- From: Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2021 19:10:48 +0900
- To: public-wot-wg@w3.org
available at: https://www.w3.org/2021/02/03-wot-td-minutes.html also as text below. Thanks a lot for taking the minutes, Sebastian! Kazuyuki --- [1]W3C [1] https://www.w3.org/ WoT-WG - TD-TF 03 February 2021 [2]Agenda. [3]IRC log. [2] https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/WG_WoT_Thing_Description_WebConf#Feb_3.2C_2021 [3] https://www.w3.org/2021/02/03-wot-td-irc Attendees Present Christine_Perey, cperey, Cristiano_Aguzzi, Daniel_Peintner, Kaz_Ashimura, Michael_Koster, Michael_McCool, Sebastian_Kaebisch, Tomoaki_Mizushima Regrets - Chair Sebastian Scribe kaz, sebastian Contents 1. [4]review minutes 2. [5]WoT binding 3. [6]TD - PR 1042 4. [7]TD - PR 1034 5. [8]TD - PR 1024 6. [9]TD Issue 972 Meeting minutes review minutes [10]Jan-27 [10] https://www.w3.org/2021/01/27-wot-td-minutes.html <kaz> (Sebastian goes through the minutes) any objections to bring them to public? no WoT binding there is a PR available about the Modbus work to provide a prototype document [11]wot-binding-templates PR 109 - Refining Modbus protocol binding [11] https://github.com/w3c/wot-binding-templates/pull/109 so far, the PR have an TD example provided there needs some still some work on different topics as mentioned in the PR <Ege> [12]MQTT in RDF [12] https://w3c.github.io/wot-binding-templates/ontology/mqtt there was some discussion about the structure of the new document it was recommended to follow the approach as shown in chatper 5.3.1 of the binding template docuement in combination of a set of examples similar as shown in chapter 4.3. <Ege> [13]uRDF Store [13] https://github.com/vcharpenay/uRDF.js <kaz> [14]WoT Binding Templates Editor's Draft - 4.3 Interaction Affordances [14] https://w3c.github.io/wot-binding-templates/#sec-interaction-patterns Ege: shall we work on the binding template document? … let's wait when we have the Modbus binding prototype ready and get agreement on this. Proposal to copy all protocol specifcs to seperate document Ege: do we need section 4.3? MK can support on the Modbus work <cris> [15]https://github.com/eclipse/thingweb.node-wot/tree/ 3e9ccd44072a097d0452b5c306819c6d8fb04e12/packages/ binding-modbus#modbusrange [15] https://github.com/eclipse/thingweb.node-wot/tree/3e9ccd44072a097d0452b5c306819c6d8fb04e12/packages/binding-modbus#modbusrange <McCool_> (sorry I'm late, had a conflict) <Ege> [16]https://github.com/w3c/wot-binding-templates/issues/ 110 [16] https://github.com/w3c/wot-binding-templates/issues/110 Chapter 4.3 will be updated by Ege TD - PR 1042 <kaz> [17]TD PR 1042 - Add additionalResponses to Form [17] https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/pull/1042 Sebastian: shows the preview of the table at "5.3.4.2 Form" including "response" <kaz> [18]TD preview - 5.3.4.2 Form [18] https://pr-preview.s3.amazonaws.com/mmccool/wot-thing-description/pull/1042.html#form <Ege> [19]Hue developer page (need login)/ [19] https://developers.meethue.com/develop/hue-api/lights-api <Ege> a successful response is like: <Ege> [ {"success":{"/lights/1/state/bri":200}}, {"success":{"/lights/1/state/on":true}}, {"success":{"/lights/1/state/hue":50000}} ] <Ege> example failure message in hue api <Ege> [ { "error": { "type": 7, "address": "/lights/1/state/on", "description": "invalid value, 123,, for parameter, on" } }, <mjk> [20]https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6570 [20] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6570 <mjk> URI templates TD - PR 1034 <kaz> [21]PR 1034 - Init information about WoT relation types [21] https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/pull/1034 <kaz> [22]IANA Link Relations [22] https://www.iana.org/assignments/link-relations/link-relations.xhtml <kaz> [23]RFC 6573 - The Item and Collection Link Relations [23] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6573 (PR1034 has been merged) TD - PR 1024 <kaz> [24]PR 1024 - WIP: Topics around Thing Model [24] https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/pull/1024 Sebastian: shows Cristiano's 2nd example at [25]https:// github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/pull/ 1024#issuecomment-768966909 [25] https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/pull/1024#issuecomment-768966909 TD Issue 972 [26]TD Issue 972 - JSON Schema for Thing Model [26] https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues/972 Sebastian: shows his latest comments at [27]https://github.com/ w3c/wot-thing-description/issues/972#issuecomment-772565826 [27] https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues/972#issuecomment-772565826 Kaz: Thing Model is a template to generate actual TDs … so we don't have to make all the possible Thing Model valid JSON, do we? … maybe we could simply think about some preprocessing (to convert {{WATER_MINIMUM}} into a valid TD parameter) before applying some schema validation Sebastian: if we wrap {{booleanKey}}, etc., with "" (double quotations), we could apply usual JSON Schema validation Kaz: yeah, that's fine but we still need quick check of the template notation, i.e., {{booleanKey}}, is a valid expression as a Thing Model fragment … so my question is, does a Thing Model really need to be a valid JSON? McCool: think it should be Kaz: ok, if the answer is yes, we should go for it :) Sebastian: (adds some more comments to Issue 972) [28]Sebastian's new comments for Issue 972 [28] https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues/972#issuecomment-772665041 Ege: btw, do we want to maintain two separate schemas? Kaz: to be strict, Thing Model has a bit different syntax from usual Thing Description instance, so we still need to have two (a bit) different schemas, one for Thing Model and another for Thing Description Sebastian: right [adjourned] Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by [29]scribe.perl version 127 (Wed Dec 30 17:39:58 2020 UTC). [29] https://w3c.github.io/scribe2/scribedoc.html
Received on Wednesday, 3 March 2021 10:10:53 UTC