IRC log of wot-td on 2021-04-14

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:01:27 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #wot-td
14:01:27 [RRSAgent]
logging to
14:01:49 [kaz]
present+ Kaz_Ashimura, Cristiano_Aguzi, Ege_Korkan
14:02:03 [kaz]
Meeting: WoT-WG - TD-TF
14:05:55 [kaz]
present+ Michael_McCool, Sebastian_Kaebisch
14:07:07 [cris_]
cris_ has joined #wot-td
14:07:26 [cris_]
ege: I would add topics to the agenda
14:07:32 [Ege]
14:07:34 [cris_]
... on PR and an issue
14:07:51 [Ege]
14:08:08 [sebastian]
sebastian has joined #wot-td
14:08:13 [Ege]
14:08:19 [kaz]
i/I would add/topic: Agenda/
14:08:27 [kaz]
i/I would add/scribenick: cris_/
14:08:28 [Ege]
14:08:32 [kaz]
rrsagent, make log public
14:08:42 [kaz]
rrsagent, draft minutes
14:08:42 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate kaz
14:08:48 [kaz]
present+ Tomoaki_Mizushima
14:09:17 [cris_]
seb: welcome back to our weekly td web meeting
14:09:22 [kaz]
14:09:29 [cris_]
... no guest today
14:09:44 [cris_]
14:10:05 [cris_]
topic: agenda
14:10:18 [kaz]
rrsagent, draft minutes
14:10:18 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate kaz
14:10:24 [dape]
dape has joined #wot-td
14:10:32 [kaz]
present+ Daniel_Peintner
14:10:39 [cris_]
seb: we have a couple of PRs in the pipeline, plus we have to review previous minutes
14:10:54 [cris_]
... we'll also discuss the publication schedule
14:11:02 [cris_]
topic: previous minutes
14:11:05 [kaz]
s/topic: agenda//
14:11:15 [kaz]
rrsagent, draft minutes
14:11:15 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate kaz
14:12:00 [kaz]
-> vF2F minutes
14:12:55 [kaz]
14:13:07 [cris_]
seb: we discussed new features of the next TD version (1.1)
14:14:10 [cris_]
... also new vocabulary terms
14:14:45 [cris_]
... a couple of typos
14:15:07 [cris_]
... new uri scheme for Security information
14:15:43 [cris_]
... Morever we talked about the publication readmap. We'll review it today
14:15:50 [kaz]
present+ Michael_Koster
14:16:05 [cris_]
... the current plan should be aligned with our test fest
14:16:35 [cris_]
mc: may 15 is a Saturday, probably we have to reschedule the deadline
14:16:47 [cris_]
... possibly a couple of days earlier
14:17:03 [cris_]
seb: let discuss about it later
14:17:32 [kaz]
s/about it/it/
14:18:54 [mjk_]
mjk_ has joined #wot-td
14:18:57 [cris_]
seb: then we had the presentation from Micheal Koster about SDF outcomes in the plug fest.
14:19:17 [cris_]
... I am seeing that my slides are not linked in the minutes
14:19:21 [cris_]
... we should add them
14:19:35 [mjk__]
mjk__ has joined #wot-td
14:19:59 [cris_]
mc: we are missing a few slide decks, we need to clean up the minutes a little bit.
14:20:38 [mjk___]
mjk___ has joined #wot-td
14:20:59 [cris_]
seb: later new had a presentation about Conanicalisation,
14:21:11 [cris_]
... also here I don't see link to the slides
14:21:38 [cris_]
... finally we had an update to the latest news from IoT Schema by Michael Koster
14:22:08 [cris_]
... minutes looks good, we need only to fix the links
14:22:23 [cris_]
... other than that minutes are approved
14:23:01 [cris_]
topic: last td meeting minutes
14:23:06 [kaz]
-> March-10
14:23:24 [cris_]
seb: update from Cristiano about the new modbus document
14:23:38 [cris_]
... then we looked at a bunch of PRs
14:23:58 [cris_]
... 1058 should be merged, we'll check it later
14:24:05 [cris_]
... 1061 is still open
14:24:42 [cris_]
... 1065 still open too
14:25:08 [cris_]
... then we reviewed 1053 issue about additionalResponses
14:25:52 [cris_]
mc: I was working on it but I found a problem in security schemas definition.
14:25:59 [cris_]
... so first we need to fix it
14:26:12 [cris_]
... it would be great if someone could provide a PR fixing it
14:26:23 [cris_]
... there are several issue
14:26:33 [cris_]
14:26:50 [cris_]
... current draft is broken, it does not have securityDefinitions
14:27:02 [cris_]
seb: it might be a problem with the render script
14:27:25 [cris_]
mc: we should definitely fix this problem befor the CR transition
14:28:03 [cris_]
seb: I'm seeing a pattern, there are also other definitions broken
14:28:32 [cris_]
... I have the impression that is a render script issue
14:28:43 [cris_]
mc: there's also some problem inside the ontology
14:29:12 [cris_]
s/there's also some problem inside the ontology/there're also some problems insdie the ontology/
14:29:20 [cris_]
seb: do we have a tracking issue for this?
14:29:23 [cris_]
mc: we should
14:29:24 [kaz]
rrsagent, draft minutes
14:29:24 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate kaz
14:30:36 [cris_]
mc: base is also missing
14:30:55 [cris_]
seb: I think it was removed by accident
14:31:09 [cris_]
... I'll try to understand what happened
14:32:35 [cris_]
seb: back to the minutes, we have a PR from Cristiano refactoring TM-to-TD generation
14:32:48 [cris_]
... any objections about the minutes?
14:33:01 [cris_]
... ok minutes approved
14:33:30 [cris_]
topic: publication plans
14:34:08 [cris_]
seb: we already a draft schedule, the next WD should be published around middle may
14:34:49 [cris_]
mc: I am proposing 12 for taking a resolution
14:35:18 [cris_]
... and froze the current document soon
14:36:01 [cris_]
... april 28 could be a good deadline
14:36:04 [kaz]
rrsagent, draft minutes
14:36:04 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate kaz
14:36:09 [cris_]
seb: only two weeks from now?
14:36:39 [cris_]
mc: we can move it to May 5th
14:37:33 [cris_]
... probably the same will happen for discovery
14:37:45 [cris_]
... resolution should be May 19th
14:37:53 [cris_]
seb: is it ok ?
14:38:02 [cris_]
ege: it is tight, but ok
14:38:22 [cris_]
seb: yeah, but it is still a WD
14:38:35 [cris_]
... we have time to later nail down major issues
14:38:59 [cris_]
mc: indeed we should aim for small fixes for May
14:39:11 [cris_]
seb: ok roadmap noted
14:40:46 [sebastian]
resolution: the plan for the next WD TD 1.1 would be: call for review on May 5th and do resolution for publication on May 19th
14:41:01 [cris_]
topic: issues
14:41:34 [cris_]
seb: as usual please check the postponed issues for TD 2.0, speak up if you would like to address them in the current version
14:41:51 [cris_]
s/topic: issues/topic: deferred issues/
14:41:54 [cris_]
topic: pr
14:42:08 [cris_]
s/topic: pr/topic: PRs/
14:42:22 [cris_]
seb: let's start from 112
14:42:58 [cris_]
ege: it comes from vF2F
14:42:59 [Ege]
14:43:51 [cris_]
mc: since it depends from an Architecture update, let's defer it to Arch call
14:44:26 [cris_]
seb: relating to this I have to remove Thing Model definition and add it to architecture
14:44:38 [cris_]
... ok any objections to merge it?
14:44:58 [cris_]
... merged
14:46:08 [cris_]
seb: 937 is wip, victor is also involved because is touching the ontology and shacl definitions
14:46:43 [cris_]
... then we have proof and proofChain section PR
14:47:49 [cris_]
mc: it is related to signing but is based on the outdated jsonld proof
14:48:17 [cris_]
... still working in progress
14:48:41 [kaz]
rrsagent, draft minutes
14:48:41 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate kaz
14:48:41 [cris_]
seb: 945 is deferred
14:49:14 [cris_]
seb: than we have 1058 about JSON pointer assertions
14:49:36 [kaz]
s/depends from/depends on/
14:49:57 [cris_]
mc: I changed body to accept a json pointer but there's also other weird issues that I tried to fixed.
14:50:08 [cris_]
... possibly render script issues
14:50:31 [kaz]
s/let's start from 112/subtopic: PR 112/
14:50:33 [cris_]
... we should remove these file from git tracked list
14:50:59 [kaz]
s|let's start from 112|-> PR 112 - remove terminology since it is moving to architecture|
14:51:06 [kaz]
rrsagent, draft minutes
14:51:06 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate kaz
14:51:42 [cris_]
... the real content talks about body content. It should be a json pointer which will not starting from the root, it is a relative pointer. So it cannot start with #
14:51:58 [kaz]
s/subtopic: PR/let's start with PR/
14:52:17 [kaz]
i/let's start with PR 112/subtopic: PR 112/
14:52:19 [kaz]
rrsagent, draft minutes
14:52:19 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate kaz
14:52:37 [cris_]
... there are implementation challages
14:53:04 [cris_]
... because this pr allow automatic insertions that processor should be able to handle
14:54:14 [kaz]
s|937 is wip|-> wot-thing-description PR 937 - WIP: swap securtiy and securityDefinition in context file|
14:54:52 [kaz]
rrsagent, draft minutes
14:54:52 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate kaz
14:55:43 [kaz]
s|-> wot-thing-description PR 937 - WIP: swap securtiy and securityDefinition in context file|TD PR 937is wip|
14:56:01 [kaz]
i|937 is wip|-> wot-thing-description PR 937 - WIP: swap securtiy and securityDefinition in context file|
14:56:04 [kaz]
rrsagent, draft minutes
14:56:04 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate kaz
14:56:12 [cris_]
mc: the automatic insertion helps to reduce redundancy cause the designer can avoid to add the security information in each data schema
14:56:53 [kaz]
s/topic: PR 112/topic: Binding Template PR 112/
14:56:55 [kaz]
rrsagent, draft minutes
14:56:55 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate kaz
14:57:13 [kaz]
s/937is/937 is/
14:57:39 [cris_]
ege: some history: in the current spec we have body security schema, but it was not really usable cause you couldn't point to any specific keyword in the body.
14:57:45 [kaz]
i|937 is wip|subtopic: TD PR 937|
14:57:51 [kaz]
i|937 is wip|-> wot-thing-description PR 937 - WIP: swap securtiy and securityDefinition in context file|
14:57:55 [kaz]
rrsagent, draft minutes
14:57:55 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate kaz
14:58:02 [cris_]
ege: should I use it even with readproperty?
14:59:10 [cris_]
... readproperty does not have inputs
14:59:22 [kaz]
i|945 is deferred|subtopic: TD PR 945|
14:59:34 [cris_]
mc: body makes sense only for POST requests
14:59:57 [kaz]
i|945 is deferred|-> wot-thing-description PR 945 - Simplified inline security definitions|
14:59:59 [kaz]
rrsagent, draft minutes
14:59:59 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate kaz
15:00:22 [cris_]
... we probably need to force implementers to use POST
15:00:52 [kaz]
s/than we have/then we have/
15:01:29 [kaz]
i|1058 about JSON|subtopic: TD PR 1058|
15:02:04 [kaz]
i|1058 about JSON|-> wot-thing-description PR 1058 - Add JSON pointer assertion to definition of body sec location|
15:02:07 [kaz]
rrsagent, draft minutes
15:02:07 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate kaz
15:02:38 [cris_]
mc: what webthings io does about local security?
15:03:06 [cris_]
ege: they don't have really any local sec
15:04:15 [kaz]
s/have really/really have/
15:04:39 [cris_]
... by the way I would open an issue about adding a ednote saying that body should be only used when the protocol allows it
15:04:56 [cris_]
seb: it would be nice to have this PR also for testing
15:05:02 [cris_]
... any objection to merge it?
15:05:13 [cris_]
... merged
15:05:36 [cris_]
... marking 1061 as ongoing
15:06:07 [cris_]
... possibly related to problems in the render script. Array is spawning where it shouldn't
15:06:13 [kaz]
i|marking|subtopic: TD PR 1061|
15:06:20 [cris_]
... victor is working on that
15:06:50 [kaz]
i|marking|-> wot-thing-description PR 1061 - WIP: Fix cardinality of Link.rel|
15:07:11 [kaz]
15:07:21 [cris_]
subtopic: TD PR 1065
15:07:38 [cris_]
seb: ignoring, I am working on another PR about the same topic
15:07:55 [cris_]
subtopic: TD PR 1077
15:08:02 [kaz]
i|ignoring|-> wot-thing-description PR 1065 - fix: the "required" keyword was placed incorrectly in the TM schema|
15:08:17 [cris_]
seb: important PR about transforming jsonld to rdf and back
15:08:34 [cris_]
... still working progress, it has something to do with framing
15:08:43 [kaz]
i|important|-> wot-thing-description PR 1077 - WIP: Extend JSON-LD context to allow for round-tripping to/from N-Triples|
15:08:49 [kaz]
rrsagent, draft minutes
15:08:49 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate kaz
15:09:02 [cris_]
subtopic: TD PR 1085
15:09:17 [cris_]
seb: from mc and it's about validation
15:09:41 [cris_]
mc: there's three levels defined
15:09:45 [kaz]
i|from|-> wot-thing-description PR 1085 - WIP: Add Validation Section|
15:09:47 [kaz]
rrsagent, draft minutes
15:09:47 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate kaz
15:10:01 [cris_]
... maybe leave out the highest validation level
15:10:09 [cris_]
... it needs input and discussion
15:10:14 [cris_]
... please comment
15:10:36 [cris_]
... it also tries to fix assertions and other minor problems
15:12:10 [cris_]
... full validation might even involve to test the output of the WebThing
15:12:17 [cris_]
... it needs input
15:12:35 [cris_]
subtopic: TD PR 1086
15:12:49 [cris_]
seb: possibly we can merge this
15:13:25 [kaz]
i|possibly|-> wot-thing-description PR 1086 - Add section to define Canonical serialization|
15:13:49 [cris_]
mc: a TD processor should not re-order array elements inside a TD otherwise the canonicalization would be broken.
15:15:49 [cris_]
daniel: removing duplicates it is hard
15:16:25 [dape]
15:16:35 [cris_]
mc: implementing Canonical serialization is challenging it self.
15:16:51 [kaz]
s/it self/itself/
15:17:04 [cris_]
... some json processors reorder properties in alphabetical order.
15:17:44 [cris_]
... it might make streaming processing difficult
15:18:02 [cris_]
... I am stating an exact order in the PR
15:19:10 [cris_]
daniel: what about different prefixes?
15:19:31 [cris_]
... valid in jsonld?
15:19:55 [cris_]
mc: I think they should be expanded using a jsonld processor
15:20:41 [dape]
ack dape
15:21:45 [cris_]
cris: so I can't use prefixed properties in a canonical TD
15:22:05 [cris_]
mc: yeah you should not leverage on prefixes in jsonld is an antipattern
15:22:42 [cris_]
15:23:30 [kaz]
ack cr
15:24:07 [cris_]
cris: what happens with the default context ? do we have an assertion about it?
15:24:13 [cris_]
mc: yes we have it
15:24:20 [cris_]
ege: true
15:24:32 [cris_]
seb: we are missing an example
15:24:41 [kaz]
s/we have it/we should have it/
15:25:24 [cris_]
mc: the thing is that a canonical td must not have withespaces, so the example would be a blob of text
15:25:33 [cris_]
... but we can add a pretty print button
15:25:46 [cris_]
daniel: or we can do it for every example
15:26:08 [cris_]
... readable example and a button for canonical form
15:26:17 [cris_]
mc: no all examples are not real tds
15:26:49 [cris_]
cris: we can skip the not real tds
15:27:06 [cris_]
mc: yeah we need a library that is able to derive a canonical form
15:27:17 [cris_]
... a bit annoying to implement
15:27:48 [cris_]
cris: we can reuse it even in node-wot
15:28:21 [cris_]
mc: also in discovery (e.g. db serialization)
15:29:19 [cris_]
... I'll write this tool myself
15:30:51 [cris_]
subtopic: TD PR 1090
15:31:24 [cris_]
seb: the PR introduces the import mechanism in the TD
15:31:37 [cris_]
... is taken from sdf
15:31:49 [kaz]
i/TD PR 1090/seb: let's review the PR next week then/
15:31:55 [kaz]
i/let's/scribenick: kaz/
15:31:59 [cris_]
... basically you can take the definition from other TDs
15:32:13 [kaz]
i|PR intro|scribenick: cris_|
15:32:18 [mjk___]
15:32:34 [cris_]
seb: you can mix it with extends
15:32:48 [kaz]
i|PR intro|-> wot-thing-description PR 1090 - init tmRef|
15:32:54 [kaz]
rrsagent, draft minutes
15:32:54 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate kaz
15:34:41 [cris_]
seb: we had one comment from Jan to clarify if you can import an element from a TD that extends another one
15:35:45 [cris_]
... is also speakinga bout overriding
15:37:25 [cris_]
cris: seems reasonable to me
15:38:23 [cris_]
mk: in sdf we say that you should not change the semantics
15:40:00 [cris_]
cris: yeah, we should be more careful for extending models rather than importing.
15:40:52 [kaz]
15:42:47 [cris_]
kaz: do we really need this extension for thing descriptions?
15:42:58 [cris_]
... we already have links
15:43:42 [cris_]
15:43:49 [kaz]
ack k
15:44:09 [cris_]
seb: these features is useful
15:44:16 [cris_]
15:44:53 [cris_]
kaz: do we really need to complicate the TD to have all this "programming language" features?
15:44:56 [cris_]
ack c
15:45:09 [cris_]
seb: just to clarify this feature is for TMs
15:45:54 [cris_]
kaz: how to deal with TMs is already challenging
15:46:18 [cris_]
seb: yeah it is, maybe in the future we could move in a dedicated specification document
15:46:49 [cris_]
kaz: indeed a while ago I proposed having a dedicated note for TMs
15:47:37 [cris_]
subtopic: PR TD 1092
15:47:52 [cris_]
seb: required keyword was found to be problematic
15:48:07 [cris_]
... the PR renames required to tmRequired
15:48:23 [kaz]
i|required keyword|-> wot-thing-description PR 1092 - rename required to tmRequired + top level definition|
15:48:25 [kaz]
rrsagent, draft minutes
15:48:25 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate kaz
15:52:00 [cris_]
cris: it is good, but why did not used tm as jsonld prefix?
15:52:10 [cris_]
seb: yeah it would be another way
15:53:21 [cris_]
mc: yeah it would be more consistent with also what we are doing for TDD
15:53:29 [cris_]
seb: I like it but it might be small
15:53:59 [cris_]
... I am not against it
15:54:15 [cris_]
mk: +1
15:54:28 [kaz]
15:54:29 [kaz]
rrsagent, draft minutes
15:54:29 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate kaz
15:56:07 [cris_]
seb: marking as not ready to merge, I'll go down with the new namespace solution
15:56:28 [cris_]
seb: could we embed it inside the TD context?
15:56:33 [cris_]
mc: yeah
15:56:39 [Ege]
15:57:19 [cris_]
ege: what are the implications when a TD does not follow the required rule?
15:57:30 [cris_]
seb: it is a validation issue
15:57:56 [cris_]
mk: it is actually another level of validation
15:58:38 [cris_]
ege: I understand, but what happens if I have a TD that does not follow the TM?
15:58:56 [cris_]
mc: I would add a clause in the full validation
15:59:50 [cris_]
ege: I wondering if it has real functioning implications
16:00:46 [kaz]
rrsagent, draft minutes
16:00:46 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate kaz
16:01:53 [kaz]
16:01:54 [Ege]
16:02:18 [cris_]
ack E
16:02:23 [Ege]
16:02:32 [kaz]
ack e
16:03:13 [cris_]
ege: I'd like to invite Jan to next call
16:03:15 [cris_]
seb: ok
16:03:36 [cris_]
kaz: is the TM section normative?
16:03:48 [cris_]
... if not we don't need assertions
16:03:59 [cris_]
seb: let's talk about it next time
16:04:28 [cris_]
seb: adjourned
16:04:38 [kaz]
rrsagent, draft minutes
16:04:38 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate kaz