sebastian: gives brief overview of previous discussions

<dape> https://github.com/json-schema-org/json-schema-spec/issues/309

JSON Schema status

Daniel-to follow up

TD Namespace

<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]

TD model

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 ]