07:05:47 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #wot-td
07:05:48 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/10/26-wot-td-irc
07:06:25 <kaz> present+ Kaz_Ashimura, Daniel_Peintner, Dave_Raggett, Gregg_Kellogg, Uday_Davluru, Yingying_Chen
07:06:53 <kaz> present+ Takuki_Kamiya
07:12:20 <kaz> present+ Sebastian_Kaebisch
07:13:09 <kaz> scribenick: yingying_
07:13:10 <dsr> dsr has joined #wot-td
07:13:14 <kaz> scribe: Yingying
07:13:15 <dsr> present+ Dave
07:13:20 <yingying_> present+ Yingying_Chen
07:13:27 <uday> uday has joined #wot-td
07:13:29 <kaz> agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-wot-ig/2016Oct/0014.html
07:13:38 <yingying_> Meeting: WoT TD restructuring meeting
07:13:44 <yingying_> Chair: Sebastian
07:14:29 <yingying_> [Sebastian is going through the agenda]
07:14:36 <yingying_> Topic: Logistics
07:15:15 <yingying_> Sebastian: All the use cases and proposals regarding on the TD are all on github.
07:15:39 <yingying_> ...there are many going on. The deadline for closing for this action is next week.
07:15:54 <yingying_> ...does it make sense to extend one week?
07:16:28 <yingying_> ...We need put in new information to current practice document.
07:16:53 <yingying_> ...We need also sometime to implement it. And online PlugFest preparation also needs time.
07:17:25 <yingying_> ...please use github repository to add your stuff regarding the TD>
07:17:33 <yingying_> s/>//
07:17:45 <yingying_> Topic: Discussion about JSON-LD 1.1
07:18:03 <yingying_> Sebastian: there is a github issue on it from Dave.
07:18:09 <Victor> Victor has joined #wot-td
07:18:18 <kaz> -> https://github.com/w3c/wot/issues/259 issue-259
07:19:55 <yingying_> ...what will JSON-LD 1.1 impact the TD?
07:20:24 <yingying_> ...which we would like to see in JSON-LD 1.1? what kind of opportunities are there?
07:20:37 <yingying_> ...could you introduce yourself @1?
07:20:57 <yingying_> @1: I am the editor of JSON-LD 1.1.
07:21:17 <sebastian> sebastian has joined #wot-td
07:21:20 <kaz> -> https://www.w3.org/TR/json-ld/ JSON-LD 1.0
07:21:27 <kaz> s/1.1/1.0/
07:21:35 <kaz> s/@1:/gregg:/
07:21:57 <yingying_> ...I am trying to put things forward in the community group. There are request index format for accessing data.
07:22:15 <yingying_> ...array form is not already convenient.
07:22:24 <yingying_> ...language can be used as index.
07:22:40 <yingying_> ...for using index token there are several ways.
07:23:20 <yingying_> ...the key value is id and the object value will be no definitions.
07:24:11 <yingying_> ...the idea is to have a top level index that object whose keys were ids
07:24:30 <yingying_> ...best practices for doing that will be indicated.
07:25:16 <yingying_> sebastian: main perspective is that TD should be a format that should be very easy to use such that the web developer use it just as use other JSON object format.
07:25:33 <yingying_> ...web developers like easy representation and like to use JSON.
07:25:57 <yingying_> ...we can combine these JSON format and can simply integrate the semantics.
07:26:21 <yingying_> ...JSON-LD does not allow you to use it as use JSON.
07:26:35 <yingying_> ...are we going to rely on that?
07:26:42 <dsr> q+
07:27:08 <kaz> present+ Victor_Charpeney
07:27:20 <yingying_> Darko: you are collecting requirements for new version of JSON-LD?
07:27:30 <yingying_> gregg: just community group no wg.
07:27:55 <kaz> s/Darko:/Victor:/
07:28:42 <yingying_> ...far too many features to integrate in 1.1 release. one of them is closely related to framing or semantics.
07:29:00 <yingying_> ...beginning of next to start work on it.
07:29:27 <dsr> q?
07:29:37 <yingying_> ...there are small group and easy to make consensus.
07:29:57 <yingying_> ...2 years the community draft will be ready.
07:30:45 <yingying_> ...the group is actively developing and would be good to track their development
07:31:04 <yingying_> sebastian: is there something similar to W3C recommendation?
07:31:32 <yingying_> gregg: we need a wg chartered with updating JSON-LD.
07:31:37 <sebastian> sorry Dave, you will be the next
07:31:55 <yingying_> ...short timeline there could be but couldn't say yet.
07:33:16 <Victor> q+
07:33:23 <sebastian> ack D
07:33:24 <kaz> ack d
07:33:52 <yingying_> dave: we need to build way of using JSON for web developers. timeline is critical. Now we will setup WG to develop TD spec. The time would be short.
07:34:14 <yingying_> ...we can use their proposals and feed into JSON-LD later.
07:34:30 <kaz> q+
07:34:49 <yingying_> ...there are quite lot of use cases and requirements that we can feed into the community group.
07:36:25 <yingying_> victor: community group is working on another version.
07:37:17 <sebastian> ack v
07:37:25 <kaz> -> https://www.w3.org/2016/09/wot-wg-charter.html proposed WoT WG Charter
07:37:56 <yingying_> kaz: proposed WG charter does not say we would like to use JSON-LD, JSON or others.
07:38:36 <yingying_> ...we should compile our requirements for expected updated version to the community group or new created wg for JSON-LD.
07:38:55 <yingying_> sebastian: yes. it's not mentioned in the proposed charter.
07:39:05 <kaz> s/others/others specifically. those data models are just examples of possible data models for Thing Description./
07:39:16 <yingying_> ...it's said we need to rely on semantic technology.
07:39:59 <kaz> q?
07:40:00 <kaz> ack k
07:40:35 <yingying_> ...it's a difficult thing. 2 important things: 1. JSON-LD is enough to use in TD. are developers satisfied with it? should we go into more details for reviews by web developers.
07:41:04 <yingying_> ...how would you like to communicate with JSON-LD 1.1 community group.
07:41:49 <Victor> q+
07:42:07 <yingying_> ...another point is whether we need to make changes on it.
07:42:56 <yingying_> ...if people are not satisfied we need to find other solution.
07:43:32 <yingying_> victor: how big is the community group for JSON-LD 1.1? are there any members who are willing to contribute?
07:44:05 <yingying_> gregg: hundreds of member. from 5 years people started working on it.
07:45:24 <yingying_> ...could not say now how the group will response to our request. probably after we have a proposal, it could be seen.
07:46:17 <kaz> -> https://www.w3.org/community/json-ld/participants JSON-LD CG participants
07:46:20 <dsr> q+
07:46:32 <kaz> ack v
07:46:41 <yingying_> ...don't know if it's possible to add your own extension to the recommendation.
07:47:21 <yingying_> ...biggest advantage is that active works are going on to support more RDF concept to JSON-LD.
07:47:57 <dsr> q?
07:48:10 <yingying_> victor: wondering just contribute to the community group or just rely on their work.
07:48:40 <yingying_> ...about referencing others' work, need to ask W3C staff.
07:48:47 <kaz> ack d
07:49:25 <yingying_> dave: we see different targets for TD. Powerful device/gateway can do a lot of things. for constraint device, json-ld is already too much.
07:49:37 <katsu> katsu has joined #wot-td
07:50:15 <yingying_> ...would be problematic to reference document from community group in the spec.
07:50:19 <katsu> present+ Katsuyoshi_Naka
07:50:32 <gkellogg> q+
07:51:06 <kaz> q+
07:51:10 <yingying_> victor: I just use JSON for constraint device instead of JSON-LD.
07:51:24 <Victor> sorry, we've been disconnected
07:51:33 <yingying_> dave: agree on that point. but need to think about way in JSON-LD for supporting constraint devices.
07:52:27 <kaz> rrsagent, make log public
07:52:30 <kaz> rrsagent, draft minutes
07:52:30 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/10/26-wot-td-minutes.html kaz
07:52:41 <sebastian> we are back
07:53:14 <kaz> q?
07:53:17 <kaz> ack g
07:53:45 <yingying_> gregg:  reasonable to have such an extension for constraint device, giving subset of JSON-LD for that purpose.
07:53:48 <sebastian> ack k
07:55:07 <yingying_> kaz: we should clarify our requirements on JSON-LD. maybe not in the TD document but in our UCR document.
07:55:45 <dape> q+
07:55:48 <gkellogg> q+
07:55:56 <yingying_> victor: true. let's try to do that if we need to do that clarification for JSON-LD new version.
07:56:31 <yingying_> sebastian: JSON-LD just one year usage in plugfest is nice from people's feedback.
07:56:53 <yingying_> ...it's quite accepted and understood by the group.
07:57:29 <yingying_> ...we have to ask more the web developers whether it's ok for current TD structure.
07:58:04 <yingying_> ...for the constraint devices, serialization format and compression format were discussed in the group.
07:58:26 <yingying_> ...EXI wg is also working on it for very constraint devices.
07:59:20 <kaz> q?
07:59:21 <kaz> ack d
07:59:33 <yingying_> daniel: what dave said is not only related to serialization but how to prescribe the features of JSON-LD for constraint devices.
08:00:34 <yingying_> ...I would prefer to use what already exits in JSON-LD rather than starting from scratch again.
08:01:19 <sebastian> q?
08:01:26 <yingying_> ...creating another new abstract format is not acceptable
08:02:36 <sebastian> ack g
08:03:20 <yingying_> sebastian: how to continue the discussion
08:04:08 <kaz> s/discussion/discussion?/
08:04:29 <yingying_> ...Dave, would it be possible to involve more web developers in the discussion?
08:05:15 <yingying_> dave: we are lack of channels to reach out web developers community. We maybe can more use the open source projects.
08:05:17 <sebastian> q?
08:05:54 <kaz> q+
08:06:00 <yingying_> ...some experiments are more research focus. We still need to attract more SMEs to the group.
08:08:23 <yingying_> sebastian: after TD restructuring, for this more flexible, easier to use than the original version, we need to reach out the community to hear their feedbacks.
08:08:39 <kaz> q?
08:09:12 <yingying_> dave: we could find more people who have experiences on it.
08:11:04 <yingying_> kaz: we could reach out for W3C members more for comments on it.
08:11:48 <yingying_> sebastian: thanks a lot for gregg to call in late in the night.
08:12:08 <yingying_> ...it would be nice to contact gregg for anything related to JSON-LD.
08:12:16 <kaz> s/comments on it./comments on it, but the detail should be discussed and planned within not this TD Restructuring TF but the WoT Comm TF./
08:12:39 <kaz> s/for W3C members/for W3C Members and non-Member communities/
08:13:15 <yingying_> Topic: Properties vs Actions
08:14:32 <yingying_> [sebastian is going through the properties vs actions table]
08:15:11 <yingying_> -> https://github.com/w3c/wot/issues/255 issue 255
08:15:59 <yingying_> sebastian: we should rely on URI which is more flexible.
08:16:38 <yingying_> ...what are you thinking about it?
08:17:31 <yingying_> ...another approach is @id proposed by victor. However it's not so commonly used by web developers. I would recommend the URL.
08:17:40 <yingying_> s/URL/URI/
08:17:46 <kaz> q?
08:17:49 <kaz> ack k
08:17:52 <kaz> q+ dsr
08:17:53 <kaz> ack d
08:18:09 <yingying_> dave: do we need more terms what is the URI for? what is the relationship?
08:18:30 <yingying_> ...to identify endpoint, URI is generic.
08:18:52 <yingying_> victor: URI here is the identifier for the resource.
08:19:09 <yingying_> ...maybe more precise term for it?
08:19:22 <yingying_> dave: the scope and value for this URI?
08:20:07 <yingying_> victor: endpoint is more related to service but now it's related to resource. More opinions on it?
08:20:51 <yingying_> dave: I think URI is fine for that.
08:21:16 <yingying_> [some discussions on the URI proposal]
08:21:55 <yingying_> sebastian: I would close this issue.
08:22:29 <yingying_> -> https://github.com/w3c/wot/issues/254 issue 254
08:23:16 <yingying_> sebastian: everybody agreed on it. My proposal is to move this issue to the discussion on lifecycle which is led by kajimoto-san.
08:24:05 <kaz> i/254/topic: Other issues/
08:25:06 <yingying_> [sebastian summarized the benefits for having the template]
08:25:24 <yingying_> sebastian: my suggestion is to close this issue.
08:25:59 <yingying_> -> https://github.com/w3c/wot/issues/264 issue 264
08:26:39 <yingying_> sebastian: please comment on this new issue.
08:27:13 <yingying_> -> https://github.com/w3c/wot/issues/256 issue 256
08:27:36 <yingying_> sebastian: could dave give some update on the compound properties issue?
08:27:55 <yingying_> dave: would be useful to collect use cases on it.
08:28:10 <yingying_> sebastian: could you also post your proposal on it?
08:28:20 <yingying_> dave: I will dig it out on the github.
08:28:42 <yingying_> -> https://github.com/w3c/wot/issues/263 issue 263
08:29:39 <yingying_> sebastian: UI field proposed in TD. Please comment on it.
08:30:37 <yingying_> ...these are all the issues. please continue working on it. I will send the status of the github issues to IG mailing group.
08:31:13 <yingying_> ...extend the deadline for 1 week.
08:32:06 <yingying_> ...next week we will have a review on what the new TD looks like.
08:32:24 <yingying_> ...thank you.
08:32:30 <yingying_> [adjourned]
08:32:43 <yingying_> rrsagent, make minutes
08:32:43 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/10/26-wot-td-minutes.html yingying_
08:35:24 <yingying_> rrsagent, make minutes
08:35:24 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/10/26-wot-td-minutes.html yingying_
08:50:35 <yingying_> rrsagent, make log member
08:51:53 <yingying_> rrsagent, make log public
11:51:49 <Zakim> Zakim has left #wot-td
11:57:29 <kaz> kaz has joined #wot-td
12:12:15 <yingying> yingying has joined #wot-td
12:15:29 <yingying_> yingying_ has joined #wot-td
12:39:20 <ying_ying> ying_ying has joined #wot-td
12:48:27 <yingying> yingying has joined #wot-td
12:52:23 <yingying_> yingying_ has joined #wot-td
13:52:08 <taki1> taki1 has joined #wot-td
15:29:18 <taki1> taki1 has left #wot-td
15:32:17 <kaz> kaz has joined #wot-td
15:55:55 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #wot-td
16:04:01 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #wot-td
16:34:56 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #wot-td
16:42:05 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #wot-td
17:03:18 <gkellogg> gkellogg has left #wot-td