See also: IRC log
<inserted> scribenick: mlefranc
DarkoAnicic: <showing list of thing drescription for plugfest 2017-dusseldorf>
<kaz> TD repo
DarkoAnicic: <shows slide on
IoT Schema Layer>
... datatypes -> interation patterns ->
capabilities
... datatypes specified in iot.schema.org could be reused in
different interaction patterns
... which could be in turn be reused by different
capabilities
... as an example, datatype could be temperature data that has
unit = degree celsius
... interaction pattern could be one of an observable
temperature
... capability could be a thermostat
... <now showing the TemperatureSensing.jsonld
document>
... for now temperature interaction patterns are written again
and again in all documents
DarkoAnicic: one need a website
to navigate in the list of interaction patterns
... in the json-ld document one sees that temperature is a
property and provide an output data that is a temperature
data
... in this case temperature data is a subclass of
schema:PropertyValue with datatype float and some temperature
unit
... also, currently all datatypes are repeated again and again
in thing descriptions
... the iot:TemperatureUnit datatype is a class, that has for
instance iot:Unit and iot:Kelvin
... this is defined in Unit.jsonld
... and aligned to QUDT
... there is iot:reference that links to some ISO standard
code, that many in the IoT domain actually use
mjkoster: possible multiple definitions like book catalogs, e.g., ISBN and other codes
DarkoAnicic: even Siemens doesn't
always rely on real standards for units
... there are definitions for capabilities in different
ontologies, we are currently investigating this
... e.g., Temperature, TargetTemperature,
ThermostatTemperature
... iot:TargetTemperature has input data a iot:TemperatureData
and output data a iot:TemperatureData
... <this is in interaction-patterns.jsonld>
... then iot:TemperatureData has schema:uniCode,
schema:minValue and schema:maxValue that describe what the
thermostat accepts
... currently the namespace iot is http://iot.schema.org/core#
... that contains some datatype definition, interaction
patterns, and capabilities
... which namespace will be chosen at the end of the day is
something we need to discuss further
... <looking at Airconditioner.jsonld>
... we defined iot:Home and a few interaction patterns for
iot:AirConditioner:
... iot:SleepMode, iot:CountDown etc.
... <these are defined in
interaction-patterns.jsonld>
... there will probably be many different time data depending
on (e.g., if they are defined in hours, minutes,...)
kaz: This is one possible example of Thing Description, how can we make sure that Panasonic etc woudn't want their own ?
DarkoAnicic: Indeed, it's an
ongoing effort to create the app level semantics, that we
really need for the sem interoperability at the end of the
day
... need to see with plugfest users if they manage to conform
to these proposal.
... concern about whether plugfest users will manage to
implement these capabilities as described here
... I hope yes, now I understand there will be many different
interaction patterns
mjkoster: different layers of
things happening here:
... first choose property naming
... second how to implement interaction patterns,
... we are targeting 99% of device that implemetn interaction
patterns the same way
... at least for properties
... actions will be harder
... then a last level of composing capabilities together to
create a "super-capability"
... a set of common features that certain kind of products
share
... all of these levels are usefull and we might not want to be
too prescriptive there
... else users might just use something else
DarkoAnicic: yes, <taking example of thing description b36d96.jsonld> --> this td example is very difficult to reuse
<kaz> Matsukura-san's draft document
mjkoster: yes, not enough semantic annotations in the td sometimes, which makes them hard to be understood
<kaz> kaz: agree
kaz: where do you think these generic TD descriptions should be hosted with respect to Matsukura-san's types of servients ?
<kaz> https://github.com/w3c/wot/raw/master/plugfest/2017-burlingame/images/4layered_model.png
DarkoAnicic: where the TD should be hosted ? good question
<kaz> s/Matsukura-san's types of servients/4 types of servients proposed by Koster and Matsukura/
mjkoster: what would be great at
the next level: should take one property and one action to do
something
... a device that discovers a td could then recognize that
property interaction pattern because it knows the URI for
instance
DarkoAnicic: in the discovery process, one could implement some capability search functionality
kaz: so generic thing description could be hosted in a central TD repo as a template ?
mjkoster: iot.schema.org could
host templates for raw complex templates such as "a generic
thermostat"
... without specifying the exact capabilities it has
... the purpose is to encourage reusability
DarkoAnicic: another point: how
to use these specifications for the plugfest
... if one creates something useful for the plugfest user, then
how to explain it well and promote it ?
mjkoster: ideally, these would be
templates that would help someone to create a td for a specific
kind of device
... a bit like schema.org works
... if I search for a thermostat, then I would see that it
should have a bunch of capabilities,
... then I can search for those capabilities, if I'm lucky and
I find them, then I can incorporate them in my TD
... and would just need to add the links to the actual href
where these interactions can be triggered
... the point is to help users to browse the capabilities,
event, action, properties, and how they go together
... help the user combine such templates to ultimately create a
TD and upload it in their device
DarkoAnicic: good question
whether something like that can be done before the
plufest
... we may ask during the main call to encourage users to reuse
/ create those capabilities
mjkoster: like the idea of reusable interactions !
DarkoAnicic: capabilities have coarse granularity, interesting to provide finer granularity
mjkoster: ok for Properties,
might be more difficult for Actions
... next step would be to make some TDs and annotate them
... someone else that we could engage in TD development ?
... iot.schema.org doesn't require a capability to have an
instance
DarkoAnicic: so far we proposed a
model for capabilities that is compliant with our model,
... we haven't really thought in dept about
reusability/modularity yet
mlefranc: would like to work on actual examples where capabilities are shared by different thing descriptions
DarkoAnicic: for now we have td,
rdf, rdfs, xsd,
... do we need another namespace ?
... this requires looking at TD ontology right now
victor: xsd namespace is needed because it appears in the datatype schema definition (minExclusive, etc.)
DarkoAnicic: if someone thinks that something is needed or missing w.r.t. namespaces, please discuss the issue on github
mjkoster: one might want to look at the protocol binding to include namespace such as the http namespace http://www.w3.org/2011/http#
DarkoAnicic: we will work on the schema.org capabilities for the next plugfest
<kaz> [adjourned]