scribenick: sebastian

Agenda

start with agenda overview

start to check the minutes from the last time

scribenick: kaz

Sebastian: Samuel Singapogu from Schneider Electroric is an invited guest today
... he is aware of the W3C Patent Policy

<kaz> W3C Patent Policy

Samuel: ok

scribenick: sebastian

Prev minutes

<kaz> May-22

any objections to make the minutes public?

no objections

Updates from iotschema.org (Michael Koster)

<kaz> @@@slides tbd

Michael Koster shows some slide from the iotschema.org meeting

Koster: spend time on the ODM meta-model
... how to bring Thing class to iotschema.org

Sebastian: its about ODM classes to thing class in iotschema.org

Koster: yes, iotschema.org has only capabilities so far
... iotschema model and OneDM looks quite the same

Lagally: if you have the IoTThing can you also build composition of Things?

Koster: yes, you can do it. Explains an outlet example

Lagally: how to handle name conflicts? Do you have namespces?

Koster: ODM uses JSON Pointer
... for the outlet example can be diffrent
... you can use protocol bingings with different TDs

Sebastian: there is also namespaces in the ODM, right?

Koster: yes, namespaces are used to seperate the orign
... to identify a particular affordance we would use JSON Pointer
... that is the different from RDF
... there is a proposal how path can be constructed in RDF

Victor: name conflicts are resolved by there URI
... in iotschema.org you can assign more then one class
... this would be my proposal what a user can do to use more then one class

Koster: that would also work fine
... we can use this in the upcoming PlugFest

Sebastian: there are some plans to introduce JSON Pointer in the TD as well

Koster: what you want to do with it?

Sebastian: point to global data model definition

Koster: TDT is the RDF definition of OneDM
... device manufactor prefer JSON definition
... all the IoT platfomrs like Microsoft and Vorto using the properties, actions, event style
... we need one RDF representation of the ODM and TDT would be a good candidate

Sebastian: so, the ODM is in JSON, TDT is the candidate to have ODM in RDF and will be managed by iotschema.org?

Koster: yes, that is a way. we do not need different working groups to working on the same thing.

Lagally: if want to create type annotation whould you use iotschema.org or something else?

Koster: lets use iotschema.org

Sebastian: support open capabilty definition such as iotschema.org to avoid multiple definitions
... what are the next steps in iotschema.org?

Koster: we want to extend it and involved Dan
... clearify the hosting iot.schema.org or iotschema.org

<mlagally_> McCool comments that in a scenario where different companies create types/templates the use of names is not sufficient to avoid conflicts. Unique ids are required for this purpose, one common way of solving this problem it is reverse domain names (as they are used in the Java classpath). Thing description templates and thing descriptions need to take this problem into account.

samuel singapogu from schneider electrics gives an introduction

Samuel from Schneider Electric

Samuel: works in R&D department in the area digital building
... works in data modelling
... is there more information about the presenation about iotschema.org?
... and other question, what is the relation to SAREF?

Koster: I will send you information about ODM
... we work with Maria Poveda to work on the onthologies
... SAREF brings a lot features that are related to ODM
... we should more discover this in the PlugFest

<victor> here is a collection of TDs annotated with SAREF: https://www.vcharpenay.link/talks/td-sem-interop.html

Issue 905

check issue https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues/905

<victor> here is the paper describing what we've done with this dataset (written by Sebastian and myself): https://www.vcharpenay.link/publications/2020-eswc.pdf

Issue 902

next issue: https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues/902

is a new issue

Ege: its about the location of the TDs. how to share this information to the others (the clients)

Sebastian: question about the format. is it TD or the link format directly?

Ege: its the td

Koster: we can use different rel types like host

Victor: there is a URI to identify the TD and there is a ID to identify the physical object. that is a different

Issue 903

next issue: https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues/903

PR 907

<Ege> https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/pull/907

next: it's about the dynamic control of hypermedia

https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/tree/master/proposals/hypermedia-control

question: is it possible that a client can cancel an action which it not initated?

Koster: yes , this is possbile

<Ege> https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues/899#issuecomment-635642205

Sebastian: Ben mentioned that we should not make TD that complicated as you can find for OpenAPI. He suggest to use an own subprotocol that implements the hypermedia control
... proposal to evaulate one of the hypermedia approaches from Victor and Ege in the PlugFest. Decide after if it make sense to include such a feature in the TD or not.

Klaus: are both approaches static?

Sebastian: ege's version is more static, Victor's dynamic

Klaus: to get an overview of active actions you need dynamic TDs
... we do a mini version of OpenAPI here
... would it make sense to take TDT and use OpenAPI for the interaction?

<Zakim> kaz, you wanted to point out we're at the top of the hour

<kaz> [adjourned]