Meeting minutes
Minutes
<kaz> Dec-8
Last week we started with mins review
… then publication plans
… then different PRs
… we agreed on the namespace for v1.1
… reached resolution about TD and working draft
… minutes approved
TD
Issue #1323
Issue 1323 - Missing event/notification affordance
Lagally: Missing an affordance for receiving events/notifications
Ege: We have to make sure that the payload is understandable
… just having the operation is not enough
… For me this is not only about events, a response/notification is need and this is a significant change
… it is very straight forward for one device but we need more experience
Lagally: We can test in the the next plugfest and pull it of
… I think we can have a notify-operation
Ege: I am worried about the time
… and security related concerns
Lagally: The TD should be able to describe servers and sensors and not being able to notify seems strange at that point
Ege: I agree but I am concernd about the time
Lagally: I am less concernd, a 20 liner would suffice
Ege: We would need another schema and that would be rushed. We do not have time
Lagally: I believe we can do it in current time
Cristiano: I agree with Ege. I did not fully understand Michael Lagally.
Kaz: would strongly suggest we hold the discussion about this Issue not today but during the next TD call with both Sebastian and Lagally based on some concrete use case
Ege: We need to discuss this before the review deadline
Binding Templates
PR #142
<kaz> PR 142 - Align mqtt document with the current project set-up
Ege: Cristiano reordered mqtt-bining template to look more conformant project set-up
Cristiano: I need to fix section tags
Ege: after fixing them we can merge offline
PR #140
PR 140 - Introduce draft for text binding template
related issue: https://
Cristiano: Where should formalize the Data Schema values?
Ege: It would be nice to have it in the TD spec
… we can just put that in the descriptions of the data schemas
… and maybe have a little table that points to the idl types
… we should think if this should be normative or informative? Tables are nomative
Cristiano: Not sure now, have to think about it
… I am actually fine either way
Ege: Maybe more people will comment
Issue #137
<kaz> Issue 137 - MQTT and Modbus does not meet the architecture eligible criteria for a protocol binding
Ege: propose closing the issue
Issue #139
Issue 139 - XML template is more for green field devices
Daniel: It's not always possible to validate XML based on JSONSchemas
… propose adding xml-schema string for proper validation
Ege: We should put it in content-type
Daniel: We need to find a way to use validation for data other than JSON
Cristiano: I agree
… But we still have a problem
… You cannot model other content-types in JSON
Daniel: There are cases where it will fail
… you cannot represent any XML as JSON
Ege: Can we find a least common denominator?
Daniel: It's difficult
Ege: Is XML a superset of JSON?
Daniel: I think yes. You can always represent JSON in XML but not vice versa
Koster: JSON Schema and TD should be abstract and do not need to map everything that is possible
… we may need to add fundamental data patterns
… needs evaluation
… what do people need in XML that is available in JSON? I didn't find anything yet
… we should be careful about adding to data shemas because clients would need to be more intelligent
Cristiano: I agree
… I also agree with Daniel
… We can define a pattern/restricton on XML
… There is a pattern that maybe compliant with JSON
Koster: We should have a look on the corner cases
Ege: To summarize: There will be edge-case and we will not model everything
… Daniel, can you find these corner cases?
Daniel: I already submitted some, I can have a look for others
… I don't know if we need to support
Cristiano: We need to define fallback mechanisms for corner cases
Koster: We may need to take the rdf approach of handling such cases
TD - revisited
PR #1322
<kaz> PR 1322 - fix: typos
Ege: just typos
PR #1319
<kaz> PR 1319 - Make forms inherited from a base form
Ege: It was not clear that security forms are extended from a base form
Cristiano: Just add a form type. The rule is not used
Ege: You are proposing a hack
… I am fine with this, but we need to comment it
Issue #1316
<kaz> Issue 1316 - Removing Overview.html file
Ege: I don't know what the Overiew.html file is for
… Does any one know?
Kaz: This is a file snapshot of the current version of the TD.
… we used to snapshot publications and put in it the top level
… They are now in sub directories
… I am ok with removing the top-level overview.html
Ege: I will do a PR in case someone wants to review it
Issue #674
<kaz> Issue 674 - Need a $id for the JSON Schema
Ege: We need an '$id' that is a url
Cristiano: Sounds good to me? Are there any problems with W3C?
Ege: I think it will be fine
Cristiano: Sounds good
Ege: will use github url
Issue #1211
<kaz> Issue 1211 - Use of Additional Response in non-error cases
Ege: It's a rather old issue about additonal responses
… does anyone have comments on this?
Cristiano: In node-wot we don't support this yet
Issue #674 - revisited
<kaz> Ege's comment
Kaz: Who will change the '$id'?
… we should add an editor's note about it so that we won't forget about it when we publish the next WD.
Issue #1326
<kaz> Issue 1326 - Unclear what "Protocol Binding document" refers to in section 8.3
<cris> related issue 1321
Kaz: We need to think what should be normative about the binding templates rather than what we want to copy from Binding Templates Note back to the Thing Description spec. There is a possibility we can make the Binding Templates a REC-track document again, but currently the document is a WG Note.
AOB?
Daniel: will there a TD call next week?
Ege: not sure
Kaz: please check with Sebastian, and if we do have a TD call on Dec 22, we should update the "Cancellations" section of the WoT main wiki
Cancellations section of the WoT main wiki
Ege: will check with Sebastian
Kaz: tx
[adjourned]