See also: IRC log
sebastian: gives brief overview of previous discussions
<dape> https://github.com/json-schema-org/json-schema-spec/issues/309
Daniel-to follow up
<DarkoAnicic> https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues/3
overview of new and where the old namespaces can be used
Darko: which main namespace are we going to use?
<DarkoAnicic> td: http://www.w3.org/ns/td#
Daniel: usually W3C namespaces start with year and month, is there a best practice for the same
<MariaPoveda> https://www.w3.org/TR/2013/REC-prov-o-20130430/
<MariaPoveda> http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#
Maria: using NS with date might not be good
<DanhLePhuoc> SSN ontology does not have year : http://www.w3.org/ns/ssn/
Kaz: describes W3C way of using namespace
Sebastian: discussion needed with a list of vocabulary and which comes from where
<kaz> [ we need to get approval for name spaces like http://www.w3.org/DIRECTLY_UNDER_THE_MAIN_HOSTNAME ]
<kaz> [ while we can create name spaces like http://www.w3.org/2017/04/wot or http://www.w3.org/ns/wot ]
<kaz> [ guideline here: https://www.w3.org/2005/07/13-nsuri ]
<kaz> kaz: I put the URL of the namespace guideline above
<MariaPoveda> we can represent the reused ns as in this example http://iot.linkeddata.es/def/core/index-en.html#description
<MariaPoveda> http://lov.okfn.org/dataset/lov/vocabs?tag=W3C%20Rec
<victor> sure, I just wanted to say that Dave defined this namespace with Phil Archer
<victor> I mean https://www.w3.org/ns/td
<victor> or "under the guidance" of Phil Archer, so I assume it is valid.
Danh: just done with SSN ontology, describes the same
<kaz> [ we can use https://www.w3.org/ns/td as well if we want (as described in the guideline: https://www.w3.org/2005/07/13-nsuri]
Sebastian: are there any proposals for F2F breakouts
TD model discussed
<yingying> TD Model http://iot.linkeddata.es/def/wot/index-en.html#description
McCool: briefs security
plans
... complicated to have different security for different
resources
can go for modular approach
Sebastian: why not use same vocabulary as we use in JSON-LD instance
Maria: we cannot use same vocab for all
Kaz: kind of concerned about the positioning of this document. we should clarify this document itself is a proposal under the Vicinity project and not W3C work at the moment. we need to extract part of the content and create another document for WoT TD document.
<victor> can't you just chage the template color (like yellow, as in the Vicinity logo?)
<victor> to avoid any confusion
<MariaPoveda> I'll have a look at the css
Danh: reminds process for W3C publication
Kaz: at some point (when the TD spec draft gets good enough), we can get consensus for publication as a FPWD within this TF first and then within the whole WG next, and then publish it as a FPWD. and we can publish it as a CR, PR and REC after that (when the spec draft becomes good enough for those stages)
Darko: we have stable vocab on TD, do we create JSON-LD context or do we stcik to one format for WoT ontology and JSON-LD representation??
Maria: better to keep them as close as possible but not necessary to be same
<victor> Maria, the program you run to generate the doc is Widoco, isn't it? There is an option for custom styles (-useCustomStyle), in case it helps.
Sebastian: take this as a separate web meeting agenda
<DarkoAnicic> +1
<MariaPoveda> +1
<kaz> +1
<DanhLePhuoc> +1
<DarkoAnicic> Maria: could you please provide us with an example where the difference between the OWL model and JSON-LD vocabulary would differ (before the next meeting on the topic)?
<MariaPoveda> ok
<kaz> [ adjourned ]