15:00:32 RRSAgent has joined #wot-discovery 15:00:32 logging to https://www.w3.org/2022/01/17-wot-discovery-irc 15:00:38 meeting: WoT Discovery 15:01:49 sorry I'm late, joining in a sec 15:02:45 ktoumura has joined #wot-discovery 15:03:06 present+ Kaz_Ashimura, Michael_McCool, Jan_Romann, Kunihiko_Toumura 15:03:13 chair: McCool 15:03:44 agenda: https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/WG_WoT_Discovery_WebConf#17_January_2022 15:03:56 present+ Farshid_Tavakolizadeh, Andrea_Cimmino 15:04:06 acimmino has joined #wot-discovery 15:05:21 present+ Christine_Perey 15:05:44 present+ Tomoaki_Mizushima 15:07:22 cperey has joined #wot-discovery 15:07:40 FarshidT has joined #wot-discovery 15:08:32 scribenick: JKRhb 15:08:39 topic: Minutes 15:08:54 mm goes over the minutes from last call 15:09:08 mm: We did some PRs 15:09:24 i|goes|-> https://www.w3.org/2022/01/10-wot-discovery-minutes.html Jan-10| 15:09:37 kaz: I changed some aspects of the minutes 15:09:57 mm: There is a typo (form -> from) 15:11:12 There are some other typos pointed out 15:12:32 These are mostly concerning the spelling of names 15:12:38 kaz is going to fix them 15:12:54 mm: In the mean time a quick update 15:13:05 ... We had the security call two hours ago 15:13:20 ... We went over Security and Privacy Considerations 15:13:28 ... Two more should be mentioned 15:13:53 ... This is also discussed in the security repository 15:14:21 ... We will discuss this in the next security call, I will finish my review by then 15:14:33 https://github.com/w3c/wot-discovery/issues/254 15:14:46 ... If you have any more security/privacy related comments it would be great if you added them 15:15:14 topic: Geolocation 15:15:40 mm: Christine Perey is joining us today, will you walk us through? 15:16:11 cp: There is a Working Group regarding geospatial data for a couple of years now 15:16:39 ... The WG came up with over 50 use cases regarding geolocation 15:16:54 ... There was a discussion about geofencing in the WG 15:17:24 Here is the GitHub https://github.com/w3c/sdw/ 15:17:25 ... It came up that the WoT WG is discussing this as well 15:17:45 This is the BP repo https://github.com/w3c/sdw/tree/gh-pages/bp 15:17:55 mm: We should update our WoT cases with regard to this 15:17:59 https://w3c.github.io/wot-usecases/ 15:18:16 This is the repo in which the SDW use cases are found 15:18:16 https://github.com/w3c/sdw/tree/gh-pages/UseCases 15:18:27 rrsagent, make log public 15:18:31 rrsagent, draft minutes 15:18:31 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/01/17-wot-discovery-minutes.html kaz 15:18:32 mm goes over the WoT use cases document 15:18:38 This is the web page https://www.w3.org/TR/sdw-ucr/ 15:18:40 https://w3c.github.io/wot-usecases/#smartcity-geolocation 15:18:52 mm: Geolocation is already being mentioned in the Smart City section 15:19:08 q+ 15:19:12 the Use Cases document was published in Oct 2016 15:19:26 ... Geofencing is not mentioned explicitly yet, it is more the location of sensors, for example 15:19:40 https://w3c.github.io/wot-usecases/#echonet-use-case 15:19:58 i/In the mean time/topic: Security/ 15:20:02 rrsagent, draft minutes 15:20:02 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/01/17-wot-discovery-minutes.html kaz 15:20:08 ... There are some use cases related to geofencing, however, for example the Smart Home use case, which was provided by echonet 15:20:58 ... One starting point would be pointing to the geofencing use cases from our use cases and start a discussion 15:21:27 https://w3c.github.io/wot-usecases/#ar-guide 15:21:34 ... We don't have Geolocation as an explicit requirement in our requirements section yet, but we should probably expand it 15:22:00 ... This is a use case discussion, not a discovery discussion, yet 15:22:46 cp: I will introduce you to Linda from the SDW and then you can discuss if there can be an exchange of use cases 15:23:51 https://www.w3.org/groups/wg/sdw 15:23:55 mm: We should probably expand our charter for the next period 15:24:13 q? 15:24:48 here is the SDW charter approved Oct 2021 https://www.w3.org/2021/10/sdw-charter.html 15:25:48 -> https://www.w3.org/TR/geolocation-sensor/#use-cases-background-geofence fyi, DAS-WG's Geolocation API has a use case on geofencing 15:25:56 GeoPose SWG is working on GitHub https://github.com/opengeospatial/GeoPose 15:26:25 ... here geospatial aspects of discovery and use-cases should be considered 15:26:40 The draft specification is being voted on by the OGC members, to be final by mid-March 15:26:42 https://github.com/opengeospatial/GeoPose/blob/main/standard/pdf/geopose_standard.pdf 15:27:39 cp: I put a link to GeoPose repository in the irc, the current draft -- which is stable for over a year -- is being voted on in a couple of weeks 15:28:14 i/GeoPose/kaz: note that old Geolocation WG was working on geofencing event but the current Geolocation API by the DAS-WG doesn't explicitly define geofencing event, though the Geolocation API has a use case description on geofencing. So I agree it would be useful to have a concrete use case description for geofencing capability within the WoT Use Cases document./ 15:28:27 s/SDW charter/SDW WG Charter/ 15:29:00 i/GeoPose/topic: GeoPose/ 15:30:32 rrsagent, draft minutes 15:30:32 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/01/17-wot-discovery-minutes.html kaz 15:31:22 https://sagroups.ieee.org/2874/ 15:31:33 is the URL to the P2874 WG Spatial Web 15:31:40 cp: A detailed proposal of IEEE P2874 exists, this is however not being worked on in the open. You can have a look on it by joining the group 15:32:31 i/There is a Working/subtopic: Spatial Data on the Web WG/ 15:33:04 i/mm goes over the WoT/subtopic: Geofencing/ 15:33:32 s/topic: GeoPose/subtopic: GeoPose/ 15:33:35 rrsagent, draft minutes 15:33:35 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/01/17-wot-discovery-minutes.html kaz 15:34:34 i/topic: Security/(kaz has fixed the typos, and the minutes have been approved)/ 15:34:36 rrsagent, draft minutes 15:34:36 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/01/17-wot-discovery-minutes.html kaz 15:34:51 topic: PRs 15:35:00 subtopic: PR #253 15:35:12 mm: I have not been able to review it yet 15:35:27 ft: Ege reviewed it, we went over it in last call 15:36:25 mm: I thought we would have resolved this issues 15:36:32 ... We should leave out the base 15:37:09 ... The scopes should not be omitted 15:37:41 https://w3c.github.io/wot-thing-description/#form 15:38:24 i|have not been|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot-discovery/pull/253 PR 253 - Add Thing Model| 15:38:25 ft: There is an assertion regarding scopes in forms that they have to appear in the security definitions 15:38:27 from TD: The (scopes) values associated with a form should be chosen from those defined in an OAuth2SecurityScheme active on that form. 15:38:50 mm: This assertion is a "should", however 15:40:29 s|https|-> https| 15:40:41 s|#form|#form Thing Description - 5.3.4.2 Form| 15:40:56 ft: There is another issue that can be created from this PR regarding the use of tm:required 15:41:44 The group looks of the diff of this PR 15:42:00 mm: The section title could be renamed 15:42:18 -> https://pr-preview.s3.amazonaws.com/farshidtz/wot-discovery/pull/253.html#directory-api-spec Preview of Section 8 - 8. Directory Service API Specification 15:42:33 ft: I kept it ("Directory Service API Specification") because we might add Open API support later 15:42:40 q? 15:42:41 ack k 15:43:04 ft: The base could be kept because it contains a template 15:43:18 mm: There is a title but no description 15:43:39 ... we could consider adding descriptions later, it is not a blocker 15:44:25 ... In the affordances, there also some descriptions without title 15:44:51 ft: The keys of these affordances already serve as a title, so it would be redundant to add them 15:45:17 mm: We can merge the PR now and add smaller fixes later 15:45:58 ... where did the example go? 15:46:21 ft: I added it to the implementation section to remove redundancy in the specification 15:47:18 mm: Maybe there should be an additional sentence added later to indicate that the placeholder in the base field has to be replaced. 15:49:00 mm proceeds with merging the PR as there are no objections. It is noted that a couple of small updates are needed which will be added in follow-up PRs. 15:49:07 merged https://github.com/w3c/wot-discovery/pull/253 15:49:25 subtopic: PR #259 15:49:57 mm: This adds an assertion and an error 15:50:54 mm outlines the problems this PR addresses 15:51:00 i|This adds|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot-discovery/pull/259 PR 259 - Explicitly disallow SPARQL Update queries| 15:52:05 q? 15:53:12 mm: The term disallowed that is being added is not a formal assertion 15:53:45 ... and does not address the content of the query 15:54:30 ac: We could replace the sentence in question with the statement that update queries should return the error code "not allowed" 15:55:28 mm: The sentence could also state what actually is allowed. 15:56:32 ... an alternative would be moving it down to other similar statements where a formal assertion is being made 15:57:28 mm: A couple of tweaks are needed but these are pretty straightforward. We can merge once this fixes are added 15:57:45 ac: I will provide the fixes 15:58:00 subtopic: PR #250 15:58:17 subtopic: PR #251 15:59:06 ft: This PR changes the naming convention of events 15:59:16 ... it is still open for review/discussion 15:59:58 mm: We agreed changing the names makes sense, we need to agree on the new format 16:00:05 ... we can discuss it next time 16:00:33 i|This PR|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot-discovery/pull/251 PR 251 - Change event type's naming convention to thing_| 16:00:52 topic: Issues 16:01:15 mm: There are number of issues marked as "Propose closing" which we should discuss next time 16:01:30 ... feel free to mark other issues as such as well 16:01:51 mm closes the meeting 16:01:52 [adjourned] 16:01:57 rrsagent, draft minutes 16:01:57 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/01/17-wot-discovery-minutes.html kaz