- From: Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 05 May 2021 16:15:49 +0900
- To: public-wot-wg@w3.org
available at:
https://www.w3.org/2021/04/14-wot-td-minutes.html
also as text below.
Thanks a lot for taking the minutes, Cristiano!
Kazuyuki
---
[1]W3C
[1] https://www.w3.org/
WoT-WG - TD-TF
14 April 2021
[2]Agenda. [3]IRC log.
[2] https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/WG_WoT_Thing_Description_WebConf#Apr_14.2C_2021
[3] https://www.w3.org/2021/04/14-wot-td-irc
Attendees
Present
Cristiano_Aguzi, Daniel_Peintner, Ege_Korkan,
Kaz_Ashimura, Michael_Koster, Michael_McCool,
Sebastian_Kaebisch, Tomoaki_Mizushima
Regrets
-
Chair
-
Scribe
cris_, kaz
Contents
1. [4]Agenda
2. [5]previous minutes
3. [6]last td meeting minutes
4. [7]publication plans
5. [8]deferred issues
6. [9]PRs
1. [10]Binding Template PR 112
2. [11]TD PR 937
3. [12]TD PR 945
4. [13]TD PR 1058
5. [14]TD PR 1061
6. [15]TD PR 1065
7. [16]TD PR 1077
8. [17]TD PR 1085
9. [18]TD PR 1086
10. [19]TD PR 1090
11. [20]TD PR 1092
7. [21]Summary of resolutions
Meeting minutes
Agenda
Ege: I would add topics to the agenda
<Ege> [22]https://github.com/w3c/wot-binding-templates/pull/112
[22] https://github.com/w3c/wot-binding-templates/pull/112
Ege: on PR and an issue
<Ege> [23]https://github.com/w3c/wot-binding-templates/issues/
86
[23] https://github.com/w3c/wot-binding-templates/issues/86
<Ege> [24]https://github.com/w3c/wot-binding-templates/issues/
86
[24] https://github.com/w3c/wot-binding-templates/issues/86
<Ege> [25]https://github.com/w3c/wot-binding-templates/pull/112
[25] https://github.com/w3c/wot-binding-templates/pull/112
Sebastian: welcome back to our weekly td web meeting
… no guests today
Sebastian: we have a couple of PRs in the pipeline, plus we
have to review previous minutes
… we'll also discuss the publication schedule
previous minutes
<kaz> [26]vF2F minutes
[26] https://www.w3.org/2021/03/15-25-wot-minutes.html#d5
Sebastian: we discussed new features of the next TD version
(1.1)
… also new vocabulary terms
… a couple of typos
… new uri scheme for Security information
… Morever we talked about the publication readmap. We'll review
it today
… the current plan should be aligned with our test fest
McCool: may 15 is a Saturday, probably we have to reschedule
the deadline
… possibly a couple of days earlier
Sebastian: let discuss it later
Sebastian: then we had the presentation from Micheal Koster
about SDF outcomes in the plug fest.
… I am seeing that my slides are not linked in the minutes
… we should add them
McCool: we are missing a few slide decks, we need to clean up
the minutes a little bit.
Sebastian: later new had a presentation about Conanicalisation,
… also here I don't see link to the slides
… finally we had an update to the latest news from IoT Schema
by Michael Koster
… minutes looks good, we need only to fix the links
… other than that minutes are approved
last td meeting minutes
<kaz> [27]March-10
[27] https://www.w3.org/2021/03/10-wot-td-minutes.html
Sebastian: update from Cristiano about the new modbus document
… then we looked at a bunch of PRs
… 1058 should be merged, we'll check it later
… 1061 is still open
… 1065 still open too
… then we reviewed 1053 issue about additionalResponses
McCool: I was working on it but I found a problem in security
schemas definition.
… so first we need to fix it
… it would be great if someone could provide a PR fixing it
… there are several issues
… current draft is broken, it does not have securityDefinitions
Sebastian: it might be a problem with the render script
McCool: we should definitely fix this problem befor the CR
transition
Sebastian: I'm seeing a pattern, there are also other
definitions broken
… I have the impression that is a render script issue
McCool: there're also some problems insdie the ontology
Sebastian: do we have a tracking issue for this?
McCool: we should
McCool: base is also missing
Sebastian: I think it was removed by accident
… I'll try to understand what happened
Sebastian: back to the minutes, we have a PR from Cristiano
refactoring TM-to-TD generation
… any objections about the minutes?
… ok minutes approved
publication plans
Sebastian: we already a draft schedule, the next WD should be
published around middle may
McCool: I am proposing 12 for taking a resolution
… and froze the current document soon
… april 28 could be a good deadline
Sebastian: only two weeks from now?
McCool: we can move it to May 5th
… probably the same will happen for discovery
… resolution should be May 19th
Sebastian: is it ok ?
Ege: it is tight, but ok
Sebastian: yeah, but it is still a WD
… we have time to later nail down major issues
McCool: indeed we should aim for small fixes for May
Sebastian: ok roadmap noted
Resolution: the plan for the next WD TD 1.1 would be: call for
review on May 5th and do resolution for publication on May 19th
deferred issues
Sebastian: as usual please check the postponed issues for TD
2.0, speak up if you would like to address them in the current
version
PRs
Binding Template PR 112
Sebastian: let's start with PR 112
Ege: it comes from vF2F
<Ege> [28]https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/pull/586
[28] https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/pull/586
McCool: since it depends on an Architecture update, let's defer
it to Arch call
Sebastian: relating to this I have to remove Thing Model
definition and add it to architecture
… ok any objections to merge it?
… merged
TD PR 937
<kaz> [29]wot-thing-description PR 937 - WIP: swap securtiy and
securityDefinition in context file
[29] https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/pull/937
Sebastian: TD PR 937 is wip, victor is also involved because is
touching the ontology and shacl definitions
… then we have proof and proofChain section PR
McCool: it is related to signing but is based on the outdated
jsonld proof
… still working in progress
TD PR 945
<kaz> [30]wot-thing-description PR 945 - Simplified inline
security definitions
[30] https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/pull/945
Sebastian: 945 is deferred
TD PR 1058
<kaz> [31]wot-thing-description PR 1058 - Add JSON pointer
assertion to definition of body sec location
[31] https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/pull/1058
Sebastian: then we have 1058 about JSON pointer assertions
McCool: I changed body to accept a json pointer but there's
also other weird issues that I tried to fixed.
… possibly render script issues
… we should remove these file from git tracked list
<kaz> s|let's start from 112|[32]PR 112 - remove terminology
since it is moving to architecture|
[32] https://github.com/w3c/wot-binding-templates/pull/112
McCool: the real content talks about body content. It should be
a json pointer which will not starting from the root, it is a
relative pointer. So it cannot start with #
… there are implementation challages
… because this pr allow automatic insertions that processor
should be able to handle
<kaz> i|937 is wip|[33]wot-thing-description PR 937 - WIP: swap
securtiy and securityDefinition in context file|
[33] https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/pull/937
McCool: the automatic insertion helps to reduce redundancy
cause the designer can avoid to add the security information in
each data schema
Ege: some history: in the current spec we have body security
schema, but it was not really usable cause you couldn't point
to any specific keyword in the body.
Ege: should I use it even with readproperty?
… readproperty does not have inputs
McCool: body makes sense only for POST requests
… we probably need to force implementers to use POST
McCool: what webthings io does about local security?
Ege: they don't really have any local sec
… by the way I would open an issue about adding a ednote saying
that body should be only used when the protocol allows it
Sebastian: it would be nice to have this PR also for testing
… any objection to merge it?
… merged
TD PR 1061
<kaz> [34]wot-thing-description PR 1061 - WIP: Fix cardinality
of Link.rel
[34] https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/pull/1061
Sebastian: marking 1061 as ongoing
… possibly related to problems in the render script. Array is
spawning where it shouldn't
… victor is working on that
TD PR 1065
<kaz> [35]wot-thing-description PR 1065 - fix: the "required"
keyword was placed incorrectly in the TM schema
[35] https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/pull/1065
Sebastian: ignoring, I am working on another PR about the same
topic
TD PR 1077
<kaz> [36]wot-thing-description PR 1077 - WIP: Extend JSON-LD
context to allow for round-tripping to/from N-Triples
[36] https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/pull/1077
Sebastian: important PR about transforming jsonld to rdf and
back
… still working progress, it has something to do with framing
TD PR 1085
<kaz> [37]wot-thing-description PR 1085 - WIP: Add Validation
Section
[37] https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/pull/1085
Sebastian: from mc and it's about validation
McCool: there's three levels defined
… maybe leave out the highest validation level
… it needs input and discussion
… please comment
… it also tries to fix assertions and other minor problems
… full validation might even involve to test the output of the
WebThing
… it needs input
TD PR 1086
<kaz> [38]wot-thing-description PR 1086 - Add section to define
Canonical serialization
[38] https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/pull/1086
Sebastian: possibly we can merge this
McCool: a TD processor should not re-order array elements
inside a TD otherwise the canonicalization would be broken.
Daniel: removing duplicates it is hard
McCool: implementing Canonical serialization is challenging
itself.
… some json processors reorder properties in alphabetical
order.
… it might make streaming processing difficult
… I am stating an exact order in the PR
Daniel: what about different prefixes?
… valid in jsonld?
McCool: I think they should be expanded using a jsonld
processor
Cristiano: so I can't use prefixed properties in a canonical TD
McCool: yeah you should not leverage on prefixes in jsonld is
an antipattern
Cristiano: what happens with the default context ? do we have
an assertion about it?
McCool: yes we should have it
Ege: true
Sebastian: we are missing an example
McCool: the thing is that a canonical td must not have
withespaces, so the example would be a blob of text
… but we can add a pretty print button
Daniel: or we can do it for every example
… readable example and a button for canonical form
McCool: no all examples are not real tds
Cristiano: we can skip the not real tds
McCool: yeah we need a library that is able to derive a
canonical form
… a bit annoying to implement
Cristiano: we can reuse it even in node-wot
McCool: also in discovery (e.g. db serialization)
… I'll write this tool myself
Sebastian: let's review the PR next week then
TD PR 1090
<kaz> [39]wot-thing-description PR 1090 - init tmRef
[39] https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/pull/1090
Sebastian: the PR introduces the import mechanism in the TD
… is taken from sdf
… basically you can take the definition from other TDs
Sebastian: you can mix it with extends
Sebastian: we had one comment from Jan to clarify if you can
import an element from a TD that extends another one
… is also speakinga bout overriding
Cristiano: seems reasonable to me
Koster: in sdf we say that you should not change the semantics
Cristiano: yeah, we should be more careful for extending models
rather than importing.
Kaz: do we really need this extension for thing descriptions?
… we already have links
Sebastian: these features are useful
Kaz: do we really need to complicate the TD to have all this
"programming language" features?
Sebastian: just to clarify this feature is for TMs
Kaz: how to deal with TMs is already challenging
Sebastian: yeah it is, maybe in the future we could move in a
dedicated specification document
Kaz: indeed a while ago I proposed having a dedicated note for
TMs
TD PR 1092
<kaz> [40]wot-thing-description PR 1092 - rename required to
tmRequired + top level definition
[40] https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/pull/1092
Sebastian: required keyword was found to be problematic
… the PR renames required to tmRequired
Cristiano: it is good, but why did not used tm as jsonld
prefix?
Sebastian: yeah it would be another way
McCool: yeah it would be more consistent with also what we are
doing for TDD
Sebastian: I like it but it might be small
… I am not against it
Koster: +1
Sebastian: marking as not ready to merge, I'll go down with the
new namespace solution
Sebastian: could we embed it inside the TD context?
McCool: yeah
Ege: what are the implications when a TD does not follow the
required rule?
Sebastian: it is a validation issue
Koster: it is actually another level of validation
Ege: I understand, but what happens if I have a TD that does
not follow the TM?
McCool: I would add a clause in the full validation
Ege: I wondering if it has real functioning implications
<Ege> [41]https://github.com/w3c/wot-binding-templates/issues/
86
[41] https://github.com/w3c/wot-binding-templates/issues/86
Ege: I'd like to invite Jan to next call
Sebastian: ok
Kaz: is the TM section normative?
… if not we don't need assertions
Sebastian: let's talk about it next time
Sebastian: adjourned
Summary of resolutions
1. [42]the plan for the next WD TD 1.1 would be: call for
review on May 5th and do resolution for publication on May
19th
Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by
[43]scribe.perl version 127 (Wed Dec 30 17:39:58 2020 UTC).
[43] https://w3c.github.io/scribe2/scribedoc.html
Received on Wednesday, 5 May 2021 07:15:54 UTC