<kaz> scribenick: dape
<kaz> Mar-27 minutes
Sebastian: review of minutes and virtual
F2F minutes
... rec status
... issue w.r.t. eventing... templates/common patterns
... talk about efficient formats
... objections?
... no -> approved
<inserted> draft for REC
Sebastian: Approval for TD, publish April 9
Kaz: got response from Jeff about quote... waiting for response of Coralie
Sebastian: Perfect
... waiting for some testimonals... having testimonals later is
also fine
Kaz: will check the TD document
again.. changing the dates et cetera during weekend
... are we OK with CSS settings about highlighting
Sebastian: Yes, look better now
... still some minor issues when it is not valid JSON. Anyhow,
it is ok
Kaz: fixed JS and it works
<Zakim> dape, you wanted to with default dynamic
Sebastian: TD draft looks good!
Sebastian: Event patterns, https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues/887
... coming from scripting
... common patterns for eventing, eg., subscription ID
... cancelling requires subscription ID again
... Question: can we generalize such approaches
... M. Lagally provided a more complex eventing mechanism
... checked standards such as WebSub
... no ID handling used as it seems
... Yes, likely they keep open socket
Daniel: I believe SSE does not need it either.. keep open connection
Koster: Yes, SSE keeps open HTTP
connection with keep alive
... metadata in the stream
... syntactical convention
... could build subprotocol for it
... SSE, WebSub need a sub protocol
... MQTT as well
Sebastian: For MQTT we would not need
handler, based on topic
... "data" container might be sufficient
... no subscription/cancellation
... in binding templates we propose the retain flag.. means
possible to write property
... for eventing, don't use retain flag simply define
event
... kind of guideline
... What about observe CoAP
Koster: CoAP has separate
address
... couple of options
... read with observe flag
... believe we have related issues in binding
Zoltan: first sample of event coming
right away
... read with event flag
Koster: Unsure what the first value
means.. no event took place
... ignore first value
Sebastian: Question is what is handled
by the protocol
... e.g., CoAP observe. Binding knows what to do by skipping
first value
... this information should not be in TD
Koster: Believe we have related issue
Sebastian: https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues/878?
Koster: Initial connection should not be described in TD?
Sebastian: MQTT needs connection to
broker before doing anything
... no information in TD how the setup works? Relates to
specific binding
... href may contain broker address and topic
Koster: "unsubscribe" should be added
in example 34 (binding) or remove op at all
... first time encountering href you could connect...
... cache connection
... security information are still required
Sebastian: Yes, in securityDefinitions
...e.g. basic
... TD gives you the information about security etc. MQTT
binding takes this information and setups the actual
connection
Koster: Security definition needs
broker address also
... could be 3 different brokers
Zoltan: MQTT and OCF could use event interaction and hide the internals
Sebastian: securityDefinitions might contain multiple security information
Koster: Forgot that security can be present locally in form also
Sebastian: Tradeoff between how much information in TD and how much information in binding
Koster: A bit complex but works (caching connections with various security schemes et cetera)
Sebastian: Ben mentioned Mozilla uses
own websocket protocol
... essentially don't need form anymore
Koster: Why don't we do that for MQTT as well?
Sebastian: We could
... topic is still needed
Ege: initial connection is implicit in HTTP if you keep sockets alive
Koster: Yes, but there is a header for that
Sebastian: Coming back to original
question. We still need a good overview about existing eventing
patterns
... looking at Oracle cloud
... CoAP observe
... MQTT
... Issue, https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues/888
Ege: Background: property is
readable and writable
... read is not value you wrote.. some wrote in between
... in case of oberserve, should I get the value I wrote
Koster: notifications lost?
Zoltan: transaction support
Koster: 1. should there be a notification... I think yes
Ege: Any write request should generate notification
Koster: CoAP creates notification for
every update
... there will be open questions w.r.t. protocol
Ege: I just believe we should have some information in behavior assertions
Koster: "Looser" approach works better.. not making too strict assumptions
Sebastian: I am wondering about the relevance?
Ege: testing and behavior. Section 8 of TD also
Sebastian: https://github.com/w3c/wot-binding-templates/issues/93
... similar to HTTP start work on CoAP
<mjk> https://www.w3.org/TR/HTTP-in-RDF10/
Sebastian: Kaz, can we create a own
github repo for ontology on CoAP?
... also who is willing to support this task (so far Klaus and
Sebastian)
Ege: Willing to support
Koster: would like to be involved in MQTT also
Ege: Need also someone from MQTT area
Sebastian: at building IOT conference I meet some MQTT people. will try to reach out
Koster: could also reach out to Eclipse founation guys
Kaz: w.r.t. ontology repo: I am wondering about usage and content
<kaz> ontology file
Kaz: move the html file to new repo?
Sebastian: Vocabulary could be used by TD but should not be limited to TD
Kaz: HTTP RDF work kind of
abandoned
... do we want to create such work/notes
Sebastian: Would keep work in TD call...
having status reports
... charter says 2.12 "protocol vocabulary and bindings"
Kaz: Note: new process within
W3C, evergreen process
... let's discuss it in main call
Sebastian: OK, let's do so...
Koster: Could start in binding template document
Kaz: btw, to be strict, "ontology" is different from "vocabulary"
Koster: For our purpose it is equivalent
<sebastian> https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/File:2020_TD_Topics_vf2f.pdf
Sebastian: slide #18
... have OAuth2 support in TD but had to remove at-risk
features
... "flow" term
... based on GovTech Singapore discussion these missing terms
are needed
... idea is to bring it back to the status we had before
removing the at-risk features
... node-wot will be offering OAuth2 support also very soon.
Work has been started.
... after TD document being published we should bring back this
work
Ege: https://github.com/w3c/wot-binding-templates/issues/94
... little problems pointed out
... issue with XML double/number
Daniel: comes from EXI4JSON, can look this up
Taki: will take a look
Ege: https://github.com/w3c/wot-binding-templates/issues/21
... fixed some attribute names
<Ege> https://pr-preview.s3.amazonaws.com/w3c/wot-binding-templates/pull/95.html
<Ege> https://github.com/w3c/wot-binding-templates/pull/95
Ege: ML pointed to term "value
scaling"
... not sure about this whole section
... removed 4.4
... also specified OCF version 1.3
... added references (e.g., SenML)
Koster: Could also point to latest OCF version
<Ege> https://github.com/w3c/wot-binding-templates/issues/94
Sebastian: Holiday in Europe...
... suggest cancelling the call
... next meeting in 2 weeks
<kaz> [adjourned]