Monday, 12 July 2021 07:59:00 UTC