- 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