- 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