- From: Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2022 18:10:41 +0900
- To: public-wot-wg@w3.org
available at:
https://www.w3.org/2021/11/01-wot-discovery-minutes.html
also as text below.
Thanks,
Kazuyuki
---
[1]W3C
[1] https://www.w3.org/
WoT Discovery
01 November 2021
[2]IRC log.
[2] https://www.w3.org/2021/11/01-wot-discovery-irc
Attendees
Present
Kaz_Ashimura, Kunihiko_Toumura, Michael_McCool,
Tomoaki_Mizushima
Regrets
Christian_Glomb
Chair
McCool
Scribe
kaz
Contents
1. [3]Minutes review
1. [4]Fragment identifiers
2. [5]JSONPath and XPath
Meeting minutes
Minutes review
[6]vF2F Day 1
[6] https://www.w3.org/2021/10/05-wot-minutes.html
[7]Oct-18
[7] https://www.w3.org/2021/10/18-wot-discovery-minutes.html
McCool: would like to review the minutes and see the actions
Fragment identifiers
McCool: (goes through the vF2F Day 1 minutes)
… use of fragment identifiers in IDs to resolve "is ID that of
TD or of Thing?"
Kaz: right
… we discussed that during the joint meeting with DID on Oct 28
as well
McCool: right
… need to search for the related GitHub issues
[8]McCool's comment on ID of TD vs Thing for wot-discovery
issue 190
[8] https://github.com/w3c/wot-discovery/issues/190#issuecomment-934423247
McCool: fragment identifiers do NOT address the question of
objects which are different versions of a "living" object, nor
of expressing the relationships between different versions and
the living object.
McCool: (goes through the wot-discovery issue 190)
… the discussion started with @type
… but related to @id
… (adds the URL of the issue 190 to the Discovery call wiki
agenda)
[9]Discovery call wiki
[9] https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/WG_WoT_Discovery_WebConf#1_November_2021
McCool: think we can't apply this change to the TD 1.1 spec due
to the potential uncompatibility
… (adds comments to the wot-discovery issue 190)
… unfortunately, I think we want a compatible solution so it
can go into the TD 1.1 spec
… during the F2F (on Oct28, during the T2TRG/DID session) the
idea of using "fragment identifiers" on IDs came up
… I need to think more/research more about this, but this is an
outline of my thoughts:
… 1. Extend IDs with a fragment identifier (or maybe a query
parameter) providing a "view" identifier.
… This would distinuish different TDs that refer to the same
Things.
… In this case, dropping the extension gives the IDs of the
Thing.
… With the extension, it's the ID of the TD.
… 2. For backward compatibility, an ID without an extension
would be considered to be the "primary" TD and in a 1:1
relationship with a Thing.
… A thing should only have ONE "primary" TD.
… 3. Any "derived" TD, e.g., for a proxoy, or for changing the
default language, etc., should add an extension to the ID.
… 4. Note this means we can easily add different "views"
(different TDs for the same Thing) to a TDD since the IDs will
be distinct.
… 5. We still have the problem of creating unique extensions.
Perhaps extensions could *ALSO* be UUIDs.
… (adds some examples)
Kaz: yeah
… that's fine as the initial starting point
… but we need to think about how to generate the UUID
… and how to manage that as well
McCool: yeah
… the question is how to guarantee the uniqueness
Kaz: right
McCool: anyway, we've capture the problems on this issue
JSONPath and XPath
McCool: another point for today is Issue 156
[10]Issue 156 - JSONPath and XPath response data models
[10] https://github.com/w3c/wot-discovery/issues/156
McCool: Toumura-san might want to describe his use case on this
issue
<McCool> [11]https://github.com/w3c/wot-discovery/issues/156
[11] https://github.com/w3c/wot-discovery/issues/156
McCool: will add a comment to the issue 156, and let's continue
the discussion
[adjourned]
Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by
[12]scribe.perl version 147 (Thu Jun 24 22:21:39 2021 UTC).
[12] https://w3c.github.io/scribe2/scribedoc.html
Received on Monday, 10 January 2022 09:10:45 UTC