- From: Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2021 19:19:14 +0900
- To: public-wot-wg@w3.org
available at: https://www.w3.org/2021/02/17-wot-td-minutes.html also as text below. Thanks a lot for taking the minutes, Daniel and Michael McCool! Kazuyuki --- [1]W3C [1] https://www.w3.org/ WoT-WG - TD-TF 17 February 2021 [2]Agenda. [3]IRC log. [2] https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/WG_WoT_Thing_Description_WebConf#Feb_17.2C_2021 [3] https://www.w3.org/2021/02/17-wot-td-irc Attendees Present Cristiano_Aguzzi, Daniel_Peintner, Kaz_Ashimura, Michael_Koster, Michael_McCool, Philipp_Blum, Sebastian_Kaebisch, Tomoaki_Mizushima Regrets - Chair Sebastian Scribe dape, McCool Contents 1. [4]Minutes Approval 2. [5]Collecting topics for vF2F 3. [6]WoT Bindings 4. [7]OPC UA Binding 5. [8]Defer issue to TD 2.0 6. [9]PR 1052 Fix HTML fragments in ontology docs 7. [10]PR 1049 TM Schema generation 8. [11]PR 1042 Add additionalResponses to Form 9. [12]PR #1024 Topics around Thing Model 10. [13]Issue 1037 - The "body" location value for security schemes is underspecified 11. [14]Issue 1044 - Adding term to indicate a stream of data Meeting minutes Minutes Approval [15]https://www.w3.org/2021/02/10-wot-td-minutes.html [15] https://www.w3.org/2021/02/10-wot-td-minutes.html Sebastian: talked about OPC UA … PRs w.r.t. security … placeholder concept … ThingModel discussions … actions vs property discussions <sebastian> [16]issue 1044 - Adding term to indicate a stream of data [16] https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues/1044 Sebastian: Any objections? -> none --> minutes approved Collecting topics for vF2F Sebastian: I put some topics already like ThingModel Philipp: w.r.t ThingModel, using multiple TMs … merging seems tricky? Sebastian: at the moment TD can only refer to *one* TM Philipp: Extending: e.g., "base" sensor + TM for X and Y Koster: I have similar use case also … iotschema, light bulb having several capabilities <McCool> [17]https://github.com/w3c/wot-testing/blob/main/ events/2021.03.Online/scenarios/digitaltwin.md [17] https://github.com/w3c/wot-testing/blob/main/events/2021.03.Online/scenarios/digitaltwin.md McCool: Wrote this up for plugfest scenario, see link above <kaz> kaz: +1 with McCool Koster: separate TMs seem to be useful McCool/Sebastian: discussing outcome of these topics from the PlugFest Sebastian: Agree. Experience in the area of TMs seem important. Kaz: agree we should think about concrete scenario for plugfest. also if possible we should think about how to deal with Thing Model at the discovery phase. McCool: in discovery we do not look into TM right now. Not sure if we should though … being TM in directory as well Koster: topics of overriding Sebastian: How much time do we have for TD task force? McCool: 3-4 hours for TD? Sebastian: ThingModel seems to be the most important TD topic for the upcoming F2F … let's continue discussing the F2F topics next week WoT Bindings Cristiano: I committed Modbus changes <sebastian> [18]109 - Refining Modbus protocol binding [18] https://github.com/w3c/wot-binding-templates/pull/wot-binding-templates Cristiano: I fixed renderer script … I also proposed Modbus document … followed TD pattern: HTML enhanced by SPARQL queries <CA sharing his screen> Cristiano: sharing rendered Modbus document … rendering is still not complete ... eg. missing whether something is optional Sebastian: You might need SHACL file for doing that Cristiano: I also added default Modbus mappings … readproperty to modbus fuction … I would like to get feedback whether the document structure makes sense Sebastian: Looks good. … I am missing TD examples Cristiano: Agree Koster: ontology might be a standalone document … could be used in other areas as well … practical examples make sense also Cristiano: having various documents makes linking more problematic … i think the current proposal could be a template for future bindings Sebastian: I imagined a self-contained document for Modbus ... forgot about ontology file Sebastian: wonder how we best align with binding core document … wonder about the number of documents, Ontology and HTML, general documents multiplied by every binding Koster: Remember the discussion … lots of documents vs generic template spec … not sure there are arguments for both Kaz: I wonder whether we should talk to Modbus implementors or not Cristiano: Agree Sebastian: 2 topics … 1. content makes sense … 2. whether we use multiple documents Kaz: We started to think about other liaison as well. We can ask them what they would like to see … For example, ECHONET and others could provide ontology Sebastian: Yes, need to get in touch Koster: Having separate vocabulary makes sense … we did have HTTP pattern … we can not push others to do the work … propose to have vocabulary separate … I recommend core document being stable … maybe just having some pointers to bindings … standalone document should be self-contained Sebastian: like Uniform resource Locator ? Koster: Yes Cristiano: Question: separate document for ontology? Koster: start with one document. Once it is final we might break it up … suggest to talk to Ege also Sebastian: MQTT is part of core at the moment Sebastian: Okay, lets go with having separate documents in the future for each binding Kaz: DID could be useful in the future Cristiano: What are the missing steps on my side? Sebastian: Good so far. Examples are missing ... … ontology should be generic. examples are related to TD. Koster: TD mapping should not be part of generic ontology. rather part of binding document Sebastian: Thanks Cristiano for all your work Sebastian: Summary can be found here [19]https://github.com/ w3c/wot-binding-templates/pull/109#issuecomment-780662878 [19] https://github.com/w3c/wot-binding-templates/pull/109#issuecomment-780662878 Koster: I have one more issue in mind? Shall I add the comment to this PR? … will create issue Sebastian: Agree with what Kaz mentioned before. Should get in touch with Modbus people <mjk> [20]https://www.modbus.org/docs/ Modbus_Messaging_Implementation_Guide_V1_0b.pdf [20] https://www.modbus.org/docs/Modbus_Messaging_Implementation_Guide_V1_0b.pdf OPC UA Binding <mjk> [21]https://www.modbus.org/specs.php [21] https://www.modbus.org/specs.php <mjk> [22]https://www.modbus.org/docs/ Modbus_Application_Protocol_V1_1b3.pdf Modbus application protocol spec [22] https://www.modbus.org/docs/Modbus_Application_Protocol_V1_1b3.pdf Sebastian: Kaz mentioned to have a separate call … do we plan a web meeting? Kaz: Yes, I think we should do that … I can create doodle poll Sebastian: or PlugFest week, re-using cancelled calls Defer issue to TD 2.0 Sebastian: please look into [23]https://github.com/w3c/ wot-thing-description/ issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3A%22Defer+to+TD+2.0%22 [23] https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues?q=is:issue+is:open+label:"Defer+to+TD+2.0" Sebastian: and provide feedback PR 1052 Fix HTML fragments in ontology docs [24]PR 1052 [24] https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/pull/1052 Daniel: fixed reference issue Sebastian: I am OK with merging PR 1049 TM Schema generation [25]PR 1049 [25] https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/pull/1049 Sebastian: PR is about JSON schema for ThingModel … Ege provided version and script Daniel: Ege uses script which is good Sebastian: Since it is marked as WIP we should wait before we merge PR 1042 Add additionalResponses to Form [26]PR 1042 [26] https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/pull/1042 McCool: PR is not yet done McCool: wanted to get feedback before moving on … proposal: use additionalResponses to avoid backward compatibility issue <cris> +1 McCool: property should not report back different data from input (use action instead) Sebastian: What is the use case for multiple responses? McCool: e.g., different kind of errors … or also different success responses Sebastian: using oneOf? McCool: oneOf is the alternative … should add text when to use what Cristiano: wonder whether it is possible to state response is error? McCool: Could have error codes... Cristiano: among those possibleReponses can we mark one that this is an error McCool: having a boolean? … could make sense Cristiano: will add comment to PR PR #1024 Topics around Thing Model [27]PR 1024 [27] https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/pull/1024 Sebastian: tried to incorporate input from last week … re-structured chapters … start with basic concept … next is thing model declaration … followed by "modelling tools" … like using versioning … extension and import (import is still missing) … afterwards "placeholder" concept with example … we have "required" feature also … should look into SDF approach w.r.t. required … I also explained the steps from TM to TD instance … see section 10.4 McCool: Do we say we MUST NOT put security in TM? Sebastian: No, it is weaker ... "MAY NOT" McCool: Sounds good Sebastian: I plan to extend the examples section 10.5 McCool: Placeholder for number types? Sebastian: Placeholder provided as string. Mapping file is typed as number. There are libraries doing that already. Koster: SDF style approach? Overriding? … shall we have examples for it? … I could create some of those examples McCool: would be good to rewrite the existing examples in that style to compare Sebastian: Expect more feedback after the PlugFest … SDF examples make sense Koster: SDF uses JSON pointer or reference mechanism Sebastian: we cannot override interactions … we cannot override type's … except number being cast to integer McCool: scale factor might be a related topic Koster: OCF has some of these scale factors McCool: step is a related issue Koster: unit might also play a role here McCool: narrowing types is another topic Sebastian: created issue [28]issue 1054 [28] https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues/1054 Sebastian: I propose to merge Pr#1024 … will add come warnings that we are still collecting experience <kaz> [29]PR 1024 [29] https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/pull/1024 Sebastian: merged McCool: I think we need section about validation … relates to discovery Issue 1037 - The "body" location value for security schemes is underspecified [30]Issue 1037 [30] https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues/1037 McCool: Not ready to close … need to add mentioning of JSON pointer Issue 1044 - Adding term to indicate a stream of data [31]Issue 1044 [31] https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues/1044 Cristiano: relates to scripting … stream vs object … from scripting API it is transparent McCool: in directory we talk about streaming … GeoPose streams data also Cristiano: usually the protocol level handles it McCool: I think we should capture the use cases Cristiano: Agree <kaz> [adjourned] Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by [32]scribe.perl version 127 (Wed Dec 30 17:39:58 2020 UTC). [32] https://w3c.github.io/scribe2/scribedoc.html
Received on Wednesday, 3 March 2021 10:19:20 UTC