15:05:45 RRSAgent has joined #wot-td 15:05:45 logging to https://www.w3.org/2021/02/10-wot-td-irc 15:05:54 meeting: WoT-WG - TD-TF 15:06:26 present+ Kaz_Ashimura, Cristiano_Aguzzi, Daniel_Peintner, Ege_Korkan, Sebastian_Kaebisch 15:06:53 cris has joined #wot-td 15:06:58 sebastian has joined #wot-td 15:07:30 Mizushima has joined #wot-td 15:08:37 Chair: Sebastian 15:09:02 Agenda: https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/WG_WoT_Thing_Description_WebConf#Feb_10.2C_2021 15:09:11 present+ Michael_Koster 15:09:42 mjk has joined #wot-td 15:10:20 scribenick: cris 15:10:38 topic: agenda 15:10:49 present+ Tomoaki_Mizushima 15:11:34 seb: today we have to discuss about the migration from master to main, protocol bindings and Github PRs/issues 15:11:42 ... something else? 15:11:50 ... ok 15:11:56 topic: previous minutes 15:12:33 seb: we dissussed about modbus binding document and PRs 15:12:52 i|discussed|-> https://www.w3.org/2021/02/03-wot-td-minutes.html Feb-3| 15:12:55 s/about // 15:12:58 ... notice now we are able to define multiple responses in TDs 15:13:32 ... also we discussed about different topics around the Thing Model 15:13:50 ...we still need a jsonschema for Thing Model 15:14:08 ... any objections to publish the minutes? 15:14:12 ... ok 15:14:19 topic: master to main 15:14:52 seb: there are some issues in the process of renaming 15:15:08 ... Michael mcool is working on it. 15:15:26 ... in a couple of weeks it should be solved 15:15:31 ... any comments? 15:15:57 daniel: I'm not sure what will happen to open PRs 15:16:17 seb: good point. let's wait for Michael's input on the issue 15:16:29 topic: bindings 15:17:03 seb: modbus, any news? 15:17:24 cris: sorry I am in late. let's discuss it next week 15:17:26 seb: ok 15:18:27 seb: then we have OPC-UA binding. As you now there's a liaison between our group and OPCF but there's still not common activities 15:18:29 q+ 15:18:47 ... I think it's a good time to start a collaboration with them 15:19:15 ... the motivation is that we can use TDs to describe OPC endopoints 15:19:39 ... it is the same motivation of other bindings. 15:20:21 ... I know that opc ua is not so common in the web domain, but it is wide known in the industry field 15:20:53 q+ 15:21:59 seb: I think the work is minimal. we can use the other documents as example 15:22:46 ... it is important to evaluate the security patterns in OPC-UA 15:22:48 q? 15:23:34 ... the outcome should be a document, an ontology and finally a prototype. 15:23:47 q+ 15:24:33 kaz: Do you want to talk about the liaison with OPC-UA today? 15:24:42 seb: yes, it was my intention 15:25:47 kaz: I have some trouble to understand this proposal. In my understanding concrete binding document should be handled by external organizations (like OPCF). Why do we need a joint specification work? 15:26:18 ... if we go down that path we should do the same also for other bindings (mqtt, Fiware, etc.) 15:26:34 seb: then I can ask why do we have this liason 15:26:39 ... ? 15:26:58 kaz: it is mostly for discussion about implementation and use-cases 15:27:05 ... we don't need a joint specification 15:27:11 ... work 15:27:46 seb: we can ask the OPCF to do the work in their Companion specification document. 15:28:03 ... however the document would be difficult to connect with W3C and WoT 15:29:42 ... OPCF is comparable in size to W3C. They have their management process to update spec and it could be a problem if our specification disalign with theirs. 15:30:19 kaz: we could start from an integration of a OPC-UA device to WoT in a PlugFest 15:30:55 ... but first we have to start to actual need for this integration 15:30:56 q? 15:31:01 ack k 15:31:05 ack cris 15:31:40 ege: the benefit could be to prove again that the WoT could be applicable in this field too 15:31:51 ... a joint specification is more powerful 15:31:55 seb: agree 15:32:15 ... it is a way to have more impact in the industry domain 15:32:37 ... it is kinda a marketing aspect 15:33:12 ... the joint work it is helpful to have aligned solution in both organizations 15:35:01 kaz: I am not objecting to the liaison itself. I am always open to discussion with external organization. However, I wonder if the joint specification it is really needed. We should start from plugfest. 15:36:31 kaz: we should start from discussion with the group and then extend the liaison to the next level (e.g., joint specification documents) 15:36:45 seb: so which is the concrete next step here? 15:37:05 ... we already had some discussion with the opcf group 15:37:14 ... I need a concrete next step suggestion 15:37:51 kaz: based on the discussion we had, we can start from the plugfest integration 15:38:05 ... why can't we start from plugfest? 15:39:27 seb: option 1: UA foundation create a sub group for the definition of the protocol binding. Option 2 work together. I like option 2 more. 15:40:13 kaz: we could start discuss about the collaboration 15:40:27 seb: did you join the meeting about the validation? 15:40:44 ... I can share slides. I think we already did this kind of pre-work 15:41:22 koster: my advice is to continue the work on the spec separately 15:41:42 ... maybe later join together 15:41:44 s/spec/spec/ 15:41:50 kaz: exactly 15:42:11 s/separately/separately under the current simple liaison/ 15:42:14 seb: which is the advantage? 15:43:23 q? 15:43:25 koster: I don't see this option as a disadvantage. The disadvantage is that the joint spec open some IP problems 15:43:29 ack mjk 15:43:42 q+ 15:43:50 daniel: it shouldn't be any 15:43:55 ... correct? 15:44:39 s/it shouldn't be any/W3C WoT WG generates W3C specs and OPC UA generates OPC specs, so no IPR problems there/ 15:45:17 seb: it should. all the content from the companion spec should be hosted publicly in a w3c site. 15:46:14 kaz: we could refer to existing ontologies in our document safely 15:46:37 ... for a joint spec we need to discuss the process beforehand 15:46:52 seb: maybe we are on the same page 15:47:48 ... starting from the ontology. It should be generated by the OPCF or from some expert from that group. It is not our job 15:48:03 ... I'd expect this as the main outcome 15:48:30 ... the ontology could be hosted in OPC UA side 15:49:12 koster: do we need to claim authorship of this joint spec?who's responsible for it 15:49:30 seb: right 15:49:48 -> https://www.w3.org/TR/2021/REC-webrtc-20210126/ WebRTC REC - collaboration between W3C and IETF 15:49:53 ... we need just the ontology 15:50:20 -> https://www.w3.org/TR/2017/NOTE-sdw-bp-20170928/ Spatial Data on the Web Best Practices - collaboration between W3C and OGC 15:50:26 ... then our work is to describe how to map those concepts and network communication with an OPC UA device. 15:50:45 s/... we/seb: we/ 15:50:54 s/... then/seb: then/ 15:50:58 ... ok, I'll take some time to think about it. Probably we could start from the Companion specification and contribute there 15:51:13 kaz: I shared two examples 15:52:37 ... as you can see collaboration can happen 15:53:01 ... for example ogc and w3c published a joint note 15:53:12 seb: we can considered this option 15:53:34 ... like a joint document where to describe the vocabulary 15:54:32 kaz: the relation between w3c and opcf is similar to w3c and IETF. We can simple acknowledge ocpf work citing their information model 15:56:03 zkis has joined #wot-td 15:56:10 kaz: we could invite experts in our binding call and work together 15:56:50 s/the relation/based on the discussion today, my impression on the relationship/ 15:57:04 s/simple/simply/ 15:57:37 s/information model/vocabulary ontology, etc./ 15:57:40 seb: so should I delete the current draft document? 15:58:07 ack mjk 15:58:16 kaz: we can continue the discussion under the current liaison with opc-ua. Starting from this document. 15:59:04 ... maybe just rename charters to liaison. Or rather move to a proper location 15:59:19 ... the document is a good starting point 15:59:25 seb: thank you for the input 16:00:41 kaz: I see a joint specification only when we'll identify a substantial missing building block. 16:01:06 s/we'll/we/ 16:01:25 topic: PRs 16:01:33 s/I see/I think there is a possibility of/ 16:01:40 s/only/but only/ 16:02:12 seb: number 1032 uri template for security scheme parameters 16:03:21 i|1032|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/pull/1032 PR 1032 - Add URI template location for security scheme parameters| 16:03:38 s/topic: PRs/topic: PR 1032/ 16:03:55 seb: the approach here is similar to uriVariables 16:05:07 ... in the text there's a clarification about how to solve possible name conflicts 16:05:12 ... I am ok merging this 16:06:19 q? 16:06:29 cris: I am afraid to have a lot of similar mechanisms for the same thing 16:07:31 cris: it might be difficult to read 16:08:05 seb: the thing model has templating but it has a clear different scope 16:08:15 q+ 16:08:28 seb: currently we don't have a better idea 16:08:36 q- 16:09:39 daniel:I kinda of agree with Cristiano. I wonder now weather to put placeholder in other document at all 16:10:48 seb: the problem is that the Thing model uses the concept of the TD model 16:10:57 ack 16:10:59 ... the idea is also to move the Thing Model in other docuemnt 16:11:05 ack dape 16:12:11 seb: back to the PR. I am ok merging it. It is self contained. 16:12:23 ... we can improve also the number of devices described by a TD 16:12:35 ... any objections to merge? 16:13:00 i|the problem|-> https://w3c.github.io/wot-thing-description/#example-45-mybuzzerthingmodelserialized-in-json Sebastian shows section "10. Thing Model" around "Example 45"| 16:13:02 ... merged 16:13:12 seb: next PR 16:13:32 ... it's about Thing Model chapter 16:14:45 ... (showing the preview) 16:15:20 i/next PR/topic: PR 1024/ 16:15:39 i|it's|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/pull/1024 PR 1024 - Topics around Thing Model| 16:16:37 i|it's|-> https://pr-preview.s3.amazonaws.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/pull/1024.html#thing-model Preview of section "10. Thing Model"| 16:17:45 ege: there's an issue in the version field in the TM model 16:18:03 seb: please note that down in github 16:18:22 seb: showing examples of TMs 16:20:07 seb: I introduced the relation type called "type" 16:20:14 q+ 16:20:40 ... it serves as an indication that a TD is an instance of a TM 16:20:58 q+ 16:21:41 seb: the required keyword can force the presence of a particular field in the final TD instance 16:22:41 ege: some issues: 16:22:54 ... I don't like the require keyword clashes with DataSchema required 16:23:01 q+ to required causes validation issues array/object 16:23:10 seb: it is another level 16:23:47 ege: for validation it will be challenging 16:24:11 ... I am not super happy about this new require feature 16:24:18 ack dape 16:24:18 dape, you wanted to required causes validation issues array/object 16:24:29 ege: it would be better to have just a flag 16:24:35 ... required on not 16:24:56 koster: we could have just one place to list the required affordances 16:25:12 ... flags it might be a problem for reusability. 16:25:47 seb: so how's this solved in sdf? 16:25:54 i|I introduced|-> https://pr-preview.s3.amazonaws.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/pull/1024.html#example-49-thing-model-with-the-required-term-for-interaction-affordances Example 49 on the Preview| 16:26:11 koster: we a field with pointers to required properties/values 16:27:34 q+ 16:28:13 seb: Ok, I'll add a note in the required section stating that it is under discussion 16:28:35 ... also we'll discuss about sdf pointers in the F2F meeting 16:29:04 ... actually the whole TM section has a note saying that is under discussion 16:29:11 ege: I'll create an issue on this 16:29:18 ack e 16:29:21 q? 16:30:29 ege: what if in TM I don't put forms? or other required TD field without a placeholder? 16:30:51 q? 16:30:52 ... it should be clear that in the end other properties will be add in the final TD 16:31:21 q+ 16:31:48 ... we have an use-case to not have forms in a TM, however from the text it is not clear. It seems that I need to put a place holder to generate forms automatically 16:32:48 -> https://pr-preview.s3.amazonaws.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/pull/1024.html#example-51-thing-description Example 51 16:33:16 seb: right 16:35:20 cris: this issue is really linked with the work we are doing in the scripting API 16:35:31 seb: yeah it can be multiple ways 16:35:45 ... in ediTDor we ask to the user 16:38:23 cris: I think there's two phases. One filling the placeholders and the other filling missing required properties 16:39:05 q? 16:39:08 ack c 16:39:13 seb: yeah I agree. I'll describe the process focusing more in the in end goal 16:39:29 daniel: +1 to Cristiano's point 16:39:58 ... it might be valuable to have shared algorithm for PartialTD->TD process 16:40:42 koster: in ODM we have a more schema oriented approach. We should spend sometime to think about it 16:40:58 ... approach about placeholders 16:41:21 seb 16:41:30 seb:schema approach? 16:41:46 koster: Like macro preprocessing 16:43:05 ... we could use an object instead of the place holder. 16:43:16 ... the object could act like a schema 16:43:33 seb: placeholder are easier for overriding 16:44:56 koster: in ODM it is a not-mechanically checkable rule that states that if you are overriding something you should maintain the semantic. 16:45:59 seb:by the way there's a npm module which is doing the heavy lifting for replacing placeholders 16:46:00 q? 16:46:06 ack d 16:46:07 ack m 16:46:26 daniel: first comment is about the required. I'll post on the github issue 16:46:29 dape, I am in your service: https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues/1046 16:47:00 ... I am not sure if we need to enforce a particular style for placeholders 16:47:48 ... it could be just a best practice 16:48:00 ack dape 16:48:05 q? 16:48:05 seb: I can lessens the wording. 16:48:15 ack mjk 16:48:22 https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues/1047 16:48:36 seb: ok PR not merged, it needs more iterations 16:48:45 https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues/1045 16:48:56 seb: (capturing TODOs in the PR) 16:52:42 seb: thank you for the feedback 16:53:21 topic: issue 1020 16:53:45 seb: current definition of actions or properties it is not very precise 16:54:08 ... different people use properties or actions for the same concepts 16:54:32 i|thank you|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/pull/1024#issuecomment-776855059 Sebastian's comments for PR 1024| 16:55:18 ... ok there's more comments on the issue. Let's discuss next time 16:55:31 topic: adding term for stream of data 16:55:57 ege: currently scripting api define how to handle stream of data 16:56:12 i|current definition|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues/1020 Issue 1020 - Which is better to actuate devices, invoking ACTION or writing PROPERTY?| 16:56:32 however there's no way to understand that from TD 16:57:11 daniel: it kind of a hint 16:57:33 s/it/it is/ 16:58:01 ege: to me it is a requirement 16:58:21 ... kind of contentEncoding 17:00:47 cris: it might be more an hint 17:01:43 ... but we need more experience with the new api to judge 17:01:54 seb: I agree, leave issue open 17:02:22 ... however I'm surprised to see that content Type could be also an array. 17:02:45 ege: +1 17:02:49 cris:+1 17:03:30 kaz: out of time 17:04:37 seb: adjourned 17:04:57 present+ Jack_Dickinson 17:06:23 i|currently|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues/1020#issuecomment-776676562 Issue 1044 - Adding term to indicate a stream of data 17:41:10 rrsagent, make log public 17:41:15 rrsagent, draft minutes 17:41:15 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/02/10-wot-td-minutes.html kaz 19:13:57 Zakim has left #wot-td