W3C

WoT-WG - TD-TF

17 November 2021

Attendees

Present
Daniel_Peintner, Jan_Romann, Kaz_Ashimura, Michael_Koster, Michael_McCool, Sebastian_Kaebisch, Tomoaki_Mizushima
Regrets
-
Chair
Sebastian
Scribe
dape

Meeting minutes

Agenda

Sebastian: <agenda bashing>

<kaz> Agenda

Kaz: would like to discuss normative sections
… can we clarify normative sections by End of November?

Sebastian: Yes, should be possible
… will add backlog to agenda

Previous minutes

Nov-10

Sebastian: SK walks over minutes
… Ege reporting on binding topics

Daniel: see FIXME subtopic
… we might want to change that

Kaz: Fix it

Kaz: Issue or PR about validator / link checker?
… link checker should be applied to static html

Ege: seems to still report some issues with repsec docs
… for TD there is such an issue

<Ege> here is the issue on td: https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues/1273

Sebastian: any objections before merging?
… none -> minutes approved

TD roadmap

https://github.com/w3c/wot/pull/1000

Sebastian: agreed 12 months extensions
… however, we should stick to 6 months schedule
… w.r.t. TD I have a good feeling
… wonder whether we should release another working draft
… could use WD for wide-review
… any opinions?

Ege: +1

<cris> +1

<kaz> (Kaz is OK as long as our spec work makes steady progress based on the updated plan.)

Daniel: wonder about the reason. Increase visibility?

Ege: I think static version is good. Stays stable while review phase

Sebastian: Agree

Sebastian: Social media mentioning is also nicer

Kaz: It might make sense to define procedure
… static html for wide review. For example, the DID WG defines a snapshot version for wide reviews and put that some specific location.

Sebastian: McCool mentioned discovery plans to do the same

McCool: I will definitely would like to see a discovery update

Sebastian: No decision needed now. Just keep that in mind

PRs

OAUth

PR 1264 - Fix 948

McCool: We should hold on this PR
… I do have pending comments

Cristiano: I am looking forward to the review

McCool: big OAuth2 write-up in security section.. need to be aligned

Cristiano: Issue#948 asked for explanation

McCool: a "client" example might be easier
… referring to security best practices document

Cristiano: Sounds good to me

Update TM and tm generation script

PR 1272 - Update TM and tm generation script

Cristiano: Fix for other PR .. missing TM schema

Sebastian: Looks good -> merging

fix titles and descriptions type problem + default value entries for security

PR 1275 - fix titles and descriptions type problem + default value entries for security in

Sebastian: We do have a bug in current editors draft
… w.r.t. MultiLanguage and security parts
… some more issues "with default" missing
… the PR fixes the issues

McCool: I guess it broke when the rendered script was updated

Sebastian: Took me a while to figure out the problem

Jan: Short question: Is there a risk that this might happen again for next version?

Sebastian: Added some notes in render script
… for 2.0 I think we might reconsider the render script process
… highly depends on SPARQL
… Victor is expert in
… maybe we need to find another solution
… for the moment it should do the job

Cristiano: Other downside is that render script depends on 2 libraries developed by Victor
… I agree, for the future, we might look for other solutions

Sebastian: Yes, let's talk about this once we work on 2.0

Cristiano: JSON format / template could be an idea

Sebastian: objections before merging?
… none -> merging

add additional sample terms in sample sections 7.1.1

PR 1277 - add additional sample terms in sample sections 7.1.1

Sebastian: it is about semantic annotations
… renamed example section
… includes schema.org
… new is software version (coming from schema.org)
… it is just about examples

Sebastian: comments?

Ege: Do we say that people can look into schema.org ?
… to make sure that they can find new terms on schema.org

Sebastian: Yes, we could point people to schema.org

Ege: Yes, we should avoid such issues coming up over and over again
… people asking for keyword that exists already

Sebastian: I got the idea

Jan: Like room information?

Ege: yes, but there are many such issues
… hence we should promote schema.org and others

Sebastian: there is a nice database

<sebastian> https://lov.linkeddata.es/dataset/lov

Sebastian: btw, we might want to change "s" prefix to "schema"
… in the example

Kaz: In any case we should clarify our own documentation

<kaz> Data Catalog Vocabulary (DCAT) - Version 2

Kaz: the data catalog specification might be helpful

Kaz: no need for normative specification
… but best practices might be useful
… possibly for the next charter period

Sebastian: Agree

Jan: Not related to PR. Does it make sense to create FAQ?
… to avoid such questions in the future

Sebastian: General FAQ?

Jan: Dealing with different topics
… creation of new TDs
… just something to keep in mind

Sebastian: I like the idea but it is matter of work and who keeps it updated

Ege: We can also link the issues with "FAQ"

Sebastian: Labeling makes sense
… or discussion feature?
… could talk about the topic in marketing task-force

Ege: will do

Sebastian: objections to merge PR#1277?
… none -> merged

add security aspect in intro + small type fix

PR 1278 - add security aspect in intro + small type fix

Sebastian: security was missing in intro
… is now added -> 5 aspects
… fixed also another small bug
… it seems a commit is missing
… will have another look

print *all* code parts on print

PR 1279 - print *all* code parts on print

Sebastian: at the moment the spec document is not very good for paper print-out
… for tabs you miss the "other" content
… DP added CSS for @media print

Daniel: Note, PR still misses changes for index.template.
… tab header is show in the beginning... afterwards the content sections

Sebastian: I see, let's revisit it next week

<McCool> (sorry, I have to drop. I cross-referenced an issue in security-best-practices with TD PR1264 so we can follow up)

Add changelog

PR 1282 - Add changelog

Sebastian: Ege lists changes

Ege: I went through spec document
… did not check the associated issue

Sebastian: Yes, we should try to find out the related issues to get a even better overview

Daniel: Do we want to add the issues?

Sebastian: Yes, but would suggest to merge the current state

Cristiano: Thing model had multiple issues
… How do we handle it?

Sebastian: Listing multiple issues? separated by comma?

Cristiano: OK

Jan: Question: Sample TD
… should every feature have a sample TD?

Sebastian: It is more about testing / PlugFest
… "Implementation" is also important since we need 2 of them

Ege: I think we can revisit it after testing is done

Kaz: I was wondering about purpose of this proposed section.
… changelog should simply list additional features
… if we want to mark which feature is implemented by what.. is more implementation report

Sebastian: I see the list as nice overview
… what is "new"

Sebastian: Agree, it is not high priority
… other metadata is nice to have

Jan: For future versions ... should every PR add such an entry
… would facilitate the work in the end

Sebastian: Ege re-used old document to track new stuff
… unfortunately this did not work out
… but I agree, automatic logging would be nice

Jan: Could use PR template to remind us

Ege: Yes, would really help

Sebastian: +1
… maybe using GH actions?

Ege: not sure if this is possible
… easy way is to ask people

Jan: Could be just be a check, like "feature" label

Ege: +1
… should start with template and then look at GH action
… I guess only Kaz can create such templates

Sebastian: Ege, can you make a proposal?

<kaz> TD Editor's Draft - D. Recent Specification Changes

Kaz: Not sure if this approach is so good
… we have been generating the changes list in the past

Ege: Who was doing it?

Kaz: Not sure if we need this automation

Sebastian: this was manually created
… auto-generation would be nice
… no high priority tough
… template helps already

Kaz: then everybody is required to create a small PR for each feature

Ege: I have some thoughts w.r.t. assertion tester
… this assertion tester (changes) might help also
… Ben F. was asking for new things
… the PR was to make clear for everybody to see the changes

Sebastian: the list is mainly about the features
… new features

Kaz: we should not create this list separated from changelog section in the spec
… information itself is ok
… we need to maintain this list
… maintenance should be done by assertion tester tool

Sebastian: Ege, do you think we can align it with assertion tester?

Ege: It is in our todo list

Kaz: will talk about the tool from McCool on Friday

Ege: Can also merge for now but mention it is not optimal

Kaz: If the feature list is complete... we can merge
… one more comment
… text about TD maintenance version is confusing, should use v 1.1

Ege: was there before, but we can change it

Kaz: identical information at 2 places is confusing. We should have a single place
… information should go into spec document
… hence we don't really need this MD file

Sebastian: Suggest to leave it as it is for now
… I see Kaz point about multiple places
… fear inconsistencies

update webhooks example

PR 1283 - update webhooks example

Sebastian: relates to issue https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues/942

Sebastian: combination cancellation container and unsubscribe op is confusing
… PR creates 2 examples for webhooks
… once it uses cancellation
… the other time it uses uriVariables and unsubscribe resource is used
… Hence, I simply separated the examples
… I also gave short explanation

Ege: Still one issue
… uriVariables in the TD is not the right way

<Ege> https://w3c.github.io/wot-thing-description/#example-31

Ege: currently uriVariables describe query parameters

Sebastian: I do recall such a discussion in the past
… I think it should work as used in the example

Ege: IETF specification allows it... but I guess the TD is not clear

Sebastian: I see
… let's have another look and improve warning/references in the TD spec

<Ege> https://w3c.github.io/wot-thing-description/#interactionaffordance is the part I meant

Sebastian: Ege, can you have a look?

Ege: Yes
… I guess we need another example also in the TD

Sebastian: Thanks!

add a note about observe behavior

PR 1284 - add a note about observe behavior

Sebastian: coming from scripting
… I added a note

Daniel: Need to take a close look

Sebastian: Okay, let's postpone it to next week

Cristiano: Quick comment: makes sense
… just worried about recommendation
… no guarantee ... since someone can change the value between reading and observing
… will add a comment

Sebastian: I see
… "recommendation" is not like a MUST

Issues for v1.1

Sebastian: would like to point everyone to https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues/1276

Kaz: Should contact also PLH besides Ralph

<kaz> [adjourned]

Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by scribe.perl version 159 (Fri Nov 5 17:37:14 2021 UTC).