[TD-TF] minutes - 17 February 2021

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