WoT-WG - TD-TF

<kaz> scribenick: Ege

Agenda

(no specific addition)

Minutes review

<inserted> Sep-16

McCool: we should plan a meeting with the Spatial Data on the Web IG

Sebastian: (creating issue on w3c/wot)

<inserted> Issue 939 for joint meeting with Spatial Data on the Web IG

<sebastian> new issue https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues/965

Sebastian: any objections to publish?

<kaz> (none and approved)

TD meeting next week?

Sebastian: next week's meeting will focus on working on PRs

TPAC

<sebastian> please use this doodle poll to find a common slot with the JSON-LD group: https://doodle.com/poll/mqx2wde3a6wth7ib

Sebastian: we should have a meeting with the Spatial Data IG, I am talking with them
... I will invite them to a TD meeting
... How much time do we need for TPAC?
... 2 hours is always too short according to feedback
... 3 hours is better, what do you think?

Daniel: I agree, 2 hours was too short

Sebastian: Let's do the agenda of F2F

Ege: I want to decide on what to do for the templating (=Thing Model)

Sebastian: That will be in the Thing model discussion. I will show the PRs
... Maybe this will need to be a separate document

McCool: I just saw JSON LD is going to republish the JSON-LD 1.0 spec as a superseded REC

Sebastian: interesting (opening new issue in td repo)
... Taki can do the diff of 1.0 vs 1.1
... Daniel for the hypermedia
... I will do the Thing Model
... What about the needed times

Cristiano: I can do/help with the component discussion

Ege: SD should be before components since it is related

Sebastian: (finished the agenda, available online)

<inserted> TD topics under the "Proposed Topics" section of the vF2F wiki

New working draft

Sebastian: geolocation is new for example

<kaz> 7.1.3 Example III: Geolocation Annotations

<McCool> note we are also discussing units and geolocation in profiles but there are differences and we should make sure what's in profiles and the examples here are aligned

<McCool> ... for example are talking about SenML and QUDT in profiles but OM is used for units in this example (I think)

Sebastian: you can also declare JSON-LD contexts

<McCool> ... likewise there are multiple possible concrete ontologies for geolocation, alignment with DAS, etc that need to be discussed

<McCool> ... but the examples are a great starting point for that discussion

PR 960

Sebastian: now let's see PR960

Daniel: We have decided to delay it for now

<kaz> PR 960

<kaz> related issue 968

Cristiano: I think we should first solve the finding the unsub form issue

Ege: me too

<kaz> updated comment for PR 960

PR 945

<kaz> PR 945

scribenick: kaz

Kaz: if it's difficult to resolve all the questions here, we can add an Editor's Note to describe that

McCool: also we need implementations

Kaz: let's see the update next week again

PR 944

<kaz> PR 944

<kaz> updated comments

scribenick: kaz

Kaz: several conflicts maybe due to the rendering script update?

McCool: not mechanical fixes, but need to look into them

scribenick: ege

McCool: you need to use CLI to fix it

Sebastian: now the Thing Model PR

PR 943

<kaz> PR 943

<kaz> updated comments

PR 938

<inserted> PR 938

Sebastian: the PR moves the Thing Templates from Appendix, renames it to Model

McCool: the section id should be also changed
... special kind should be named subclass or related
... a new content type should be also discussed

<McCool> I would say something like "A Thing Model describes a set of Thing Descriptions"

McCool: we should differentiate digital twins as well

<McCool> basically two use cases: digital twin (just abstraction, no security or protocol info) and developer-time info (need protocol templates and security templates, but omitting some concrete details, eg using URL templates instead of concrete URLs)

(Ege leaves and Kaz takes over the scribe role.)

<scribe> scribenick: kaz

Sebastian: would be happy with saying "MAY" here

McCool: agree saying "MAY" would be appropriate
... for the use case of digital twin, you MAY omit it
... and for the developer use case, you SHOULD have it

Sebastian: (adds a comment on that point)

updated comment

and summary comment

PR 937

PR 937

Sebastian: will ping Victor
... (adds a comment about that)

updated comment

PR 896

PR 896

Sebastian: should be able to merge this
... changes on the ontology

Kaz: OK with merging this PR
... just to make sure, we should confirm that there is no impact due to this change for the PlugFest
... this schema change will be applied to the Playground as well. right?

McCool: need to check with Ege

Sebastian: we can merge this PR itself
... and I can create another issue on Playground to be updated

Kaz: ok

McCool: two issues to be added, one for Playground and another for Assertion checker

Kaz: right

Sebastian: (adds those points as a comment and merge the PR)

Sebastian's comment

PR 869

PR 869

Daniel: need some more time

Sebastian: next week then
... (adds a comment on that)

updated comment

Sebastian: that was the last PR for today
... let's make decision on the remaining PRs next week
... regarding PlugFest, everybody should use the new terms
... for example about geolocation

McCool: new OAuth flow as well

updated draft

Sebastian: maybe I can show you the coffee machine example

Smart coffee machine and OAuth 2.0

[adjourned]