15:00:16 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #wot-td
15:00:16 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2021/03/10-wot-td-irc
15:00:24 <kaz> meeting: WoT-WG - TD-TF
15:00:30 <kaz> present+ Kaz_Ashimura
15:01:02 <kaz> present+ Klaus_Hartke
15:01:17 <ryuichi> ryuichi has joined #wot-td
15:01:29 <kaz> present+ Ege_Korkan
15:01:44 <kaz> present+ Cristiano_Aguzzi
15:01:52 <cris> cris has joined #wot-td
15:05:44 <kaz> present+ Michael_Koster, Michael_McCool, Sebastian_Kaebisch
15:06:22 <sebastian> sebastian has joined #wot-td
15:06:23 <Mizushima> Mizushima has joined #wot-td
15:06:37 <kaz> Agenda: https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/WG_WoT_Thing_Description_WebConf#Mar_10.2C_2021
15:06:55 <mjk> mjk has joined #wot-td
15:07:27 <kaz> scribenick: cris
15:07:48 <cris> topic: agenda
15:08:02 <kaz> present+ Toamoaki_Mizushima
15:08:05 <cris> seb: no guest today
15:08:30 <cris> seb: we'll start from the modbus biding pr
15:08:45 <cris> ... then go trough the issues
15:08:56 <cris> ... in particular about the additionalResposes topics
15:09:03 <cris> ... is there anything else
15:09:07 <cris> .. ?
15:09:23 <cris> ege: there's a PR about the required term
15:09:31 <cris> ... is this included in the agenda?
15:09:42 <cris> seb: kind of we have a PR point in the agenda
15:09:52 <cris> topic: previous minutes
15:09:52 <sebastian> https://www.w3.org/2021/02/24-wot-td-minutes.html
15:10:17 <cris> seb: no call last week because of PlugFest
15:10:33 <cris> ... then we discussed about CR/PR planning
15:11:05 <cris> ... collected some topics for the F2F meeting
15:11:23 <cris> ... discussed about the additionalResponses
15:11:42 <cris> ... finally we merge a PR about TM json schema
15:12:15 <kaz> rrsagent, make log public
15:12:20 <kaz> rrsagent, draft minutes
15:12:20 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/03/10-wot-td-minutes.html kaz
15:12:33 <kaz> s/discussed about/discussed/
15:12:40 <kaz> s/discussed about/discussed/
15:13:15 <cris> seb: ok, any objection to publish the minutes?
15:13:27 <cris> ... ok, minutes accepted
15:13:52 <kaz> Chair: Sebastian
15:14:13 <cris> seb: ok then a quick update. I'd suggest skipping next meetings during the f2f
15:16:52 <sebastian> q?
15:17:00 <cris> ... any comments about the f2f agenda?
15:17:04 <kaz> -> https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/F2F_meeting,_March_2021#Wednesday_March_24 TD day on March 24
15:17:07 <cris> ... ok
15:17:12 <cris> topic: Modbus binding
15:17:19 <kaz> s/... ok/seb: ok/
15:17:28 <cris> seb: cristiano has updates about his PR
15:17:42 <kaz> scribenick: kaz
15:18:25 <kaz> -> https://github.com/w3c/wot-binding-templates/pull/109 PR 109 - Refining Modbus protocol binding
15:18:35 <kaz> ca: captured the discussion so far
15:20:46 <kaz> -> https://pr-preview.s3.amazonaws.com/relu91/wot-binding-templates/pull/109.html preview
15:20:55 <kaz> ca: would like to get feedback
15:21:14 <kaz> ... what is lacking and nice to have is URL for modbus and the other binding
15:21:40 <kaz> ek: should be sort of another content for chapter on URL scheme
15:21:45 <kaz> ... modbus TCP
15:21:50 <kaz> ... applied to RTU
15:22:04 <sebastian> q?
15:22:04 <kaz> ca: need to specify that
15:22:07 <sebastian> q+
15:22:12 <kaz> ... not sure which one to try first, though
15:23:17 <kaz> ek: modbus standards to be referred
15:23:29 <mjk> q?
15:23:52 <kaz> sk: we should have a subsection on the base URL
15:24:01 <kaz> ... for modbus scheme, etc.
15:24:15 <kaz> ... also we should think about the title of the document
15:24:18 <kaz> q?
15:24:20 <kaz> q+
15:24:22 <kaz> ack s
15:24:41 <kaz> sk: another question is "entity and function"
15:24:46 <kaz> ... what do you mean?
15:24:57 <kaz> ca: depends on the modbus vocabulary
15:25:42 <sebastian> ack s
15:26:27 <kaz> sk: not typically to have the information on the header
15:26:35 <kaz> ... maybe a separate section
15:26:48 <kaz> ... reference section
15:28:11 <mjk> q+
15:28:40 <kaz> kaz: agree with Sebastian, and think we should discuss how to deal with this document
15:29:14 <kaz> ... possibly (1) an example section or (2) a separate best practice document
15:30:22 <Mizushima> +1
15:30:32 <kaz> ack k
15:30:36 <kaz> ack m
15:31:00 <kaz> mjk: we have protocol binding template document which defines how the binding works
15:31:25 <kaz> ... new binding could be added without changing the model
15:31:58 <kaz> ... but actual binding examples like modbus binding would cause too many dependencies
15:32:18 <kaz> ... for binding templates, we want interoperability
15:32:47 <kaz> ... not really sure about the procedure but we could produce multiple documents for the guidance
15:32:53 <kaz> ... e.g., modbus binding
15:32:56 <sebastian> q+
15:33:36 <kaz> ca: that's my understanding as well
15:33:59 <mjk> ack mjk
15:34:30 <kaz> mm: we can add informative notes if needed
15:34:33 <kaz> kaz: right
15:34:48 <kaz> mm: easier to mange is important
15:34:52 <kaz> ca: right
15:35:27 <kaz> q?
15:35:45 <kaz> ... btw, the ontology itself here doesn't exist
15:35:52 <kaz> sk: would agree too
15:36:14 <kaz> ... the situation around IoT changes everyday
15:36:37 <kaz> ... what you have to do for the possible protocols in the future?
15:36:47 <kaz> q?
15:36:48 <kaz> ack s
15:37:01 <kaz> ca: have some more thing to do as well
15:37:14 <kaz> ... so can wait before merging
15:37:22 <kaz> q+
15:37:47 <kaz> ... e.g., I'd like to add additional sections based on the comments
15:39:26 <kaz> kaz: btw, you use the same tool to generate the HTML based on the template HTML like the TD spec. right?
15:39:30 <kaz> ca: exactly
15:40:33 <kaz> kaz: btw, why there are so many changes with the .gitignore file as well?
15:40:40 <kaz> ca: let me check
15:40:57 <kaz> -> https://github.com/w3c/wot-binding-templates/pull/109/files changes
15:41:02 <kaz> q+ klaus
15:41:05 <kaz> ack ka
15:41:06 <kaz> ack kl
15:41:16 <kaz> kh: which ontology are you using here?
15:41:31 <kaz> ca: this was created by a student of Ege
15:41:43 <kaz> ... for modbus nod-wot binding
15:41:54 <kaz> ... so basically we ourselves generated it
15:42:42 <kaz> kaz: so the final modbus ontology might be bigger
15:42:44 <kaz> ca: right
15:43:14 <kaz> sk: Ege, your student reflects the existing modbus standards. right?
15:43:18 <kaz> ek: yeah
15:43:39 <kaz> sk: maybe we should ping the modbus community to review this
15:43:46 <kaz> rrsagent, draft minutes
15:43:46 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/03/10-wot-td-minutes.html kaz
15:44:03 <kaz> sk: for example, about security for modbus
15:44:32 <kaz> ca: once it's published, we can get more feedback
15:45:04 <kaz> mjk: maybe there are some terminology questions
15:45:19 <kaz> ca: ok
15:45:44 <kaz> kh: do we classify everything?
15:45:55 <kaz> ca: you have classes and properties
15:46:12 <kaz> kh: HTTP in RDF doesn't use this grouping
15:46:27 <kaz> ... maybe for COPA, MQTT, etc.?
15:46:31 <kaz> ca: right
15:46:34 <kaz> ... not for HTTP here
15:47:14 <kaz> kh: btw, what about CoAP binding?
15:47:25 <kaz> sk: also interested in that
15:48:39 <kaz> ... and wanted to ask you, Klaus, about that :)
15:48:56 <kaz> kh: you can see the possible values here
15:49:13 <kaz> ... what I did is automatically convert this
15:49:21 <kaz> ... that is the 1st step
15:49:47 <kaz> ... and then we could tackle CoAP binding
15:50:20 <kaz> ca: basically there are 3 scripts here
15:50:31 <kaz> ... which were generated by Victor
15:51:51 <kaz> kh: can generate a TTL file and convert it to RDF
15:52:08 <kaz> ... the TTL are to be reviewed
15:52:29 <kaz> sk: in that case, you both (=Cristiano and Klaus) can work together offline
15:52:35 <kaz> ca: can help Klaus
15:53:05 <kaz> sk: let's make a prototype based on this description first
15:53:29 <kaz> s/description/description (=coap.ttl)/
15:53:42 <kaz> ... thanks a lot for your hard work
15:53:52 <kaz> ... remaining question is modbus security
15:54:04 <kaz> scribenick: cris
15:54:08 <cris> seb: we should reach the modbus community
15:54:33 <cris> cris: yes, we could try
15:54:38 <Ege> https://modbus.org/
15:54:52 <cris> ege: there's something going on in the modbus community
15:55:17 <cris> ... not properly a standardization. (see link above)
15:55:28 <cris> seb: Itachi is member, we could also aske them
15:55:51 <cris> q?
15:55:54 <sebastian> https://control.com/forums/forums/modbus.36/
15:56:19 <cris> mk: the real name is the modbus organization
15:56:34 <cris> seb: ok, let's move the next topic
15:57:13 <kaz> i/ok/topi: Defer issues to TD 2.0/
15:57:28 <kaz> -> https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3A%22Defer+to+TD+2.0%22 Issues to be deferred to 2.0
15:57:29 <cris> ... btw please look for propose closing and TD 2.0 labels
15:57:38 <cris> topic: PR
15:57:54 <kaz> s/... btw/seb: btw/
15:58:08 <cris> seb: let's start form add json pointer assertion to definition of body sec location #10058
15:58:25 <kaz> s/10058/1058/
15:58:34 <cris> mc: we discussed briefly on the format of the json pointer.
15:58:53 <kaz> s/topic: PR/topic: PR 1058/
15:58:55 <cris> ... any further comments are welcomed
15:59:15 <kaz> i|let's start|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/pull/1058 PR 1058 - WIP: Add JSON pointer assertion to definition of body sec location|
15:59:34 <cris> seb: is the json pointer format standard?
15:59:54 <cris> mc: yes it has its own RFC. it has been around from 2016
16:00:26 <cris> topci: PR 980
16:00:34 <cris> s/topci/topic/
16:01:22 <cris> seb: I fixed an issue with @type for contentEncoding in the context-1.1.json ld
16:01:31 <kaz> s/PR 980/Issue 980/
16:01:31 <cris> ... should we merge it?
16:01:55 <cris> ... merged
16:02:13 <kaz> s/Issue 980/PR 1060/
16:02:15 <cris> ... issue 980 merged
16:02:26 <cris> s/merged/closed/
16:02:48 <cris> topic: 1061
16:02:50 <kaz> i|fixed an|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/pull/1060 PR 1060 - fix issue #980|
16:03:43 <kaz> i|topic: 1061|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues/980 Issue 980 - Definition of contentEncoding should be of type xsd:string|
16:04:05 <kaz> s/1061/PR 1061/
16:04:22 <cris> seb: in the current draft the type of link type and rel is wrong. it is string or array but we didn't agreed on this change
16:04:30 <cris> ... this pr fixes this problem
16:04:31 <kaz> i|in the|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/pull/1061 PR 1061 - Fix cardinality of Link.rel|
16:05:14 <kaz> -> https://pr-preview.s3.amazonaws.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/pull/1061.html#link Preview of "5.3.4.1 Link"
16:06:07 <cris> ... it seems that the problem is not completely solved in the PR. rel field is still anyURI whereas previously was simply string
16:06:23 <cris> ... I'll ask victor to look at it
16:07:39 <cris> topic: PR 1065
16:09:24 <kaz> -> https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/pull/1065 PR 1065 - fix: the "required" keyword was placed incorrectly in the TM schema
16:09:30 <cris> seb: simple PR about fixing the validation of TM. It basically wildcard the term required. However, I don't like the required implementation so I think we should directly improve the implementation instead of validating
16:10:29 <cris> ege: he edited the wrong file, we should describe the process
16:10:46 <cris> cris: we can set up a github actions saying which file should not be touched
16:11:01 <cris> ege: cool, can we set up the github action?
16:11:42 <cris> kaz: right he should edit the index.template.html
16:12:58 <cris> ... we could do the process manually also
16:13:44 <cris> ... there's two separate issues validation and the generation
16:14:04 <cris> seb: not easy we should involve victor
16:14:42 <cris> ... we automate the process to avoiding mistakes
16:14:53 <cris> s/automate/automated/
16:15:14 <kaz> s/to avoiding/to avoid/
16:15:36 <cris> ege: I think we diverged a little bit. I would like to have simply the validation
16:16:56 <cris> seb: btw I updated the discussion on the issue with the comments.
16:18:43 <cris> kaz: PRs should be generated by the editors
16:18:59 <cris> ... or at least included in the editors group
16:19:29 <cris> ... it might be good to file an issue and the editors will create the PR
16:19:44 <cris> seb: ok next topic
16:19:46 <sebastian> https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues/1053
16:19:53 <cris> topic: issue 1053
16:20:12 <cris> seb: it is about the new additionalResponses
16:20:25 <kaz> s/topic: issue 1053//
16:20:33 <kaz> i/https/topic: Issue 1053/
16:20:39 <kaz> s/https/-> https/
16:21:02 <cris> mc: btw additionalResponses is not a subclass of regular responses. For example contentType is mandatory
16:21:13 <cris> seb: and it has also schema
16:21:27 <kaz> s|issues/1053|issues/1053 Issue 1053 - Consider adding DataSchema to response and additionalResponses|
16:21:29 <cris> mc: yes
16:21:34 <kaz> rrsagent, draft minutes
16:21:34 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/03/10-wot-td-minutes.html kaz
16:21:34 <sebastian> q?
16:22:02 <cris> mc: there's question if the additionalResponses should be used for successful responses
16:22:35 <cris> ... not sure about examples but I suspect there're some API which as different dataschmas
16:23:00 <cris> seb: in the issues we discussed if it is good to have the schema in the additionalResponses
16:23:17 <cris> mk: exactly I wrote about this in my comment
16:23:41 <cris> mc: we could rename it as errorResponses
16:24:31 <cris> ... the default behavior should be a protocol generated response
16:25:25 <cris> seb: in the issue I created an example using json pointers
16:25:46 <cris> ... we could introduce addtionalSchema
16:25:53 <cris> mc: yeah we could make it an object
16:26:11 <cris> ... then we have to decide to use json pointers or json schema pointers
16:26:32 <cris> +1 for additionalSchemas
16:27:15 <cris> mc: we could use names to define addtionalSchemas
16:27:22 <cris> mk: +1
16:27:34 <cris> mc: that would allow to reuse schemas
16:27:39 <cris> +1
16:28:42 <cris> ege: also we could use this feature to help TD designers
16:29:07 <cris> ... so that they could not repeat the schema
16:29:17 <cris> mc: like the idea, let me update the PR
16:30:20 <cris> ege: should we restrict the kind of data to be put in the additionalSchemas?
16:30:37 <cris> mc: should avoid using pointers to much
16:31:12 <cris> mc: btw with definitions we could avoid using json schema pointers
16:32:00 <cris> mc: we should use json pointers than schema it is standard
16:34:02 <cris> cris: good the direction, I like it. Keep in mind that it might get harder to parse the TD in a linear way
16:34:09 <cris> ... canolization could help
16:34:42 <cris> mc: agree, but I would avoid to expand pointers cause we could reduce the bandwidth
16:35:10 <cris> seb: good point about parsing, but this is an exceptional situation
16:35:17 <cris> ... it might not be present in all TDs
16:37:53 <cris> klaus: +1 it is a good practice to have a well defined place
16:38:45 <cris> cris: it is easier also to validate
16:39:05 <cris> mc: ok, I'll work on the PR to bring these updates
16:40:09 <cris> seb: this concepts we could reuse for log running schema
16:40:33 <cris> s/running schema/running actions/
16:40:53 <cris> seb: I'd put that the same place of URI variables
16:41:43 <cris> mc: btw you can define objects in uriVariables which is difficult to serialize
16:41:52 <cris> ... at least we should add an assertion
16:44:22 <cris> mk: it might be some way to serialize objects to URI
16:47:33 <cris> mc: btw if disallow having object in URI we could re introduce it later.
16:48:05 <cris> topic: issue 1047
16:48:14 <cris> seb: how to generate TDs from TMs
16:48:44 <mjk> I need to drop, cheers!
16:48:59 <kaz> i|how to|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues/1047 Issue 1047 - Two step generation of the TD from a TM should be clear|
16:50:10 <cris> ... cristiano made a point to make the last points towards the term partialTD
16:50:54 <kaz> s/I need to drop, cheers!/(Koster leaves)/
16:51:05 <cris> seb: afraid that the partialTD could confuse
16:51:34 <cris> cris: yeah it might, but we have the definition in the architecture
16:52:37 <cris> ege: also partialTD is not so hard to understand. it should be clear the difference between a TM and a partialTD
16:54:54 <cris> https://w3c.github.io/wot-architecture/#dfn-partial-td
16:56:21 <cris> seb: good I'll provide a pr
16:56:56 <cris> topic: issue 1037
16:57:03 <cris> seb: it seems we could close this one
16:57:26 <cris> mc: it needs to be closed only after merging the linked PR
16:57:36 <cris> seb: ok next time then
16:57:49 <cris> topic: 1020
16:57:59 <kaz> i|it seems|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues/1037 Issue 1037 - The "body" location value for security schemes is underspecified|
16:58:32 <cris> seb: defer to the next meeting, it is really interesting because it compares our definition of action and properties with other standard
16:58:50 <cris> kaz: totally agree
16:59:24 <cris> ... my impression is they don't really restrict the usage of actions or properties
16:59:31 <cris> ... it depends from the implementation
17:01:04 <cris> ... I asked to have guidelines from our previous experience in plugfest
17:01:27 <mjk> q?
17:01:52 <kaz> s/I asked to have/I've been asking you all to generate/
17:02:12 <kaz> s/plugfest/plugfests :)/
17:02:29 <kaz> s/I've/actually, that's why I've/
17:02:38 <cris> cris: it depends a lot if you are modelling a new device or mapping an old one to wot
17:02:51 <kaz> s/depends from/depends on/
17:03:09 <cris> mk: it is good to discuss about this. I spent a lot of time describing the usage of actions to rest guys
17:04:04 <kaz> q+
17:04:17 <kaz> s/discuss about/discuss/
17:04:49 <cris> kaz: we could have complicated actions
17:05:07 <cris> ... using properties would be very hard
17:05:14 <cris> seb: yeah I would use actions
17:05:57 <cris> ... let's discuss next time
17:06:14 <cris> adjourned
17:06:15 <kaz> s/complicated actions/complicated actions, e.g., changing the brightness within one minutes gradually/
17:06:23 <kaz> s/using/in that case, using/
17:06:49 <kaz> rrsagent, draft minutes
17:06:49 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/03/10-wot-td-minutes.html kaz
17:06:52 <kaz> rrsagent, draft minutes
17:06:52 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/03/10-wot-td-minutes.html kaz