W3C

- DRAFT -

WoT IG - TF-LD

29 Sep 2017

See also: IRC log

Attendees

Present
Kaz_Ashimura, Danh_Le_Phuoc, Dave_Raggett, Maria_Poveda, Michael_Koster, Taki_Kamiya, Darko_Anicic, Victor_Charpenay, DarkoAnicic, Maxime_Lefran├žois, Aparna_Thuluva, dsr
Regrets
Chair
Darko
Scribe
mariapoveda

Contents


<kaz> scribenick: mariapoveda

proposals for plugfest

In the TD call the use of capabilities of serviants in the plugfest has been discussed

we will have TD semantically enriched

search could be done

still a challenge to be used

Darko's slides on "Web of Things - Thing Description Recipes"

second scenario about the use of recipes for search

you can also search for recipes, they are stored in the same format

Darko shows an example of recipe about motion detector light switch

explanation of the workflow for the recipe implementation

mkoster: question about subscriptions, input and actions

?:question about loading the script in the devices

participants are supposed to implement and deploy, quite manually

dave: how do I retrieve and classify motion devices according to their capabilities? are there slides about that ?

darko: we could show different lamps available and related capabilities, and do the discover and browse their features somehow

dave: use taxonomies? scripts?

mkoster: triggering a user dialog is an interesting idea

kaz: do you want to use the recipe approach for the plugfest during TPAC?

darko: yes

any proposal to bring to the plugfest?

Maxime's updates

updates on the process to let us agree in decisions to be push to the WG

<mlefranc> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wot-ig/2017Sep/0000.html

(mjkoster leaves)

the td ontology will be a normative reference, part of the recommendation

maxime: will be the td ontology a recommendation or a note?

darko: rdf documents are not normative aspects

kaz: if the document is under the TR we can not update that, but in other area should be
... we will need to update the rdf ontology, right?
... we can make the ontology itself a normative deliverable
... that is kind of dangerous in order to update it

victor: the documentation is based on the rdf

dave: there is a process for dealing with updates
... sometimes it is better not to be too prescriptive

kaz: is the rdf file part of the deliverable?

victor: not really but it feeds the table

kaz: we can generate the documentation the based on the rdf regardless where it is located

maxime: in ssn the ontology is not the recommendation

https://www.w3.org/TR/2013/REC-prov-o-20130430/ in prov-o it is a recommendation

but the ontology is in this namespace http://www.w3.org/ns/prov-o

<Zakim> dsr, you wanted to ask about what process we use to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of alternative ideas? My concern is that ideas need plenty of incubation before a

dave: it seems to be about maturity in specifications

kaz: having the ontology in TR will need more discussion in the general call. also if we really want to make the ontology an additional Recommendation, we need to update our Charter

dave: it can be moved through the process of spceficiation as it gets more mature, used...

dave, please let me know if I got your idea wrong

maxime shows the case of ssn ontology

alignments are not part of the ssn ontology but a separate file

<victor> (Kaz, just for the record, I insisted on the fact that there is no reason to update the RDF file once the Rec is fixed. However, if most Recommendations follow the same process and don't standardize the asocated RDF spec, I'm not against it.)

<DarkoAnicic> thanks Maria for scribing

<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: 2017/10/02 07:50:08 $