- From: Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 05 May 2021 16:17:31 +0900
- To: public-wot-wg@w3.org
available at:
https://www.w3.org/2021/04/21-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
21 April 2021
[2]IRC log.
[2] https://www.w3.org/2021/04/21-wot-td-irc
Attendees
Present
Cristiano_Aguzzi, Daniel_Peintner, Ege_Korkan,
Jack_Dickinson, Jan_Romann, Kaz_Ashimura,
Michael_Koster, Michael_McCool, Sebastian_Kaebisch,
Tomoaki_Mizushima
Regrets
-
Chair
Sebastian
Scribe
kaz, sebastian
Contents
1. [3]minutes check from last week
2. [4]Guests
3. [5]publication plans
4. [6]WoT Binding
5. [7]Defer issue to TD 2.0
6. [8]PRs
1. [9]PR 1086
2. [10]PR 1085
3. [11]PR 1090
4. [12]PR 1092
5. [13]PR 1095
Meeting minutes
minutes check from last week
<kaz> [14]April-14
[14] https://www.w3.org/2021/04/14-wot-td-minutes.html
any objections befor publication the minutes?
no
Guests
Sebastian explains about the W3C patent policy
Jan introduces himself
<kaz> [15]W3C Patent Policy
[15] https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20200915/
Jan is from University of Bremen
working in the chair of Carsten Bormann
publication plans
plan is to have everything ready until May 5
get resolution for publication on May 19
WoT Binding
Ege: shows an issue from the binding
[16]https://github.com/w3c/wot-binding-templates/issues/86
[16] https://github.com/w3c/wot-binding-templates/issues/86
<Ege> [17]https://www.hivemq.com/blog/
mqtt5-essentials-part9-request-response-pattern/
[17] https://www.hivemq.com/blog/mqtt5-essentials-part9-request-response-pattern/
<Ege> [18]https://github.com/eclipse/paho.mqtt.python/blob/
master/examples/client_rpc_math.py
[18] https://github.com/eclipse/paho.mqtt.python/blob/master/examples/client_rpc_math.py
<Ege> [19]http://www.steves-internet-guide.com/
mqttv5-request-response/
[19] http://www.steves-internet-guide.com/mqttv5-request-response/
<Ege> [20]https://www.npmjs.com/package/mqtt
[20] https://www.npmjs.com/package/mqtt
Ege: explains some example about request -response with MQTTv5
Jan reports some experiences with zigbee2mqtt
Ege: proposal is to introduce subprotocl: mqv:requestResponse
this would work with MQTTv5
<McCool> (heavy echo, if not speaking pls mute)
for MQTTv3.1.1 "mqv:responseTopic": "<topicPath>"
Cristiano: shall we use a different field such as version?
there was the discussion to use properties for the retain
feature of MQTT
Koster: in SDF we have decided native subscription model
Sebastian: there was a presentation from the MQTTv5 authors and
mentioned that you should not really use MQTT for req / res.
Koster: we should not force people implement req / res with
events
cris agrees
Sebastian: retain flag in the TD is just a hint
Cristiano: the versioning problem is also related to other
protocols
Ege: we can use mqv:version
Cristiano: we can do it more in a generic way
<mjk> I need to drop for the ASDF interim meeting
<Ege> [21]https://www.w3.org/TR/
HTTP-in-RDF10/#httpVersionProperty
[21] https://www.w3.org/TR/HTTP-in-RDF10/#httpVersionProperty
<Ege> [22]http://www.eclipse.org/paho/
index.php?page=downloads.php
[22] http://www.eclipse.org/paho/index.php?page=downloads.php
Ege: shall we support the v5 feature?
Sebastian: depends how v5 is adopted
Ege: no many broker have implemented it
proposal would be to stay with the MQTTv3.1.1 approache which
does not come with req./res.
<cris> +1 for this direction
Defer issue to TD 2.0
Sebastian: please look at the issues labeled with "2.0"
[23]2.0 issues
[23] https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues?q=is:issue+is:open+label:"Defer+to+TD+2.0"
PRs
PR 1086
[24]PR 1086 - Add section to define Canonical serialization
[24] https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/pull/1086
McCool: (describes the PR)
… would propose we merge this as the basis of further
discussion
… removed duplicated rules, and it's much simpler now
[25]preview
[25] https://pr-preview.s3.amazonaws.com/mmccool/wot-thing-description/pull/1086.html
Sebastian: (goes through the preview for section "6.5
Canonicalization")
McCool: maybe there are some mistakes there
… but can fix them
… currently the entries are put based on the alphabetic order
… I added an assertion on prefix to be maintained
… any processor needs to handle that
Sebastian: theoretically, we can use any kind of prefixes
McCool: right
Daniel: replacing geo, etc. to full notation?
McCool: JSON doesn't handle prefixes
… so we need to use some library
… canonicalizer handles prefixes as string rather than object
Kaz: why don't we add an Editor's note about those possible
questions and then merge this PR itself?
McCool: either is fine, adding an Editor's note or adding small
edits
… before merging
… URLs must not be modified
Sebastian: (adds several comments to PR 1086)
… fix typos, add assertion that a TD processor must not modify
the URLs
… McCool adds those changes and then merge the PR
… can you remove the commented out part as well?
McCool: can do
Cristiano: thinking about prefixes
… we can say the most common practices is removing the prefix
McCool: right now the geolocation proposal to be fixed
… with certain prefixes to make the processing easier
… in theory, JSON processor need to see some table for the
processing
… can depend on prefixes from protocols
Cristiano: how/which document to fix it?
McCool: canonicalization needs to be fixed
… certain fix for prefixes needed
Sebastian: so please apply the fixes and then let's merge the
PR
McCool: ok
PR 1085
[26]PR 1085 - WIP: Add Validation Section
[26] https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/pull/1085
McCool: this is related to validation
… would focus on the normative spec first
… not ready right now
… but would like to get feedback
PR 1090
[27]PR 1090 - init tmRef
[27] https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/pull/1090
Sebastian: comments by Jan there
… we should not be more relaxing
… so can be more restricted
[28]changes
[28] https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/pull/1090
Sebastian: (goes through the changes)
… we can copy definitions to new ones
… and get new id:value pair
… the semantic meanings should be the same
… introduced new examples to provide better understanding
… overrides the maximum
[29]preview
[29] https://pr-preview.s3.amazonaws.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/pull/1090.html
Sebastian: (goes through the preview)
[30]specifically the example 47
[30] https://pr-preview.s3.amazonaws.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/pull/1090.html#td-model-example-smart-lamp-control
Jan: is having maximum as 100 too restrictive?
Sebastian: (shows the ASDF draft)
[31]SDF draft
[31] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-asdf-sdf-05
Jan: what about TM extending another TM?
… is that possible?
Sebastian: some example there (around lin 5196 from the HTML
code)
… would like to suggest we merge this PR 1090 as the basis for
the further discussion
… any objections?
(none)
(and merged)
PR 1092
[32]PR 1092 - rename required to tmRequired + top level
definition
[32] https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/pull/1092
Sebastian: renaming needed
… also need assertions for validation
McCool: playground should be also updated
Ege: I should include this change
McCool: will apply the changes
[33]PR 1085 - WIP: Add Validation Section
[33] https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/pull/1085
Sebastian: quickly skim PR 1085
… may I merge PR 1092 now?
McCool: just wondering which the current spec use "ref" or
"reference"
Sebastian: "ref"
… any objections to merge PR 1092?
(none)
(and merged)
PR 1095
[34]PR 1095 - Two step generation of the TD from a TM
[34] https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/pull/1095
Cristiano: not sure if all the processors need to follow these
two steps, though
Sebastian: note that you just provide the template.html
… but should provide index.html as well
Cristiano: ok
[35]related issue 1047 - Two step generation of the TD from a
TM should be clear
[35] https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues/1047
Sebastian: a bit concerned since this PR 1095 is very big
… should be split into several smaller PRs?
McCool: multiple smaller PRs would be better to handle
… note that every assertion must use the RFC2119 keywords
Daniel: some typo there
… "tmRequired" should be "tm:Required"
Cristiano: right
Jan: is partial TD introduced yet?
Sebastian: good question
… there Terminology section should have the definition
Daniel: the next publication version should include it (though
the current published version doesn't)
<cris> [36]Partial TD definition
[36] https://w3c.github.io/wot-architecture/#dfn-partial-td
Sebastian: need to have a look
… the definition is valid for the TD draft (at the moment)
… maybe it would be better where the definition is done
(=within the WoT Architecture spec)
Kaz: note we're out of time
Sebastian: let's continue the discussion next week then
… thanks a lot for your contributions
… and thanks for your participation, Jan!
Jan: no problem
[adjourned]
Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by
[37]scribe.perl version 127 (Wed Dec 30 17:39:58 2020 UTC).
[37] https://w3c.github.io/scribe2/scribedoc.html
Received on Wednesday, 5 May 2021 07:17:36 UTC