- From: Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2021 16:58:53 +0900
- To: public-wot-wg@w3.org
available at: https://www.w3.org/2021/05/12-wot-td-minutes.html also as text below. Thanks a lot for taking the minutes, Daniel! Kazuyuki --- [1]W3C [1] https://www.w3.org/ ¡V DRAFT ¡V 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 Attendees Present Cristiano_Aguzzi, Daniel_Peintner, Ege_Korkan, Kaz_Ashimura, Michael_Koster, Michael_McCool, Ryuichi_Matsukura, Sebastian_Kaebisch, Tomoaki_Mizushima Regrets - Chair Sebastian/Ege Scribe dape, kaz Contents 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 Preliminaries Draft minutes approval [23]May-5 [23] https://www.w3.org/2021/05/05-wot-td-minutes.html Sebastian: tackled many PRs ¡K security, validation, icon links ¡K profile term ¡K new terms for dataSchema ¡K updates in terminology section ¡K introduce ThingModel namespace ¡K canonicalization improvements Sebastian: Call for working draft review Sebastian: any objections? <all>: none -> minutes approved next TD meeting 1h later Sebastian: Kaz has conflict ¡K start 1 hour later and have a 1 hour call Publication plans Issue 1127 <kaz> [24]Issue 1127 - Publish updated WD for Thing Description 1.1 [24] https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues/1127 Sebastian: Started call for review ¡K collect issues in [25]https://github.com/w3c/ wot-thing-description/issues/1127 [25] https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues/1127 Sebastian: got already feedback ¡K e.g., KotisK about trust and security ¡K should check with McCool ¡K got comments about broken links ¡K we do not use final namespaces yet ¡K for previous drafts we had an intermediary page Sebastian: can add note making clear that namespaces are not final Sebastian: any opinion? Cristiano: Note seems a good idea to me ¡K temporary URLs sound good too Sebastian: in previous drafts we used "working" namespaces ¡K changed to final URL in CR phase Kaz: 2 comments ¡K 1. KotisK is official invited expert, we can invite him ¡K 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/ issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3A%22Propose+closing%22 [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 IntegerSchema [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 ¡K 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 ¡K think should be note instead of normal text Daniel: +1 Cristiano: Suggest to close original issue and create another issue Ege: makes sense ¡K 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 closing [31]https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues/957 [31] https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues/957 Kaz: w.r.t. previous issue 1138, note would mean not normative anymore ¡K if we don't need this sentence we can use ed. note Ege: I think it is a note for *new* systems.. ¡K kind of a recommendation Kaz: if the text is included in this section (normative sections) ... and it does not include MUST, SHOULD etc ¡K 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 ¡K 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 ¡K 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 Issues 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 ¡K table shows standards ¡K all standards define property ¡K some define actions ¡K property defined to actuate physical things ¡K Echonet Lite just defines properties ¡K natural to map Echonet Lite properties to WoT properties ¡K TD is not crystal clear ¡K suggest to improve the situation Sebastian: Make clear when to use actions? ¡K most use-cases can use properties Cristiano: Do we have a concrete ECHONET example that maps to action? Kaz: During the vF2F meeting in March, Matsuda-san explained the latest status of ECHONET Lite Web API specification including action/history handling ¡K page 16 in PDF ¡K 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 descriptions. ¡K 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 ¡K property is used almost everwhere ¡K action in ECHONET is a very special case Sebastian: Would be good to understand why the mapping is not working smoothly ¡K ECHONET participants in PlugFest would be very good ¡K suggest to continue discussion in issue ¡K 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? ¡K not clear in TD spec ¡K 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 ¡K will check though Sebastian: Discussion in profile about whether PUT returns a value also ¡K page 20 in PDF shows that payload echoes the value Kaz: w.r.t. action, see page 21 ¡K 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. right? ¡K 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 direction. <mjk> The OCF API CoAP binding for update also returns the value Sebastian: Matsukura-san, can you talk with the ECHONET people? Matsukura: will do Koster: OCF API CoAP binding for update also returns the value ¡K use POST (instead of PUT) .. because of partial updates Cristiano: is this a profile issue or is this a broader issue? ¡K seems more an architecture issue ¡K 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 ¡K write property is different Cristiano: Agree, different design choice Koster: for the industry we need some flexibility ¡K model *looks* like property but is action... ¡K 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 ¡K 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 [35] https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/pull/1129 McCool: new rules ¡K talked with Victor also ¡K security objects were inlined ¡K re-frame from RDF reversal needs to recreate name ¡K base was an issue also ¡K base cannot be changed in Canonicalization process ¡K cleaning up corner cases Sebastian: Should we merge it? McCool: not controversial .. but no review yet ¡K created wd-update-candidate branch ¡K 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 ¡K typos could be merged ¡K bigger PRs should not be merged fix: ReSpec rendering issue #1132 [36]https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/pull/1132 [36] https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/pull/1132 Daniel: just escapes the "{{" Sebastian: Suggest to merge ¡K no objections -> merged fix: some typos and misspellings #1133 [37]https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/pull/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 [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 [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 ¡K 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 ¡K I also suggest to update abstract, see [40]https:// github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues/1127 [40] https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues/1127 McCool: Seems more than just a bugfix ¡K 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 ¡K missed some points ¡K need to clarify what is normative ¡K 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 already 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 ¡K if we can get sufficient implementations, that's fine and great ¡K I wanted to make sure about this point before our sending out the call for review request Sebastian: ok [adjourned] 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