15:02:28 RRSAgent has joined #wot-td 15:02:28 logging to https://www.w3.org/2021/01/13-wot-td-irc 15:04:00 sebastian has joined #wot-td 15:04:01 present+ Kaz_Ashimura, Daniel_Peintner, Sebastian_Kaebisch 15:04:10 Meeting: WoT-WG - TD-TF 15:04:13 McCool has joined #wot-td 15:05:06 present+ Michael_McCool, Cristiano_Aguzzi 15:05:14 present+ Ege_Korkan 15:05:20 cris has joined #wot-td 15:06:00 scribenick: cris 15:06:19 Ege has joined #wot-td 15:06:20 seb: happy new year to everybody. 15:06:35 Agenda: https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/WG_WoT_Thing_Description_WebConf#Jan_13.2C_2021 15:06:52 i/happy/topic: Preliminaries/ 15:07:10 ... today we'll focus mainly on the topics from GitHub issues 15:07:20 ... anything else to be added to the agenda? 15:07:27 ... ok 15:07:34 topic: previous minutes 15:08:00 seb: se had some discussion on IETF SDF meeting 15:08:16 Mizushima has joined #wot-td 15:08:38 ... in particular how SDF can be transformed to an Thing Model 15:08:45 taki has joined #wot-td 15:09:14 mc: I expect to have a SPARQL directory for the next PlugFest, we can experiment there with SDF 15:09:14 i|had some|-> https://www.w3.org/2020/12/16-wot-td-minutes.html Dec-16 minutes| 15:09:20 s/se had/we had/ 15:09:28 seb: I have also a student who's working on this topic 15:09:38 s/SDF meeting/ASDF meeting/ 15:10:03 mc: about PF please if you have any other topic that you want to be covered please feel free to ping me. 15:12:12 seb: we postponed TD "produced" field for the next version. it needs more discussion 15:12:18 s/PF/Plugfest/ 15:12:28 mjk has joined #wot-td 15:12:42 present+ Taki_Kamiya, Tomoaki_Mizushima 15:14:48 seb: another issue was about having multiple methods names. You have defined a default mapping to transform a single form with multiple ops 15:14:54 -> https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues/712 Issue 712 - Multiple methodName's 15:15:07 present+ Michael_Koster 15:15:26 mc: one problem is that it is odd to have one method name and multiple ops 15:15:43 ... we probably need an assertion to avoid this situation. 15:16:18 daniel: I disagree it is possible to have a PUT method to both read and write 15:17:06 mc: how do you distinguish between the operations? 15:17:25 ... it is ambiguous 15:17:46 ... we may use SHOULD instead of MUST 15:18:02 seb: what about the assertion made in issue comment? about the transformation? 15:18:07 mc: I agree with that 15:19:27 seb: next topic was about 617 and we'll probably continue today 15:20:00 mc: yes it is relevant for discovery, in particular for multiple error responses 15:20:42 ... I think is a good feature but we have to think about retro compatibility 15:20:55 seb: minutes approved 15:22:28 https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3A%22Defer+to+TD+2.0%22 15:22:54 i|git|topic: Defer issue to TD 2.0| 15:23:25 mc: I think there might be a set of issue like the one about multiple responses that need to be deferred because of their impact in retro compatibility 15:23:51 seb: the list linked in not complete, please ping me to add more 15:24:22 seb: I also made a label to tag old issues or issues that could be closed 15:25:04 mc: the geolocation issue is still open, please remove the label 15:25:15 seb: ok I removed the label 15:26:35 mc: my concern about geolocation is that we need a definitive structure to do geo based searches in directories 15:27:02 ... probably we might need a separate document with best practices or guidelines for geolocation with WoT 15:29:28 topic: Pull requests 15:30:05 seb: the first one is from kaz. The main change is the modification of the spec status 15:30:25 ... plus he remove the image width 15:30:38 kaz: yes it is an obsolete feature. 15:31:04 seb: plus there are some automatically generated files 15:31:08 i|the first|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/pull/1027 PR1027| 15:31:23 seb: it seems fine to me. Any other comments? 15:32:02 kaz: I mentioned during the architecture call as well: we should have a naming convention for sections 15:32:35 mc: I wouldn't change it now. 15:32:46 s/sections/sections' ids/ 15:32:56 seb: ok merged 15:33:10 s/sections' ids/IDs for sections, figures and examples/ 15:33:30 ... then there are two wip PRs 15:33:53 i/merged/kaz: in any case, if there are duplicated IDs, I'll fix them before publication./ 15:34:28 -> https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/pull/1025 PR1025 15:35:11 s/wip PRS/wip PRS, PR1025 and PR1024/ 15:35:14 seb: daniel found some capitalization errors about the observeall operation 15:35:28 seb: it might be an error of the render script 15:35:48 seb: then there's a PR about the Thing Model chapter 15:36:30 seb: we have some agreement for introducing a version for the model. it can be also used in a TD instance 15:37:03 ... also we have a small consensus about how to link the model in TD using the link field. 15:37:20 ... I add SDF to TM example 15:37:46 cris: is the version field optional? 15:37:56 seb: yes it is optional 15:39:19 seb: next PR is about issue 1010 15:40:08 seb: is it from daniel and it introduces the exclusiveMaxium and exclusiveMinimun terms 15:40:18 ... does SDF have this terms? 15:40:34 mk: no, I don't think so, but let me check 15:40:52 ... oh we have it then. 15:41:32 i|next PR is|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/pull/1021 PR1021| 15:41:40 ... sometime you need it. Is it not a problem to include it 15:42:13 mc: certainly consistency with JSONSchema is good 15:42:38 seb: ok then the PR looks good so far. 15:43:50 ... ok there's is some conflicts. It is probably related to the kaz PR merge. 15:44:46 daniel: since it is a generated image that is in conflict we could ignore it and merge it anyway. It will be overwritten 15:46:31 seb: ok merged 15:47:13 daniel: can we remove the Bump PR? they are old 15:47:24 s/PR/PRs/ 15:47:43 ... no big deal 15:47:51 kaz: I'll look at the settings 15:51:13 seb: I'll propose to test those and see if the render script will work correctly. 15:52:21 seb: there's another old PR from mc 15:52:51 mc: unfortunately this PR was broken by the update of the render script. I'll work on it 15:53:00 s/I'll look at/I think I need to look into/ 15:53:10 ... probably I'll create a new one 15:54:47 seb: what about 945? 15:55:04 mc: it breaks compatibility so it is deferred. 15:56:04 topic: issues 15:56:27 seb: the first one is multiple responses in a form 15:57:15 i|can we|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/pull/964 PR964| 15:57:23 i|can we|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/pull/924 PR924| 15:57:44 i|what about 945|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/pull/945 PR945| 15:57:45 ... one problem there is again backward compatibility. 15:58:11 mc: one workaround is to add a new term (i.e., responses) 15:58:36 seb:yeah it is like title and titles 15:59:04 i|the first|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues/617 Issue 617| 16:00:30 ege: I like responses, but I am afraid for typos if we have response togheter with responses. we could remove response in future versions 16:00:38 mc: is response mandatory 16:00:49 ege: yes 16:01:32 mc: it might still not 100% retrocompatible 16:01:43 ... old system wouldn't understand 16:01:56 ... responses 16:02:21 q+ 16:02:25 seb: I like the proposal. but can we say that respose be a single value or an array 16:02:28 q+ 16:02:56 mc: is not backward compatible 16:03:04 seb: we might do an exception here 16:03:14 ... I also like responses tough 16:03:38 q+ 16:03:48 daniel: I tend to agree to keep response as it is and add a new term for other responses 16:04:14 to clarify, I was propose adding an "additionalResponses" field for "other" responses 16:04:36 ack dape 16:05:20 cris: what about dataschema? 16:06:36 seb: it reminds me the discussion we had with hyperschema. 16:07:18 ... we talked about other fields to describe multiple payloads types 16:07:39 mc: JSONschema allows multiple choices. 16:07:56 mk: but we cannot map to a particular response 16:08:23 ... in SDF we'll use a json pointer to indicate the data schema 16:10:19 mc: how do we distinguish different responses? with http we have different codes. we could use dataschema even to define different responses 16:10:49 ... the challenge is how to use headers to distinguish between responses 16:10:56 q? 16:11:19 ack cris 16:12:50 mk: json pointers are useful when referring other pieces of information inside a json document. 16:13:11 mc: it could be really simple if relative to the schema 16:13:49 mk: let's look at some example and try it 16:14:18 mc: because we have a concrete use-case in the discovery let's start from there 16:15:17 seb: so to conclude: one step is decide if to include a new terms form multiple responses. last how to point dataschemas from responses 16:15:33 mjk_ has joined #wot-td 16:15:34 q? 16:15:34 ... json pointers is on the table as one possibile solution for the second point. 16:15:59 We prefer "anyOf" rather than "oneOf" for reasons 16:16:21 mc: dealing with errors is a gap that we have in TD, we should work to fix this missing feature. 16:20:21 https://github.com/ietf-wg-asdf/SDF/pull/8 16:20:54 discussion of use of "anyOf" 16:21:03 seb: mc can you take responsibility for this issue? 16:21:34 mc: yes I'll bring this up in the Discovery task force and then Farshid or I will provide a PR 16:23:53 seb: next issue is about a security scheme for Philips light bulbs. 16:24:28 mc: yes we reviewed in security task fource. basically keys are embedded in URIs and we cannot describe it 16:24:41 i|next issue|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues/923 Issue 923| 16:25:13 mc: I proposed a new scheme, much like the one that ege is suggesting in the issue tracker 16:26:02 ... it is still a open problem but we have to introduce this new mechanism to handle URI templates 16:26:42 ... I don't have a PR yet. I'll try to create one before Monday 16:27:30 q+ 16:27:31 ... if anyone has more examples of URI embedded security parameter please comment in the issue 16:28:00 ... I'll also improve the API key documentation 16:28:16 ege: why don't use this pattern inside the API key? 16:28:25 mc: yes we'll do 16:28:54 ack mc 16:28:56 ack ege 16:29:01 ... we'll have a new "in" value (i.e., URItemplate) 16:30:42 seb: maybe ege you could join the security call and discuss about the new proposal 16:31:15 seb: next issue 307 16:31:46 ... it is an old issue and it's about introducing $ref pointers inside the TD 16:32:35 q? 16:32:42 q 16:32:46 q+ 16:33:22 ... the major usecase is to minimize redundancy 16:33:31 q+ 16:34:28 ... also you can change one definition in one place 16:35:31 ... Legally mentioned about the recursive problems 16:36:08 ege: jsonschema avoid it by disallow recursive refs 16:37:09 q+ 16:37:37 ... also we have to pay attention about how to include definitions or schema 16:37:44 i|next issue 307|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues/307 Issue 307| 16:37:50 s/schema/other schemas/ 16:37:56 q? 16:38:42 mk: we had this in SDF, but we dropped it. It is too narrow because $ref should point always to a schema 16:39:29 ... like ege mentioned it is not clear if you can put a URI there. Therefore we coined a new pointer 16:40:49 ... we have to be careful to use $ref for this limitations. In TD it is best to introduce a new term 16:42:06 ack mjk 16:43:27 seb: should we also avoid the $ref to point to other json objects? 16:44:22 mk: because $ref means precisely use the schema at this location. 16:44:30 -> https://ietf-wg-asdf.github.io/SDF/sdf.html#sdfref sdfRef 16:44:49 mc: I think this is a 2.0 feature. 16:45:02 mk: true 16:45:11 q? 16:45:34 seb: agree 16:45:44 q+ 16:45:55 ack m 16:46:00 mc: we could pre process a TD with this new feature and convert it back 16:46:36 daniel: what about JSON-LD? is this new feature working with it? 16:46:46 ... victor had some points about the issue 16:48:12 mk: probably in json-ld you'll use a fragment identifier 16:48:31 mc: I don't know, it looks different in json-ld 16:49:30 mk: Is an URI with a fragment in RDF. 16:49:36 q? 16:49:48 ack dape 16:49:48 ack dape 16:49:52 q+ 16:50:29 ege: one point of pre processing. we could introduce this feature in TD model instead of TDs 16:50:50 mc: right and in 2.0 we could introduce it in TDs 16:51:26 mc: is there a frame for generating a TD back from RDF. 16:51:35 s/./?/ 16:51:48 mk: great idea to use in TM 16:53:47 q? 16:53:57 ack ege 16:58:27 seb: about framing mc could you provide a PR? 16:58:37 mc: I think there's an issue somewhere 16:59:01 s/ mc /, McCool, / 16:59:19 q+ 16:59:29 ack m 16:59:53 (have to drop, sorry) 16:59:56 kaz: we might want to talk with DID group about the framing issue 17:00:13 ... JSON-LD group suggested this also. 17:01:15 i|about framing|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues/1015 issue 1015| 17:01:19 [adjourned] 17:01:24 rrsagent, make log public 17:01:29 rrsagent, draft minutes 17:01:29 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/01/13-wot-td-minutes.html kaz