- From: Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2021 17:04:37 +0900
- To: public-wot-wg@w3.org
available at:
https://www.w3.org/2021/05/26-wot-td-minutes.html
also as text below.
Thanks a lot for taking the minutes, Ege!
Kazuyuki
---
[1]W3C
[1] https://www.w3.org/
– DRAFT –
WoT-WG - TD-TF
26 May 2021
[2]IRC log.
[2] https://www.w3.org/2021/05/26-wot-td-irc
Attendees
Present
Andrea_Cimmino, Cristiano_Aguzzi, Daniel_Peintner,
Ege_Korkan, Kaz_Ashimura, Michael_McCool,
Sebastian_Kaebisch, Tomoaki_Mizushima, Victor_Charpenay
Regrets
Michael_Koster
Chair
Sebastian
Scribe
Ege
Contents
1. [3]Minutes Review
2. [4]Publication
3. [5]JSON-LD and roundtrip
4. [6]Modbus Binding
5. [7]PR 1129
6. [8]PR 1151
Meeting minutes
Minutes Review
<kaz-brb> [9]May-19
[9] https://www.w3.org/2021/05/19-wot-td-minutes.html
Sebastian: (adds roundtripping to agenda)
Publication
Sebastian: 1st of June is still on track for WD publication
… probably july for the CR
<mjk> (koster regrets, I have a conflicting meeting this
morning)
McCool: testing will be focused on the WD version
<sebastian> [10]https://github.com/w3c/json-ld-api/issues/514
[10] https://github.com/w3c/json-ld-api/issues/514
Sebastian: an issue was found in the jsonld specification
McCool: we need to workaround this in directories
Andrea: the only technology agnostic way of doing it would be
by defining frames
… so it is hard to do it in a generic way
… kehio, another library of us, parses java models into rdf
… rdf is a graph and json is tree, so when you have cycles in
json, you cannot tell where in rdf
… so it took me a couple of months but the Java library is open
source
McCool: how do we validate extensions?
Daniel: victor has validation SHACL generated from ttl
McCool: that is for the core document
McCool: we need a way to get more information on the extension
just by using its context
McCool: we should ask this the JSON-LD guys
<dape> s/dp: victor has validation shacl generated from ttl/dp:
victor uses shacl shabe for generating the others
<cris> +1
Sebastian: so you want to put it in the context?
McCool: yes, maybe some context negotiation?
Andrea: so you want shacl in the context?
McCool: that or computing another url for finding the shacl
Sebastian: we can invite someone from json-ld group to a call?
McCool: an issue would be good
Sebastian: (writing issue in json-ld-api repository)
Cristiano: it is clear if there is a way to state or if there
is a repository with the validation file
<sebastian> [11]https://github.com/w3c/json-ld-api/issues/530
[11] https://github.com/w3c/json-ld-api/issues/530
JSON-LD and roundtrip
Sebastian: (created issue is [12]https://github.com/w3c/
json-ld-api/issues/530)
[12] https://github.com/w3c/json-ld-api/issues/530)
Sebastian: something more about this topic?
Modbus Binding
<kaz> [13]wot-binding-templates PR 109 - Refining Modbus
protocol binding
[13] https://github.com/w3c/wot-binding-templates/pull/109
Cristiano: we discussed about how to map sub types of integers
in json schema
<McCool> s/shabe/shapes/
Andrea: you can use xsd: (something) to allow that
[14]https://github.com/ajv-validator/ajv-formats
[14] https://github.com/ajv-validator/ajv-formats
cris look at this link :)
Andrea: @type is not the right place for this
Ege: json schema min/max or the new vocabulary extensions can
be used
Cristiano: I see, that makes sense
<victor> ack
Victor: I agree with ege
Cristiano: I will check
Cristiano: I have a question about the ontology
… we are defining these ontology for mapping but we are not
experts. How to be prefix independent
McCool: prefixes are sometimes cached
Andrea: for schema.org people find it too long and use other
prefixes
… it is not a good idea to rely on the prefix
Cristiano: so also we have the idea to have an ontology for the
protocol and another document for how to use it in wot
Cristiano: also another ontology about binding would be nice
Victor: but that is already in the TD ?
<victor> SHACL
Sebastian: another annoying point is the byte sequence
Cristiano: yes I have seen that for the first time
Sebastian: Now I want to move the work to work on some PRs
McCool: it is difficult to refer to data schema for properties
… it complicates canonicalizationn
<kaz> [15]wot-thing-description PR 1130 - Update
AdditionalExpectedResponses with named data schemas
[15] https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/pull/1130
Victor: canonical form should be direct serialization of the
information model?
McCool: yes
… I have to update my PR
Victor: this should be moved to section 6?
Ege: why not use $ref and then allow referring to
schemaDefinitions
McCool: why not creating an example about it?
Sebastian: then let's merge this and vc and ege will work on
the proposal
PR 1129
<kaz> [16]PR 1129 - More fixes to canonicalization
[16] https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/pull/1129
Daniel: but you should not care about such details in
canonicalization
PR 1151
McCool: now I want to talk about signatures
<kaz> [17]PR 1151 - WIP: TD Signatures
[17] https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/pull/1151
McCool: I think we should use xml signatures
McCool: this signature is based on .XML Signature
McCool: this is not done yet
McCool: I don´t have all the keys yet
Cristiano: why is sparql there, you are working with JSON?
McCool: sure, I can get rid of sparql
Sebastian: is the signature part also signed?
McCool: it is added only at the end
Sebastian: thank you very much for your work mm
Sebastian: adjourned
Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by
[18]scribe.perl version 131 (Sat Apr 24 15:23:43 2021 UTC).
[18] https://w3c.github.io/scribe2/scribedoc.html
Received on Monday, 12 July 2021 08:04:41 UTC