W3C

- DRAFT -

WoT WG - TD-TF

16 Jun 2017

Agenda

See also: IRC log

Attendees

Present
Kaz_Ashimura, Daniel_Peintner, Dave_Raggett, Maria_Poveda, Michael_Koster, Taki_Kamiya, Victor_Charpenay, Katsuyoshi_Naka, Niklas_Widell, Masato_Ohura, Michael_McCool, Feng_Zhang
Regrets
Chair
Taki
Scribe
dape

Contents


F2F Düsseldorf

<inserted> scribenick: dape

taki: Sebastian went through changes last week
... he made changes as planned
... I made other changes
... last change was about arrays.. as discussed during last week
... changes were about link vs links
... @type always array
... Victor volunteered to update JSON-LD context file

VC: wait till Maria updates ontology first
... have a first version already

Maria: Made PR in WOT repo
... including uris, names etc

<MariaPoveda> Maria's pull request

<taki> Current practices pull request (aded folder for vocabulary files) is here. https://github.com/w3c/wot/pull/321

VC: Turtle file only?

Maria: uri, namespace, prefix etc is in

VC: Can we have file in TD namespace..

Kaz: hope so.. did not get response yet.. will send reminder

VC: it is important for some use-cases

Kaz: Fallback is not to wait for that, and start with the current proposal "www.w3.org/ns/td" for the initial version

VC: Conflict with vicinity though

Maria: Could check with Phil Archer
... he knows how to publish namespace
... Not sure about vicinity conflict
... can update mine once the version is stable

VC: 2 versions in the same NS

Maria: changed namespace..

Kaz: Talking to Ralph Swick and Phileppe Le Hegaret about this
... will send reminder to them
... try to check also with Phil if needed

VC: w.r.t. json-ld context.. I will wait till we decided how to proceed
... otherwise it does not make any sense

TK: Kaz, please keep us informed

Kaz: will do

TK: Listed also binding template in Agenda
... not sure how to include this till Düsseldorf?
... will it be independent document ?

MK: one plan was to make PR
... adding it to Current Practices document
... need to work on that
... or some kind of document that can be included

McCool: Question: Have you resolved company IP issues?

MK: did not join yet

Kaz: managing repos these days in WoT is a bit tricky ...
... we are working on a better system

McCool: should make clear whether we can include parts from non-participants

Kaz: Yes, that's part of repo management

TK/MK: Keep it independent.. as best practices at the moment

McCool: prototype is fine too

TK: plan for CP document: ready till 23th

Plans for next plugfest

TK: Last week we continued discussion with linked data task force
... not sure whether there was a conclusion
... we don't have Darko today

VC: Will discuss that this afternoon
... not sure whether there was already a decision... don't think so

TK: 2 parts
... 1 use case description
... 2. implementing TD
... Michael Koster mentioned that use-case is described

MK: Made github issue
... describing high level description of semantic interoperability

<victor> https://github.com/w3c/wot/issues/320

MK: it basically just opens the discussion

VC: to test semantic interoperability we need a clear documentation
... that is currently still missing
... linked data task force tries to do that

Maria: think linked data task forces meets next week

VC: should add it to Agenda

<kaz> LD agenda

Overview ongoing AIs (https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues)

TK: one item is new
... raised by Maria, see https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues/9

Maria: same attribute for indicating URI interaction pattern and XML schema
... think point to 2 different things
... meaning of attributes is different

VC: Do you have an example?

Maria: not sure. found just model..

MK: It has different semantic meanings?

Maria: Correct
... same type does not mean the same

DP: same name pointing to 2 different things not possible?

VC: Not in JSON-LD

Maria: semantics is different.. should apply different attribute

VC: example might help to explain
... post-pone it? after next plugfest?

Maria: Makes sense

MK: I am using it currently inling the content.. not via href
... meaning of href is defined as hypermedia reference.. with mediaType etc

VC: think href is needed to hyperlink to a schema
... need uri and mediaType
... link could be schemaLink
... different semantics can handled in that way

Maria: propose examples.. not sure if we are talking about the same

MK: +1

DP: wonder who can propose examples?

Kaz: might want to record it

VC: don't think it is very urgent
... will reply on the issue

<kaz> Maria's issue

VC: use case was to allow different types of schemas
... Dave had a proposal also...

Maria: let's wait till it is more clear

TK: going back to Action Items
... think we can close https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues/7
... semantic annotation (https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues/5) no conclusion yet
... DP, what about https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues/2

DP: collected test data
... initial measurements w.r.t size
... other aspects not handled yte
... Carsten volunteered in looking into CBOR

TK: Unfortunately we could not discuss Daves proposal

Reminder of hotel deadline for Dusseldorf

<Zakim> kaz, you wanted to mention the f2f logistics

Kaz: Information about Düsseldorf F2F.
... hotel deadline is today!

<kaz> https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/F2F_meeting,_9-13_July_2017,_D%C3%BCsseldorf,_Germany#Recommended_Hotels

AOB?

<ohura> https://github.com/w3c/wot/issues/262

Kaz's note: We couldn't hear Ohura-san, so Kaz talked with him offline and suggested Ohura-san raise an agendum proposal for the next call on Issue-262 and/or respond to Issue-262 itself on GitHub.

Niklas: brief mention: talked about IPSO mapping
... we kicked off this work
... I am off for 3 weeks
... work is progressing anyway

Niklas: hope we have something ready till F2F
... unfortunately I cannot join F2F

TK: Thank you!

<kaz> [adjourned]

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.152 (CVS log)
$Date: 2017/06/16 10:40:05 $