14 Feb 2020



Kaz_Ashimura, Taki_Kamiya, Ege_Korkan, Michael_Lagally, Tomoaki_Mizushima, Zoltan_Kis, Daniel_Peintner
kaz, dape


<kaz> scribenick: kaz

Previous minutes

Feb-7 minutes

Taki: no problem, so let's approve the minutes

Virtual f2f

virtual f2f wiki

Taki: the basic schedule discussed
... tentatively, March 17 9am EST


PR 879

Ege: typo within the schema definition at Appendix B
... "subProtocol" to be fixed as "subprotocol"

Taki: (goes through the changes)
... can we fix it?

Kaz: given it's typo fixing, we should do it

Taki: any objections?


Taki: (merges PR 879)

PR 872

Kaz: I gave a comment, and the ReSpec developers have updated their PR and propose to fix the index.template.html instead of index.html
... on the other hand, we might want to concentrate on the static HTML version without ReSpec for upcoming REC publication, and apply this change to the 2nd-gen spec

Taki: right
... (adds a comment about our plan)

Daniel: what do you mean by the "Recommendation" and "next version"?

Kaz: I think we should think about how to manage the HTML source for the new specs as well as this ReSpec issue
... possibly we can continue to use the current "wot-thing-description" for ver. 2.0 (or ver. 1.1)
... but it might be clearer to use another repo like "wot-thing-description-11" or "wot-thing-desription-20"
... can create a GitHub issue about that point

Lagally: wondering about the effect for the Architecture document

Daniel: seems no effect to "wot-architecture" (URL below)

<dape> https://respec-preview.netlify.com/?spec=https%3A%2F%2Fw3c.github.io%2Fwot-architecture%2F&version=https%3A%2F%2Funpkg.com%2Frespec%4025.0.0%2Fbuilds%2Frespec-w3c-common.js


Issue 878

Ege: Initial connection
... MQTT or AMQP has some specific assumption of connection to a broker
... while websockets not
... how can we describe it?

Lagally: does this kind of connection happen each time?

Ege: if you change the network, socket connection is destroyed

Lagally: asking about the context of lifecycle
... we need to consider that
... the term and concept of "session" is important here
... there could be multiple sessions

Zoltan: can we describe the expected action for each case?

Kaz: I think we should clarify the use cases and the requirements within the Binding TF a bit more
... maybe we should think about the binding template part and the TD part separately
... we should clarify how to deal with sessions using various connection protocols first
... and then think about how to map them with TD's interaction affordance

Ege: yeah

Taki: there are possibly many ways to describe it
... so we should think about which would be the best

Daniel: we have some freedom here
... so let's pick websocket as an example

Kaz: this discussion is related to the lifecycle state transition discussion during the architecture call

Lagally: yeah, would help us understand it more if we think about this during the next architecture call

Kaz: we should describe some specific use case for that discussion

Lagally: Ege, do you think you could describe concrete sequence diagram for that discussion?

Ege: yes, will do

Kaz: and can you join the next architecture call?

Lagally: every Thursday, 8am/5pm CET

Ege: ok, will join the 5pm CET session then

Issue 854

Taki: read-only/write-only behavior
... wanted to check the status of this issue
... the text referred to might be a bit obsolete?

Lagally: the language is not really precise, is it?
... "state must be retrievable"

Taki: the latest draft just have "writeOnly"
... but it's true the current statement "This state can then be retrieved (read) and optionally updated (write)." implies both read and write

Lagally: we could be more explicit

Taki: (adds comments to Issue 854)

Kaz: just a quick question
... what should we do when we want to prohibit the property to be even retrieved?

Taki: that is the intention of "writeOnly"

Kaz: can we use "unobserveproperty", for example?

Daniel: "observeproperty" and "readproperty" are different

Lagally: maybe we might want to clarify the mechanism here

Zoltan: theoretically we should have all of "readable", "writable" and "observable" separately
... we had them separately at some point but may have been removed

<Ege> https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues/810

Ege: related issue 810 above

Taki: please create a new issue about your point, Kaz

Kaz: will do

<scribe> ACTION: kaz to create a new issue on how to permit/prohibit reading property

<scribe> scribenick: dape

Issue https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues/302

Taki: Any update?
... last week we were asked to create use-cases
... ML provided uses cases as well as Ege
... issue with synchronous vs. asynchronous
... suggest to continue discussion on Github

Issue https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues/875

Taki: talked about it last week also
... relates to scripting API. issue 193
... we still need to describe it in TD spec
... suggest to continue the discussion on Github to finalize the solution

Issue https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues/877

Taki: about "desired" form
... recent comment about NOT changing form entry order

Zoltan: MMC said that clients can choose form, however implementation should not change order to allow for later to introduce this mechanism
... implicit policy to pick first in order
... should there be a text in TD describing such a policy?

Taki: Open question

Zoltan: Such a text is not limiting, client can still choose either one

Binding templates

<Ege> https://github.com/w3c/wot-binding-templates/issues/92

Ege: would like to discuss https://github.com/w3c/wot-binding-templates/issues/92
... talks about next protocol. Feedback from more people would be needed
... I listed some "possible" protocols
... Besides that no big items to work on
... would work on some updates

Taki: Fujitsu would like to see work on Echonet

Ege: Great. Could you/Matsukura-San add comment

Taki: Yes, will check internally and leave comment

Ege: My interest is ROS
... middleware for robots (XML RPC)
... API is specific with subprotocol
... OPC-UA, there is binding coming for node-wot

Daniel: Suggest talking with MCCool and Zoltan about OCF

Ege: open issue in Bindings with describing payload of specific platform
... e.g. Ikea and OCF
... No 'real' news/updates besides MQTT issues
... propose and request input for issue 92
... CBOR issue in node-wot seems related

Daniel: Yes, ROS and XML is good example

Taki: Question: We published Binding templates W3C note. Going forward do we continue to update the note?

Ege: Yes

Taki: My concern is that updating document, looking at TD version 1.1, do we link snapshot?

Daniel: using dated URI

<Ege> https://www.w3.org/TR/2020/NOTE-wot-binding-templates-20200130/

Taki: I see, should make sure TD uses this URIs. Thanks!

Ege: Everyone, please prvide input to issue #92

<kaz> [adjourned]

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: kaz to create a new issue on how to permit/prohibit reading property

Summary of Resolutions

[End of minutes]

Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.154 (CVS log)
$Date: 2020/02/17 09:20:42 $