– DRAFT –
WoT Discovery

<McCool> sorry I'm late, joining in a sec

Minutes

<kaz> Jan-10

mm goes over the minutes from last call

McCool: We did some PRs

Kaz: I changed some aspects of the minutes

McCool: There is a typo (form -> from)

There are some other typos pointed out

These are mostly concerning the spelling of names

kaz is going to fix them

<kaz> (kaz has fixed the typos, and the minutes have been approved)

Security

McCool: In the mean time a quick update
… We had the security call two hours ago
… We went over Security and Privacy Considerations
… Two more should be mentioned
… This is also discussed in the security repository
… We will discuss this in the next security call, I will finish my review by then

<McCool> https://github.com/w3c/wot-discovery/issues/254

McCool: If you have any more security/privacy related comments it would be great if you added them

Geolocation

McCool: Christine Perey is joining us today, will you walk us through?

Spatial Data on the Web WG

Christine: There is a Working Group regarding geospatial data for a couple of years now
… The WG came up with over 50 use cases regarding geolocation
… There was a discussion about geofencing in the WG

<cperey> Here is the GitHub https://github.com/w3c/sdw/

Christine: It came up that the WoT WG is discussing this as well

<cperey> This is the BP repo https://github.com/w3c/sdw/tree/gh-pages/bp

McCool: We should update our WoT cases with regard to this

<McCool> https://w3c.github.io/wot-usecases/

<cperey> This is the repo in which the SDW use cases are found

<cperey> https://github.com/w3c/sdw/tree/gh-pages/UseCases

Geofencing

mm goes over the WoT use cases document

<cperey> This is the web page https://www.w3.org/TR/sdw-ucr/

<McCool> https://w3c.github.io/wot-usecases/#smartcity-geolocation

McCool: Geolocation is already being mentioned in the Smart City section

<cperey> the Use Cases document was published in Oct 2016

McCool: Geofencing is not mentioned explicitly yet, it is more the location of sensors, for example

<McCool> https://w3c.github.io/wot-usecases/#echonet-use-case

McCool: There are some use cases related to geofencing, however, for example the Smart Home use case, which was provided by echonet
… One starting point would be pointing to the geofencing use cases from our use cases and start a discussion

<McCool> https://w3c.github.io/wot-usecases/#ar-guide

McCool: We don't have Geolocation as an explicit requirement in our requirements section yet, but we should probably expand it
… This is a use case discussion, not a discovery discussion, yet

Christine: I will introduce you to Linda from the SDW and then you can discuss if there can be an exchange of use cases

<cperey> https://www.w3.org/groups/wg/sdw

McCool: We should probably expand our charter for the next period

<cperey> here is the SDW WG Charter approved Oct 2021 https://www.w3.org/2021/10/sdw-charter.html

<kaz> fyi, DAS-WG's Geolocation API has a use case on geofencing

<cperey> GeoPose SWG is working on GitHub https://github.com/opengeospatial/GeoPose

McCool: here geospatial aspects of discovery and use-cases should be considered

<cperey> The draft specification is being voted on by the OGC members, to be final by mid-March

<cperey> https://github.com/opengeospatial/GeoPose/blob/main/standard/pdf/geopose_standard.pdf

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.

GeoPose

Christine: 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

<cperey> https://sagroups.ieee.org/2874/

<cperey> is the URL to the P2874 WG Spatial Web

Christine: 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

PRs

PR #253

<kaz> PR 253 - Add Thing Model

McCool: I have not been able to review it yet

Farshid: Ege reviewed it, we went over it in last call

McCool: I thought we would have resolved this issues
… We should leave out the base
… The scopes should not be omitted

<FarshidT> Thing Description - 5.3.4.2 Form

Farshid: There is an assertion regarding scopes in forms that they have to appear in the security definitions

<FarshidT> from TD: The (scopes) values associated with a form should be chosen from those defined in an OAuth2SecurityScheme active on that form.

McCool: This assertion is a "should", however

Farshid: There is another issue that can be created from this PR regarding the use of tm:required

The group looks of the diff of this PR

McCool: The section title could be renamed

<kaz> Preview of Section 8 - 8. Directory Service API Specification

Farshid: I kept it ("Directory Service API Specification") because we might add Open API support later

Farshid: The base could be kept because it contains a template

McCool: There is a title but no description
… we could consider adding descriptions later, it is not a blocker
… In the affordances, there also some descriptions without title

Farshid: The keys of these affordances already serve as a title, so it would be redundant to add them

McCool: We can merge the PR now and add smaller fixes later
… where did the example go?

Farshid: I added it to the implementation section to remove redundancy in the specification

McCool: Maybe there should be an additional sentence added later to indicate that the placeholder in the base field has to be replaced.

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.

<McCool> merged https://github.com/w3c/wot-discovery/pull/253

PR #259

<kaz> PR 259 - Explicitly disallow SPARQL Update queries

McCool: This adds an assertion and an error

mm outlines the problems this PR addresses

McCool: The term disallowed that is being added is not a formal assertion
… and does not address the content of the query

Andrea: We could replace the sentence in question with the statement that update queries should return the error code "not allowed"

McCool: The sentence could also state what actually is allowed.
… an alternative would be moving it down to other similar statements where a formal assertion is being made

McCool: A couple of tweaks are needed but these are pretty straightforward. We can merge once this fixes are added

Andrea: I will provide the fixes

PR #250

PR #251

<kaz> PR 251 - Change event type's naming convention to thing_<past-verb>

Farshid: This PR changes the naming convention of events
… it is still open for review/discussion

McCool: We agreed changing the names makes sense, we need to agree on the new format
… we can discuss it next time

Issues

McCool: There are number of issues marked as "Propose closing" which we should discuss next time
… feel free to mark other issues as such as well

mm closes the meeting

<kaz> [adjourned]