14:00:21 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #wot-discovery
14:00:21 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2021/05/31-wot-discovery-irc
14:00:26 <kaz> meeting: WoT Discovery
14:00:37 <kaz> present+ Kaz_Ashimura, Michael_McCool
14:02:09 <ktoumura> ktoumura has joined #wot-discovery
14:02:42 <kaz> present+ Andrea_Cimmino
14:02:45 <kaz> -> https://w3c.github.io/wot-discovery/publication/2-wd/diff.html diff
14:02:56 <kaz> -> https://w3c.github.io/wot-discovery/publication/2-wd/ updated wd
14:05:19 <kaz> present+ Ben_Francis, Ege_Korkan, Farshid_Tavakolizadeh, Kunihiko_Toumura, Tomoaki_Mizushima
14:06:14 <FarshidT> FarshidT has joined #wot-discovery
14:07:13 <kaz> scribenick: benfrancis
14:08:05 <Ege> Ege has joined #wot-discovery
14:08:38 <benfrancis> Reviewing minutes from last meeting.
14:08:38 <benfrancis> No objections to publishing minutes from last meeting.
14:08:38 <benfrancis> Typo on independently.
14:09:48 <kaz> i|Reviewing|topic: Minutes|
14:10:09 <kaz> i|Reviewing|-> https://www.w3.org/2021/05/24-wot-discovery-minutes.html May-24|
14:10:36 <benfrancis> Typo reachted -> reached
14:11:05 <benfrancis> No objections to publishing minutes.
14:11:10 <acimmino> acimmino has joined #wot-discovery
14:11:38 <kaz> (typos fixed)
14:11:40 <benfrancis> FarshidT: Can we prioritise functional changes
14:12:42 <benfrancis> McCool: Kaz has created a diff showing changes for publication, we will review this offline
14:12:57 <kaz> -> https://w3c.github.io/wot-discovery/publication/2-wd/diff.html diff
14:13:27 <benfrancis> McCool: Change log needs adding before we publish. Need a reviewer.
14:13:34 <benfrancis> FarshidT: I can review.
14:13:46 <benfrancis> McCool: Assuming review passes we can publish.
14:15:03 <benfrancis> Topic: PR for TD signatures
14:16:09 <benfrancis> McCool: Directories may need signatures. Need canonical form for signatures. May also need an expanded form.
14:16:44 <cris> cris has joined #wot-discovery
14:16:46 <benfrancis> Will discuss further on TD call. Have some feedback with some things to fix from security call, hopefully will have a more complete version by next week and can discuss discovery implications.
14:17:24 <kaz> i|Directories|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/pull/1151 wot-thing-description PR 1151 - WIP: TD Signatures
14:17:50 <benfrancis> FarshidT: Created a PR with minor parts of refactor.
14:18:02 <benfrancis> McCool: Ben has made updates to refactor PR
14:18:18 <kaz> i|Created|topic: Discovery PRs|
14:18:21 <benfrancis> Also an alternative proposal from Ben
14:18:35 <benfrancis> (Reviewing a list of PRs)
14:18:48 <benfrancis> Also one around pagination
14:18:56 <benfrancis> Discussing
14:19:01 <benfrancis> #180
14:19:24 <kaz> i|Reviewing|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot-discovery/pulls wot-discovery PRs|
14:19:40 <chachamimm> chachamimm has joined #wot-discovery
14:19:53 <kaz> -> https://github.com/w3c/wot-discovery/pull/180 PR 180 - Create JSON Schema for validation of discovery extensions
14:21:08 <benfrancis> McCool: I believe that in JSON schema have additional properties which describe things that are allowed. First want to validate against regular TD schema, and then against this. Is there a way to link to another schema?
14:21:23 <benfrancis> FarshidT: First apply TD schema, then this one.
14:21:38 <benfrancis> cris: You can import, but maybe not the cleanest way. Programmatic approach (step 1, step 2) cleaner
14:21:46 <benfrancis> McCool: Describe process in prose.
14:22:05 <benfrancis> FarshidT: additionalProperties: true is already true so doesn't matter.
14:22:53 <benfrancis> McCool: Maybe use dependencies, validate extensions.
14:23:12 <benfrancis> Suggest merge it and move on, will add comments to PR.
14:23:46 <benfrancis> No objections to merging.
14:23:53 <benfrancis> Resolution: Merge #180
14:24:01 <benfrancis> Topic: #175
14:24:15 <benfrancis> Relates to Thing and EnrichedThing, not directory API itself
14:24:16 <kaz> i|#180|subtopic: PR 180|
14:24:32 <benfrancis> acimmino: This is just model, not the API
14:25:08 <kaz> s/Topic: #175/subtopic: PR 175/
14:25:24 <benfrancis> Now have Thing, ThinLink and ThingDirectory so they are consistent.
14:25:38 <kaz> i|Relates to|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot-discovery/pull/175 PR 175 - Updated directory to new ontology model|
14:26:20 <benfrancis> McCool: What order should we merge in?
14:26:28 <benfrancis> FarshidT: Doesn't matter
14:26:48 <benfrancis> acimmino: #175 is context, ontology and diagram
14:27:03 <benfrancis> McCool: What generates this XML?
14:27:19 <benfrancis> acimmino: A tool named chowlk
14:28:21 <benfrancis> McCool: Good to check in diagrams as SVG files. Make sure SVG not just PNG so easier to edit.
14:28:32 <benfrancis> acimmino: This is the source code of diagrams
14:29:01 <benfrancis> McCool: If this tool is not available in the future, we want to be able to edit
14:29:30 <benfrancis> acimmino: We can remove this file
14:29:38 <benfrancis> McCool: If we want to edit in the future, can we start from TTL file?
14:29:41 <benfrancis> acimmino: Yes
14:29:54 <benfrancis> McCool: Will go ahead and merge this
14:30:09 <benfrancis> FarshidT: We should squash it as there was back and forth
14:30:20 <benfrancis> cris: I see no cardinality in diagrams, is that intended?
14:30:52 <benfrancis> FarshidT: I think there was, but in other PR
14:31:22 <benfrancis> McCool: If there is cardinality in the ontology but not in the diagrams, that is inconsistent with diagrams in TD spec. Should make consistent with TD spec, please file an issue.
14:31:33 <benfrancis> Resolution: Merge #175
14:32:01 <benfrancis> Topic: PR #181
14:32:25 <benfrancis> FarshidT: It's a shame we can't see diagrams
14:32:53 <kaz> s/Topic: PR/subtopic: PR/
14:33:17 <kaz> i|It's|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot-discovery/pull/181 PR 181 - Update exploration figures and types|
14:33:30 <benfrancis> There are two diagrams
14:34:07 <benfrancis> McCool: I notice cardinality is here. Was the question before about this diagram?
14:34:22 <benfrancis> cris: There they are, it's fine.
14:34:55 <benfrancis> McCool: I suggest merging, can always file issues and updates. Am a little concerned about the style because the style in the TD spec is different. Not a huge deal, but should use similar symbology.
14:35:15 <benfrancis> FarshidT: There are also changes in the text describing diagrams.
14:36:03 <benfrancis> McCool: Style differences can be aligned with TD spec. What tool were we using for diagrams in the main TD spec?
14:36:09 <benfrancis> cris: GraphViz?
14:36:28 <benfrancis> FarshidT: I think GraphViz was used to generate visualisation
14:37:51 <benfrancis> McCool: Updated types, names of things, thing link
14:37:59 <benfrancis> kaz: I checked, it was GraphViz
14:38:20 <benfrancis> McCool: As long as both using UML standards should be OK, just don't want to use a different arrow type for subclass for example, need to check that.
14:38:40 <benfrancis> FarshidT: New namespace URL we are using everywhere except here
14:39:12 <benfrancis> McCool: When we go to CR we should update to official URIs
14:39:46 <benfrancis> FarshidT: Internal references automatically extracts, extracts title
14:40:02 <benfrancis> McCool: Some significant re-organisations to the text
14:40:22 <benfrancis> McCool: Go ahead and merge this. Any objections?
14:40:29 <benfrancis> McCool: Need more time to review?
14:40:44 <benfrancis> Resolution: Will squash and merge #181
14:41:44 <benfrancis> FarshidT: One more easy one. Moved the TD to the end in appendices. Still normative but moved it to appendices.
14:41:57 <benfrancis> McCool: Technically you can't make appendices or examples normative.
14:42:14 <benfrancis> McCool: What we should have is a Thing Model that is normative, assuming there is a TD for directories
14:42:30 <benfrancis> McCool: If we move it, does it break other pending PRs?
14:42:44 <benfrancis> FarshidT: For appendices there is a class to say whether they are normative
14:42:52 <benfrancis> Have marked as a normative appendix
14:43:02 <benfrancis> McCool: I was incorrect, didn't know you could do that. Fine with me.
14:43:24 <benfrancis> Do need to convert it into a TM.
14:43:58 <benfrancis> McCool: Could keep it as an example, then add a TM separately (without security stuff)
14:44:20 <kaz> q+
14:44:28 <benfrancis> FarshidT: In the future we can add another section for OpenAPI
14:44:41 <benfrancis> McCool: Security definitions are an example, not meant to be normative
14:44:56 <benfrancis> Can remove non-normative parts and create a TM
14:45:09 <benfrancis> FarshidT: These could be different subsections in appendices
14:45:17 <benfrancis> McCool: Want to label interactions with scopes
14:45:29 <benfrancis> McCool: No objections to merging, but future work to do
14:45:48 <benfrancis> kaz: Can move to appendices. At the moment proposed appendix is not normative?
14:45:54 <benfrancis> McCool: It is normative, using a calss
14:45:57 <benfrancis> *class
14:46:14 <benfrancis> kaz: It would be better to have section in main body if normative
14:46:32 <benfrancis> FarshidT: The plan is to explain everything in normative text, then have the TD at the end
14:46:56 <benfrancis> kaz: For the moment moving to appendix while still normative fine but should add editor's note regarding moving to main body
14:47:25 <benfrancis> McCool: Right now it's a TD anyway, which should be a TM. It's the TM we want to be normative. Put in appendix and cite it from the body is the right thing to do.
14:47:27 <benfrancis> kaz: Agree
14:47:45 <benfrancis> McCool: Do we want to clutter body with assertions which are covered clearly in the TM?
14:48:00 <benfrancis> McCool: It's a simple matter to move it up one level, still at the end but as a section.
14:48:16 <benfrancis> kaz: Why don't we just add an editor's note.
14:48:25 <benfrancis> FarshidT: I can create an editor's note
14:48:36 <benfrancis> McCool: Add editor's note saying we may need to make it into a section
14:48:47 <benfrancis> McCool: Could just make it a section at the end
14:48:57 <benfrancis> FarshidT: OK I will do that now.
14:49:04 <benfrancis> McCool: Some conflicts need fixing too.
14:49:32 <benfrancis> FarshidT: I can postpone the move until next stage.
14:49:55 <kaz> subtopic: PR #188
14:50:00 <benfrancis> FarshidT: Ben had done a lot of work, but too many changes in one PR. Did not take part about separating events into different affordances.
14:50:11 <kaz> -> https://github.com/w3c/wot-discovery/pull/188 PR 188 - Refactor Directory Service API TD (stage 1)
14:50:29 <benfrancis> FarshidT: Also separated out anonymous TD
14:51:02 <kaz> i|One more easy|subtopic: PR #186|
14:51:11 <benfrancis> McCool: Have added scopes. Need a rich set of scopes.
14:51:21 <benfrancis> subtopic: #188
14:51:23 <kaz> i|One more easy|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot-discovery/pull/186 PR 186 - Move API spec to appendices|
14:51:28 <kaz> ack k
14:51:32 <benfrancis> Renamed URI template
14:52:04 <benfrancis> Added a semantic annotation to say it's an ID
14:52:24 <benfrancis> McCool: Need to explain that it's an ID that needs using later on
14:52:48 <benfrancis> McCool: Is this a property or an action?
14:53:09 <benfrancis> FarshidT: It is an action (partialUpdate)
14:53:17 <benfrancis> McCool: Needs renaming?
14:53:26 <benfrancis> FarshidT: partiallyUpdate?
14:54:41 <benfrancis> benfrancis: Have removed all the substantial changes, and just renamed things?
14:56:03 <benfrancis> cris: We need to define this ThingID somewhere
14:56:53 <benfrancis> McCool: Maybe we shouldn't call this ThingID, because it may be confused with the one in the TD spec
14:57:12 <benfrancis> FarshidT: The one in the TD spec refers to an actual thing's ID, whereas here we just care about identifying a TD
14:57:23 <benfrancis> FarshidT: It's actually not the same as the TD spec
14:58:13 <benfrancis> McCool: Could call it ThingDescriptionID instead of ThingID. It's the ID of the thing description in the directory.
14:58:55 <benfrancis> FarshidT: Should we call it retrieveTD then?
14:58:58 <benfrancis> McCool@ I
14:59:07 <benfrancis> McCool: I'm worried about a name conflict with TD spec
14:59:11 <benfrancis> FarshidT: The name is not identical
14:59:19 <benfrancis> McCool: Even if different case, still confusing
14:59:51 <benfrancis> McCool: Can merge and create an issue about this to discuss later
14:59:52 <benfrancis> cris: Agree
14:59:59 <benfrancis> cris: I can create issue
15:01:11 <benfrancis> McCool: OK, so just name changes, bug fixes and "at type" for IDs
15:01:32 <benfrancis> FarshidT: I have fixed the name to be a verb. Now partiallyUpdate
15:02:13 <benfrancis> McCool: I would like to go ahead and merge this. Not ignoring other changes, just saying we can merge and move on. Ben can rebase his PR on this one.
15:02:24 <benfrancis> McCool: Squash or separate
15:02:37 <benfrancis> FarshidT: Better to keep separate so easier to rebase on top of
15:03:08 <benfrancis> Resolution: Merge #188
15:04:58 <benfrancis> McCool: Need to make a decision. Do we do remainder of refactor? Could just make the TD informative. Sounds like we could incrementally change, then make it informative. But hesitate to make it informative until we have all the text.
15:05:31 <benfrancis> McCool: Could make it a normative appendix for now, make it an informative appendix later once normative text written.
15:05:46 <benfrancis> Subtopic: #186
15:06:35 <benfrancis> McCool: There is a conflict, I can try to fix now
15:07:50 <benfrancis> FarshidT: Can just remove section above.
15:08:20 <benfrancis> FarshidT: Have removed editor's notes
15:09:55 <kaz> i|There is|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot-discovery/pull/186 PR 186 - Move API spec to appendices|
15:15:58 <benfrancis> (McCool edits PR to resolve conflicts and make fixes)
15:17:11 <benfrancis> McCool: Shall we merge this now? Any objections?
15:17:25 <benfrancis> Resolution: Merge #186
15:17:50 <benfrancis> McCool: Need to discuss refactor/re-structure
15:18:47 <benfrancis> McCool: I'm worried about the schedule, we are behind schedule. Going to talk to kaz and see how much slack we have. At most we have an extra month. Also worried about vacations, will be hard to make progress over the summer. Want CR draft by end of July at the latest.
15:18:57 <kaz> i|Need|topic: Refacter and Restructure|
15:20:37 <benfrancis> McCool: Was recently thinking about TM being normative issue. If a TD has a link to a TM, is it really necessary to repeat everything in the TM, or indicate in the link that everything in the TM is re-used? If that was the case wouldn't need a big TD.
15:21:03 <benfrancis> Someone needs to commit to writing a description of the API in prose.
15:21:10 <Ege> https://w3c.github.io/wot-thing-description/#link
15:21:21 <benfrancis> FarshidT: In link relation types there is a type relation keyword
15:21:34 <benfrancis> Correction: Ege not FarshidT
15:23:27 <benfrancis> McCool: In a moment will look at Ben's PR and decide whether to merge remaining. The PR will probably not merge due to conflicts.
15:23:32 <kaz> s/FarshidT:/Ege:/
15:23:52 <benfrancis> Also need to consider whether we want other protocols to be supported in the future and whether we depend too much on HTTP today.
15:23:54 <kaz> s/Correction: Ege not FarshidT//
15:24:38 <benfrancis> Ege: Need to say which are core features which should be supported by all protocols
15:24:51 <benfrancis> McCool: The idea of a TM is that in theory it is protocol independent
15:25:36 <benfrancis> Ege: What are the core features?
15:25:57 <benfrancis> McCool: Creating a TD, retrieving a TD, retrieving part of a TD etc.
15:27:26 <benfrancis> McCool: The other thing Ege brought up is describing everything in prose. The prose section should use affordance names from the TM so we can relate it to the TM. Until we have the prose, can't do anything else.
15:27:41 <benfrancis> FarshidT: Adding links to every part of the TM overkill, but can have a link
15:27:46 <benfrancis> McCool: I think this is a cleanup step
15:28:38 <benfrancis> McCool: We have a PR, it is probably now half a PR
15:29:09 <benfrancis> McCool: I guess the original PR was only modifying the TD?
15:29:15 <benfrancis> FarshidT: Yes that's correct
15:30:16 <benfrancis> FarshidT: What is not merged is changing retrieval to actions
15:30:29 <benfrancis> FarshidT: Also splitting events API into different affordances
15:30:46 <benfrancis> McCool: Two different topics. Maybe we should discuss them one by one.
15:30:56 <benfrancis> Which is easiest to resolve?
15:31:03 <benfrancis> FarshidT: Actions
15:31:28 <benfrancis> McCool: I agree that if it's a verb and it's a thing we're doing it should be an action
15:32:44 <benfrancis> benfrancis: Turning into actions is not my idea, I thought it should be one property
15:34:12 <benfrancis> McCool: (Looking at TD). A things property, actions to create, read, update and delete.
15:34:21 <benfrancis> McCool: ID ends up being a URI variable.
15:35:01 <benfrancis> partialUpdateThing would not work in non-HTTP protocols, correct?
15:35:24 <benfrancis> Ege: Could do a partial update using other approaches, doesn't seem protocol dependent
15:36:28 <benfrancis> Ege: In another protocol this would be done in a different way, because other protocols don't even have URIs
15:36:35 <benfrancis> McCool: I see partial update as optional
15:37:06 <ktoumura_> ktoumura_ has joined #wot-discovery
15:37:09 <benfrancis> No way to annotate that in TD, can do in TM
15:37:15 <benfrancis> FarshidT: Actually an important feature
15:37:28 <benfrancis> McCool: Not a blocking feature, I could replace the TD with a new one. Less efficient but still works.
15:37:30 <benfrancis> FarshidT: Yes
15:37:48 <benfrancis> McCool: Making it optional means we don't need to do it in other protocols.
15:38:24 <benfrancis> McCool: Does anyone have any objections to this structure?
15:39:13 <benfrancis> FarshidT: It's fine for me because the API is the same, but I don't understand why things is a property, and querying a single thing is an action. The actions are defined as safe and idempotent so far, but why is read all things not also an action?
15:40:27 <benfrancis> FarshidT: My proposal is to make read all things an action as well
15:40:36 <benfrancis> McCool: The things property represents the state of the directory
15:41:41 <benfrancis> McCool: The affordances are listed separately to make it easier to use from Scripting API
15:42:11 <benfrancis> FarshidT: I'm not suggesting to mix them, suggesting to move things property to be an action, to query everything and pagination
15:42:28 <benfrancis> McCool: Things are the state of the directory, so it's logical that things is the collection of things
15:42:46 <benfrancis> FarshidT: I disagree that things are the state of the directory, there are other things which are also state
15:43:03 <benfrancis> McCool: The set of resources managed by the directory is its state
15:43:20 <benfrancis> FarshidT: Would "subscribers" be another property of the directory
15:43:27 <benfrancis> McCool: I can imagine doing that, if we wanted it
15:44:06 <benfrancis> McCool: I'm not sure if that would make sense because we have events for that
15:44:11 <benfrancis> FarshidT: It was just an example
15:44:18 <benfrancis> McCool: We could have "models" later on
15:44:45 <benfrancis> McCool: I'm personally OK with create, retrieve, update and delete as actions
15:46:55 <benfrancis> Resolution: Agree to make create, update, delete, search operations actions. Farshid will create a PR with the subset of commits for this change.
15:47:06 <benfrancis> things will be a property
15:47:17 <benfrancis> Now discussing single vs. combined events
15:49:21 <benfrancis> FarshidT: Two URI variables, type and full
15:49:53 <benfrancis> Ben is proposing to change one thingRegistration event into thingCreated, thingUpdated, thingDeleted
15:50:45 <benfrancis> McCool: In TDs we have events and have multiple classes of events
15:50:58 <benfrancis> McCool: It seems to me we should have a way to subscribe to multiple events
15:51:13 <benfrancis> FarshidT: There is no way to subscribe to all or multiple in the new proposal
15:51:24 <benfrancis> FarshidT: Can't extend
15:51:42 <benfrancis> McCool: Thing Directory could extend it. Could add additional event types.
15:52:08 <benfrancis> McCool: Could add an extension in current version with changing enumerated types, not sure that's a good approach
15:52:16 <benfrancis> FarshidT: Could extend
15:52:27 <benfrancis> McCool: Put extension issue aside for now, different but possible
15:52:46 <benfrancis> McCool: In current version, can subscribe to all events in a single step
15:53:05 <benfrancis> FarshidT: In HTTP2 when there are multiple subscribers separately they will be combined, but requires TLS
15:53:14 <benfrancis> q+
15:53:34 <benfrancis> McCool: We need a section about best practices and HTTPs
15:54:04 <benfrancis> McCool: One of the best practices uses a proxy which provides TLS. Downside is that if internet goes down it doesn't work.
15:54:15 <benfrancis> McCool: If do HTTP2 it would be taken care of
15:54:36 <benfrancis> FarshidT: On the left there is no way to subscribe to multiple
15:54:47 <benfrancis> McCool: We don't have to merge this, it's not going to be a blocker
15:55:03 <benfrancis> McCool: Need to make a list of pros and cons and decide
15:55:21 <benfrancis> McCool: Why don't we clean up the PRs and get the actions stuff cleaned up
15:55:34 <benfrancis> McCool: If Ben can create a PR just for the event part and raise arguments for pros and cosn
15:58:01 <benfrancis> benfrancis: (Explains rationale but didn't have time to write it down)
15:58:14 <benfrancis> McCool: Agreeing with you, missing feature of TD spec
15:59:27 <benfrancis> FarshidT: At this point I agree with splitting, only question is about names of events "create vs. created"
15:59:40 <benfrancis> McCool: Any objections to making this change?
15:59:58 <benfrancis> McCool: FarshidT will you create a PR to add this change?
16:00:00 <benfrancis> FarshidT: Yes
16:00:14 <benfrancis> Resolution: Separate events into three separate events
16:00:33 <benfrancis> McCool: If we want a description of the API in prose, someone has to agree to write it
16:01:05 <kaz> [adjourned]
16:01:13 <kaz> rrsagent, make log public
16:01:18 <kaz> rrsagent, draft minutes
16:01:18 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/05/31-wot-discovery-minutes.html kaz
16:04:09 <kaz> rrsagent, stop