See also: IRC log
<joerg> do we have a volunteer for scribing?
<scribe> scribenick: kaz
<scribe> scribe: Kaz
joerg: let's start the call for
the whole IG and the TF-AP
... support for the WG items
... also logistics for the upcoming f2f meeting
... those are for the IG whole
... and contribution from Louay on WoT API in WebIDL (TF-AP
topic)
... useful for the plugfest during the f2f in Jan.
-> https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/Proposals_for_WoT_WG_work_items WG item wiki
joerg: discussion during the f2f
meeting in Sapporo
... got request for extension
... so extended the deadline till last week
... covering different items
... the first is: Linked Data Vocabulary For Describing Data
Models
... significant number of support
... also there are comments
... Siemens and Panasonic
... kind of focus on domain-specific topics
... also comment from Dave
dsr: agree with the restriction to horizontal metadata. The choice of schema language will impact serialization, especially for resource constrained devices. Serialization formats could be dealt with as a separate work item (see content types).
sebastian: agree should define
minimum vocabulary
... also domain-specific vocabulary
... minimum set which would fit any industry
... also a vocabulary for small devices with limited
capability
dsr: what about serialization?
sebastian: should stuck with
existing serialization formats
... seems we're close with each other
dsr: one spec for vocabulary and
another for serialization
... should be handle with separate two specs
... would propose we should have a narrow scope
... we could extend the scope later
joerg: maybe we can take this as
an initial proposal
... we've got significant number of supporters
... next steps should be discussed at the upcoming f2f meeting
in Jan.
... we can make conclusion on the description there
... supporters could clarify what their expectations are
... we can share opinions on each topic
dsr: would see objective sentence
block for each topic
... should not be a lot of effort
danh: people consider constrained
devices
... similar to SSN ontology?
... the comment from Siemens/Panasonic seems correct to
me
... simple open ontology which could fit devices with different
capability
... when you design ontologies, people might think about
serialization format
joerg: state to be
connected
... more discussion to authorize should happen during the f2f
meeting
... how to move on this topic within the 6 weeks from now?
<dsr> Some existing text: This will specify a data modelling vocabulary for describing things in terms of events, properties and actions, and links to domain models and protocol specific API descriptions. This work item will include provision for late bound data types, re-use of data type definitions, and labelled opaque data types for data to be handed on to entities that understand it. This vocabulary will be designed to supplement the RDF core datatypes, including enume[CUT]
<dsr> and numeric ranges.
joerg: supporters listed here
should provide clarifications
... by providing bullet points
darko: this sort of discussion
could be done on the mailing list
... or during a telco
... and we should have discussion during the f2f meeting as
well
dsr: idea to discuss on the ml is
good
... discussion on each item
... issue tracker on GitHub would be good as well
joerg: ok
<dsr> see early draft on github https://github.com/w3c/wot/blob/master/WG/charter.md
joerg: using GitHub would be convenient
dsr: if the proposers of each
topic could manage the issues
... would be great
... would be happy to update the document
joerg: would start with bullet points
dsr: we could manage the issues using the GitHub issue tracking mechanism
joerg: each item can be discussed
individually
... we have 9 items
kaz: so each proposer would
create an issue based on their proposal
... and supporters add their clarifications
joerg: yes
... we have some more comments
... sebastian?
sebastian: make sense to have
description what has access to the server
... and interaction model
... all the scopes are related to each other
dsr: combine items or modular
items?
... two buckets
... common things or modularizing horizontal metadata
joerg: next one would be content
type for serialization
... metadata is JSON-LD
... significant number of serialization formats
... in the objective section here
<scribe> ... new one or existing one?
dsr: if we use JSON-LD, how to
encode to JSON-LD?
... if we define content types, what kind of mechanism to
support various devices?
... default context and minimum capability
... need to know content type
victor: what you have to discuss is communication between devices need to know actual data exchange
dsr: you're getting the default
context
... maybe would be better to continue on the ML
victor: we're talking about serialization
dsr: need longer discussion...
mike: looking at here is for
constrained devices
... might have fixed codes
... for interaction
joerg: yeah, we have to revisit
scope discussion
... some comments not clear enough
... again, the group should prepare your understandings for the
GitHub document
... next: Web of Things scripting API
... supportive comment
... don't see points to discuss here
... please get prepared for your contribution
... next: Bindings to Common Protocols
jhund: my point is on the wiki
Siemens + Panasonic: W3C excels in defining models, payloads and APIs. The actual protocols are mainly driven by the respective consortia and standardization bodies. Therefore, a possible deliverable should be rather a model and a guideline on how to create a protocol binding rather than the binding itself, which might better be provided in the scope of the actual protocol definition. The inputs for this should be drawn from both the APIs and the thing description.
jhund: need abstracted
layer
... we WoT group should show how existing protocols should be
integrated
... the people defining the protocols should think about the
best practices
dsr: this is what W3C and IETF
work for WebSocket
... similar model would work for WoT
... other groups work for XMPP or MQPP
... W3C need to work with those external groups
jhund: you mentioned the
successful story of WebSocket
... it is more on the protocol implementers
... taking up the WoT stack as the starting point would
work
dsr: the key thing is
communication metadata should be interoperable
... you want a minimum set of abstract messaging?
jhund: yeah, we should keep the level abstract here
dsr: wondering which to do: W3C spec, IETF spec or W3C/IETF joint spec
<dsr> Let’s not fix this now, and rather leave it to discussions with the respective SDOs
joerg: let's move on: Uniform and
Technology Independent Discovery
... just a few supports
... discussion within the discovery group?
... and outcome here
... support to consider?
... louay, soumya?
... related to protocol mapping?
... if so, should be combined
louay: related to API for
me
... uniform API to access all the technologies
... not sure if you've already looked at my proposal on
WebIDL
... unified interface or technology for discovery
joerg: maybe we should take this
into smaller group discussion
... next: WoT Security and Security-Enabling APIs
<jhund> we had to switch agenda points to progress on the WG topic before F2F, the topic of Louay's contribution is next up on the agenda
<Zakim> dsr, you wanted to ask whether it makes sense to merge this with the scripting APIs work item
dsr: given the strong supports
for APIs
... should be merged?
joerg: similar to how the
security group works
... need to think about what would be the best structure
... for Authorization for Things Discovery
... and Things Metadata for Security and
Security-Enabling
... discussion to be done at the f2f
... let's discuss the next steps for the 9 items on the
GitHub
... using bullet points of description
... and discussion during the f2f meeting
... would volunteers from the active supporters
joerg: f2f in Nice
-> https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/F2F_meeting_2016,_January,_26th_%E2%80%93_28th,_France,_Nice f2f wiki
joerg: the host can't cover all
the cost
... would like to ask you follow the link here to get
registered
... there are two registration forms
... meeting registration and payment
... would appreciate Eurecom's help
... any comments?
dsr: Soumya is looking after people's interest in the OpenDay on Jan. 25
victor: John Davis's participation?
dsr: suggested to Soumya
victor: preparation for the
plugfest?
... talked with Soumya and the logistics team, but seems we
can't have a room on 24th
... would be helpful if we could use a room for preparation on
24th
dsr: one option is hosting a room
within INRIA
... another possibility is a room at a hotel nearby
... can ask
... my concern is people's travel
... will come on Sunday?
... INRIA would be closed on Sunday
... so the choice might be a hotel room
joerg: please check the
possibility
... maybe 8-9 people
... please do your registration by Christmas
... and would see the possibility of the preparation
meeting
... further comments?
(none)
joerg: the next meeting after
this will be the one at MIT in Boston
... hotel booking should be made asap
... for the April meeting
... would be quite expensive if in March, April
dsr: need to pin out the
date
... precisely
joerg: would say 12-14
... without openday
dsr: ideally would have an
openday
... unfortunate if we couldn't have an openday
joerg: openday or plugfest?
dsr: or combine them
perhaps?
... how about having a 4-day meeting?
joerg: would stuck with
3-day
... unless we get further comments
... is it ok by people to make reservation now?
kaz: it's difficult for JP
participants to make reservations for April meeting now,
because JP fiscal year changes
... will ask them for their opinions and let you know about the
responses next week
<Zakim> dsr, you wanted to ask for confirmation in respect to location for July face to face
yingying: is the date
confirmed?
... for July meeting
joerg: 12-14 is the proposal
dsr: is CETC in Beijing?
yingying: yes
joerg: great
-> https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/Main_Page#Face_to_Face_Meetings WoT wiki (f2f plan)
joerg: that's it for the whole IG
jhund: not much time
... but would acknowledge Louay's contribution
... would have a longer slot during the next call
... useful to our plugfest
louay: don't think need to share my screen now
<jhund> https://github.com/w3c/wot/blob/master/TF-AP/thing-api/thing-api-webidl.md
louay: already shared the link
above
... discussion in Sapporo
... how to have unified API for discovery
... even registration remotely
... this is an initial idea and need your
feedback/contribution
... maybe missing security/privacy aspects
... put concrete scripts for each interface description
jhund: thank you very much!
... would everybody to look at it
... and have email discussion
... maybe easier to have GitHub issues
... ok if people add proposals?
louay: of course
... we need contributions from different aspects
... link between APIs and TD, etc.
... actions, events, etc.
jhund: would raise this topic before the upcoming f2f
joerg: ok
... please make sure to get registered for the f2f
... and remind yourself to add clarifications for the WG
proposal
[ adjourned ]