WoT TD restructuring meeting

26 Oct 2016


See also: IRC log


Kaz_Ashimura, Daniel_Peintner, Dave_Raggett, Gregg_Kellogg, Uday_Davluru, Yingying_Chen, Takuki_Kamiya, Sebastian_Kaebisch, Dave, Victor_Charpeney, Katsuyoshi_Naka


<kaz> scribenick: yingying_

<kaz> scribe: Yingying

[Sebastian is going through the agenda]


Sebastian: All the use cases and proposals regarding on the TD are all on github.
... there are many going on. The deadline for closing for this action is next week.
... does it make sense to extend one week?
... We need put in new information to current practice document.
... We need also sometime to implement it. And online PlugFest preparation also needs time.
... please use github repository to add your stuff regarding the TD

Discussion about JSON-LD 1.1

Sebastian: there is a github issue on it from Dave.

<kaz> issue-259

Sebastian: what will JSON-LD 1.1 impact the TD?
... which we would like to see in JSON-LD 1.1? what kind of opportunities are there?
... could you introduce yourself @1?

gregg: I am the editor of JSON-LD 1.0.

<kaz> JSON-LD 1.0

gregg: I am trying to put things forward in the community group. There are request index format for accessing data.
... array form is not already convenient.
... language can be used as index.
... for using index token there are several ways.
... the key value is id and the object value will be no definitions.
... the idea is to have a top level index that object whose keys were ids
... best practices for doing that will be indicated.

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.
... web developers like easy representation and like to use JSON.
... we can combine these JSON format and can simply integrate the semantics.
... JSON-LD does not allow you to use it as use JSON.
... are we going to rely on that?

Victor: you are collecting requirements for new version of JSON-LD?

gregg: just community group no wg.
... far too many features to integrate in 1.1 release. one of them is closely related to framing or semantics.
... beginning of next to start work on it.
... there are small group and easy to make consensus.
... 2 years the community draft will be ready.
... the group is actively developing and would be good to track their development

sebastian: is there something similar to W3C recommendation?

gregg: we need a wg chartered with updating JSON-LD.

<sebastian> sorry Dave, you will be the next

gregg: short timeline there could be but couldn't say yet.

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.
... we can use their proposals and feed into JSON-LD later.
... there are quite lot of use cases and requirements that we can feed into the community group.

victor: community group is working on another version.

<kaz> proposed WoT WG Charter

kaz: proposed WG charter does not say we would like to use JSON-LD, JSON or others specifically. those data models are just examples of possible data models for Thing Description..
... we should compile our requirements for expected updated version to the community group or new created wg for JSON-LD.

sebastian: yes. it's not mentioned in the proposed charter.
... it's said we need to rely on semantic technology.
... 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.
... how would you like to communicate with JSON-LD 1.1 community group.
... another point is whether we need to make changes on it.
... if people are not satisfied we need to find other solution.

victor: how big is the community group for JSON-LD 1.1? are there any members who are willing to contribute?

gregg: hundreds of member. from 5 years people started working on it.
... could not say now how the group will response to our request. probably after we have a proposal, it could be seen.

<kaz> JSON-LD CG participants

gregg: don't know if it's possible to add your own extension to the recommendation.
... biggest advantage is that active works are going on to support more RDF concept to JSON-LD.

victor: wondering just contribute to the community group or just rely on their work.
... about referencing others' work, need to ask W3C staff.

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.
... would be problematic to reference document from community group in the spec.

victor: I just use JSON for constraint device instead of JSON-LD.

<Victor> sorry, we've been disconnected

dave: agree on that point. but need to think about way in JSON-LD for supporting constraint devices.

<sebastian> we are back

gregg: reasonable to have such an extension for constraint device, giving subset of JSON-LD for that purpose.

kaz: we should clarify our requirements on JSON-LD. maybe not in the TD document but in our UCR document.

victor: true. let's try to do that if we need to do that clarification for JSON-LD new version.

sebastian: JSON-LD just one year usage in plugfest is nice from people's feedback.
... it's quite accepted and understood by the group.
... we have to ask more the web developers whether it's ok for current TD structure.
... for the constraint devices, serialization format and compression format were discussed in the group.
... EXI wg is also working on it for very constraint devices.

daniel: what dave said is not only related to serialization but how to prescribe the features of JSON-LD for constraint devices.
... I would prefer to use what already exits in JSON-LD rather than starting from scratch again.
... creating another new abstract format is not acceptable

sebastian: how to continue the discussion?
... Dave, would it be possible to involve more web developers in the discussion?

dave: we are lack of channels to reach out web developers community. We maybe can more use the open source projects.
... some experiments are more research focus. We still need to attract more SMEs to the group.

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.

dave: we could find more people who have experiences on it.

kaz: we could reach out for W3C Members and non-Member communities more for comments on it, but the detail should be discussed and planned within not this TD Restructuring TF but the WoT Comm TF.

yingying: we agreed in Beijing F2F meeting that the IG needs to be involved for implementation related issues as they could not be handled in communication TF as there are just few people in it.

kaz: we could discuss whether it should be handled in communication TF in another place later.

yingying: yes.

sebastian: thanks a lot for gregg to call in so late in the night.
... it would be nice to contact gregg for anything related to JSON-LD.

Properties vs Actions

[sebastian is going through the properties vs actions table]

-> https://github.com/w3c/wot/issues/255 issue 255

sebastian: we should rely on URI which is more flexible.
... what are you thinking about it?
... another approach is @id proposed by victor. However it's not so commonly used by web developers. I would recommend the URI.

dave: do we need more terms what is the URI for? what is the relationship?
... to identify endpoint, URI is generic.

victor: URI here is the identifier for the resource.
... maybe more precise term for it?

dave: the scope and value for this URI?

victor: endpoint is more related to service but now it's related to resource. More opinions on it?

dave: I think URI is fine for that.

[some discussions on the URI proposal]

sebastian: I would close this issue.

Other issues

-> https://github.com/w3c/wot/issues/254 issue 254

sebastian: everybody agreed on it. My proposal is to move this issue to the discussion on lifecycle which is led by kajimoto-san.

[sebastian summarized the benefits for having the template]

sebastian: my suggestion is to close this issue.

-> https://github.com/w3c/wot/issues/264 issue 264

sebastian: please comment on this new issue.

-> https://github.com/w3c/wot/issues/256 issue 256

sebastian: could dave give some update on the compound properties issue?

dave: would be useful to collect use cases on it.

sebastian: could you also post your proposal on it?

dave: I will dig it out on the github.

-> https://github.com/w3c/wot/issues/263 issue 263

sebastian: UI field proposed in TD. Please comment on it.
... these are all the issues. please continue working on it. I will send the status of the github issues to IG mailing group.
... extend the deadline for 1 week.
... next week we will have a review on what the new TD looks like.
... thank you.


Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.148 (CVS log)
$Date: 2016/10/26 08:59:15 $