26 May 2017

See also: IRC log


Kaz_Ashimura, Danh_Le_Phuoc, Daniel_Peinter, Dave_Raggett, Maria_Poveda, Taki_Kamiya, Yingying_Chen, Achille_Zappa


Some Discussion on TD Serialization

<kaz> discussion on the TD serialization topic

<kaz> Kaz wonders if Karsten also could join the TD call(s)

<kaz> Daniel will ask Karsten about that possibility

F2F Recap

<inserted> scribenick: dape

Taki: Sebastian used slides to go over TD overview
... Core/information model
... basic assumption vs current assumption

Kaz: Sebastian used 2 different versions of slides, one for the TD session and another for the summary session

Taki: Use the overview version for the summary session

<kaz> Sebastian's slides for the summary session during the Osaka f2f

Taki: Slide on #3. TD model sketch
... basic agreement with that regard
... model is separate from serialization
... JSON-LD, JSON, ect is possible
... not decided on Serialization yet. Basic model is agreed
... Kajimoto-San introduced TD lifecycle
... Kajimoto-San proposed addition of keywords ... for example @remove
... to modify TDs over lifetime
... another keyword is @available
... proposed during F2F
... WG concluded to contact JSON-LD first
... next topic is missing parts in JSON schema
... this topic was discussed also
... used JSON schema example
... e.g., client wants to retrieve temperature in Celsius
... with semantic annotations this is possible
... this scenario was used on PlugFest day also
... KDDI temperature sensor was provided
... Dave and Yongjing suggested other aspects
... step back a little bit.. think more about use case and derive requirements from there
... we decided to do so
... Yongjing sees 2 approaches (bottom up vs top down)
... next topic is TD namespace
... (slide #6)
... generic namespace does not have any version number
... some members think we should have some version managements concept
... suggestion during F2F was that we did not get to the point to decide... keep discussion up and conclude later
... next topic was about TD serialization
... DP led session
... proposal was to think separately between text-based and more efficient binary representation
... might be a good idea to select one default format for each
... at this point we do not know which format will be picked
... we should not invent another format... instead use existing one
... on the table are currently 2 for the efficient formats (EXI and CBOR)
... we need to elaborate on the comparison
... idea was to collect real TD examples (e.g. from PlugFest)
... oneM2M integration in the future
... evaluate several dimensions
... separately we need think about text-based serialization

Daniel: think the text-based format should be the basis... binary should represent this data

Taki: at the moment we can solely use the current JSON-LD format
... not sure whether we can convert JSON-LD examples to JSON

Dave: think we could do that. The other way around is possible already
... need to check that
... binding is more complicated

Daniel: will try to collect JSON-LD files from PlugFest
... Dave can then try to convert them

Dave: sounds like a good plan

Taki: On the binary format side DP and Carsten volunteered to show process

Kaz: question about namespace version
... W3C specification used XML version attribute, e.g., SSML 1.1

<kaz> SSML 1.1

Kaz: see section example

<kaz> Section 2.1

<kaz> [[ <speak version="1.1" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2001/10/synthesis" ]]

Kaz: might want to have something like this

Taki: Good point. Not listed yet.
... allows to change semantics also

Kaz: Can also talk to W3C experts to get feedback

Taki: thanks. that will help a lot

<kaz> ACTION: kaz to talk with W3C team experts about NS versioning for non-XML specs [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2017/05/26-wot-td-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-106 - Talk with w3c team experts about ns versioning for non-xml specs [on Kazuyuki Ashimura - due 2017-06-02].

Daniel: any plans to update TD till Düsseldorf F2F?

Taki: new features should be described very quickly...
... otherwise we keep current form
... opportunity to experiment
... w.r.t. to Serialization and Semantic annotation I am not sure if we can get consensus till next F2F
... IF anybody can think of any idea let's discuss next week
... any other topics?


Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: kaz to talk with W3C team experts about NS versioning for non-XML specs [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2017/05/26-wot-td-minutes.html#action01]

Summary of Resolutions

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.152 (CVS log)
$Date: 2017/05/26 07:22:44 $