15:03:49 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #wot-td
15:03:49 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2022/02/02-wot-td-irc
15:03:56 <kaz> meeting: WoT-WG - TD-TF
15:04:03 <kaz> chair: Sebastian
15:04:07 <kaz> regrets+ Ege
15:04:28 <kaz> present+ Kaz_Ashimura, Cristiano_Aguzzi, Daniel_Peintner, Jan_Romann, Sebastian_Kaebisch
15:05:20 <ryuichi> ryuichi has joined #wot-td
15:06:23 <cris_> topic: previous minutes
15:06:36 <kaz> scribenick: cris_
15:06:50 <kaz> present+ Michael_McCool
15:06:55 <cris_> seb: we discussed about the eventing
15:07:09 <kaz> i|we dis|-> https://www.w3.org/2022/01/26-wot-td-minutes.html Jan-26|
15:07:17 <cris_> ... I added the corrisponding issue to today's agenda
15:07:57 <cris_> ... after we had a look to our publication plans, PRs and finally issues
15:08:48 <cris_> mc: about removing md5 we had a resolution in security for the removal
15:08:59 <cris_> seb: ok, daniel should have already done that
15:09:29 <cris_> ... in conclusion we announced the initial design of the Bacnet binding
15:09:32 <kaz> q+
15:09:38 <cris_> mc: is there a modbus implementation?
15:09:49 <cris_> seb: yes it is
15:10:20 <kaz> present+ Tomoaki_Mizushima
15:11:36 <cris_> kaz: I talked with Takenaka representatives about BACnet, he's ok to provide additional information. However, he's preference to work with the WoT Japanese WG first and then report back to us
15:11:47 <kaz> s/WG/CG/
15:11:54 <cris_> seb: is it ok to mention this in the issue?
15:12:20 <cris_> kaz: yeah, it is already recorded in this minutes
15:12:28 <cris_> seb: anything else?
15:12:30 <kaz> s/this/these/
15:12:42 <cris_> ... ok minutes approved
15:12:59 <cris_> topic: Publication plans
15:13:18 <cris_> seb: just remember that the idea is to have feature freeze soon
15:13:25 <McCool> McCool has joined #wot-td
15:13:31 <McCool> q+
15:15:06 <kaz> ack k
15:15:12 <cris_> ... are you okey with postpone feature freeze for next week?
15:15:24 <cris_> ... most specification parts are very stable
15:15:45 <cris_> ... remeber that feature freeze is just about blocking new features
15:16:05 <cris_> mc: we might define a filter to what should be accepted as changes
15:16:17 <cris_> ... a label could be helpful
15:19:23 <cris_> subtopic: wide review call
15:19:54 <McCool> q+
15:19:59 <cris_> seb: I started the process for the publication checklist
15:20:14 <cris_> ... we are on good path
15:20:27 <kaz> Agenda: https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/WG_WoT_Thing_Description_WebConf#Feb_2.2C_2022
15:20:53 <cris_> mc: you are missing the exact transition point
15:20:56 <cris_> seb: ok
15:23:08 <cris_> seb: questionares about privacy and security need feedback
15:23:44 <cris_> mc: btw in the main call we agreed that this task is assigned to security task force
15:25:11 <cris_> seb: maybe you check what other groups are doing
15:25:32 <cris_> ... someone sent an email
15:25:42 <cris_> mc: not sure if this is the right way of doing it
15:26:12 <cris_> seb: what about putting the answers in a issue?
15:26:26 <cris_> mc: probably, to be discussed in the security task force
15:26:37 <cris_> topic: PRs
15:26:58 <cris_> subtopic: PR 1360
15:27:06 <cris_> mc: not ready yet
15:27:39 <cris_> ... in the related issue there's a list of things that need to be addressed
15:28:05 <cris_> ... the PR should be finalized for the next week
15:29:11 <cris_> seb: issue 1363 might be solved in the same pr as well
15:29:28 <cris_> mc: since we have one already in flight we can
15:32:57 <cris_> seb: we can wait one more week to cover also these changes
15:33:18 <cris_> mc: ok, but the changes are informative and do not effect test fests
15:34:20 <cris_> subtopic: PR 1366
15:34:30 <cris_> seb: there were missing definitions
15:37:19 <cris_> cris: there might be some conflicts with another PR
15:37:23 <cris_> seb: I see
15:37:45 <cris_> ... my preference is to merge this one and ask Ege for resolving the conflicts in the another PR
15:37:54 <cris_> ... ok?
15:38:02 <cris_> ... no objections, merged
15:38:32 <cris_> s/another PR/another PR 1368
15:40:17 <cris_> subtopic: PR 1367
15:40:43 <cris_> seb: clean up PR, very trivial, it removes a document that was not matained
15:41:10 <cris_> ... no objections merged
15:41:34 <cris_> subtopic: PR 1369
15:41:48 <cris_> seb: this PR removes an old image
15:42:17 <cris_> ... any objection for merging it?
15:42:48 <cris_> subtopic: PR 1370
15:43:00 <cris_> seb: same as the other PR it removes an old file
15:43:08 <cris_> ... any objections?
15:43:13 <cris_> ... merged
15:43:53 <cris_> subtopic: PR ZZ
15:44:05 <cris_> seb: it removing old images of the TD model
15:44:23 <cris_> s/PR ZZ/PR 1371/
15:44:34 <cris_> ... any objections for merging?
15:44:37 <cris_> ... ok merged
15:44:56 <cris_> subtopic: PR 1376
15:45:12 <cris_> seb: it is about MD5 example, it simple removes the example
15:45:27 <cris_> ... it is still allowed, but not quite recommended
15:46:07 <cris_> mc: also the ontology should be fixed in the TD 2.0 ontology
15:46:47 <cris_> seb: removing from the enum should cause validation problems
15:47:00 <kaz> rrsagent, make log public
15:47:04 <kaz> rrsagent, draft minutes
15:47:04 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/02/02-wot-td-minutes.html kaz
15:47:04 <cris_> dape: true
15:48:58 <cris_> mc: I would leave in the json-schema but removing from the examples
15:51:21 <cris_> ... I would just deprecate MD5
15:51:45 <cris_> dape: the document is saying that we just allow strings
15:52:19 <cris_> mc: I ok for limiting to those three values
15:53:34 <cris_> ... I changed my mind, string can be used for extensions
15:53:41 <cris_> ... so I would remove enum
15:53:43 <cris_> dape: ok
15:56:58 <cris_> topic: Issues
15:57:08 <cris_> subtopic: issue 1323
15:57:26 <cris_> seb: it will be discussed more in depth tomorrow in the architecture call
15:58:50 <McCool> q+
15:58:54 <cris_> <presents the contents of the issue>
15:58:55 <kaz> i|it will|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues/1323 Issue 1323 - Missing event/notification affordance or operation|
16:01:35 <cris_> mc: dataResponse field is fine
16:02:01 <cris_> ... the real question is if we need the information also on the listener side
16:02:13 <cris_> ... I wander if the contract can be expressed with a link
16:02:21 <cris_> s/wander/wonder/
16:02:40 <cris_> q+
16:03:00 <cris_> mc: it is also to tight with webhooks
16:03:06 <cris_> s/to/too/
16:04:26 <cris_> ... I'm ok having the api just on one side
16:06:13 <dape> q?
16:06:26 <cris_> seb: ok, I'm bulding a TD uisng Lagally proposal
16:06:43 <cris_> ... but you can express the same using the action
16:07:10 <cris_> mc: note the op notify goes in the consumer side
16:07:25 <cris_> seb: yeah but the consumer is also producer (it creates the TD)
16:10:10 <kaz> q+
16:10:29 <kaz> ack m
16:10:30 <kaz> ack c
16:10:51 <cris_> cris: not sure if there is the practical use case for searching about things that are waiting for events
16:10:58 <cris_> ... usually is the opposite
16:11:03 <dape> +1
16:11:53 <cris_> ... in close systems this can happen but since they are close you can manually connect the software components without advertising it on the td
16:11:55 <sebastian> q?
16:12:26 <cris_> kaz: I agree that the details should be discussed later on the arch call. I'm not too much convinced too.
16:12:52 <cris_> ... we might need cover this functionality but not in the TD
16:13:08 <cris_> subtopic: Issue 1343
16:13:32 <cris_> seb: the new context files needs to be hosted under w3c namespace
16:13:51 <cris_> kaz: ok, I'll work on this issue
16:14:09 <cris_> ... would you like to keep the existing reference to the 1.0 version?
16:14:12 <cris_> seb: yes
16:14:55 <cris_> subtopic: issue 1364
16:15:59 <cris_> seb: the request is to extend the scope of schemaDefinitions for all the schemas in the TDs
16:16:05 <cris_> ... we can make the TD shorter
16:16:37 <dape> q+
16:16:39 <cris_> ... any comments?
16:16:44 <kaz> q-
16:17:21 <cris_> dape: it would affect the implementation, it makes it more complex
16:17:30 <cris_> ... doable
16:17:36 <JKRhb> q+
16:17:48 <cris_> mc: the fact is that you're doing it anyway for addtionalExpectedResponses
16:17:55 <dape> ack dape
16:18:03 <cris_> ... it is the same approach for security defintions
16:18:22 <cris_> ... I wonder about ontology definition
16:18:31 <cris_> ... we should accept strings for schemas
16:18:34 <cris_> q+
16:19:11 <JKRhb> q-
16:19:17 <cris_> ... I all for this
16:19:29 <cris_> ... just keep in mind the ontology problem
16:20:34 <JKRhb> q+
16:21:39 <cris_> cris: there might be problems with property
16:21:58 <cris_> s/property/properties/
16:22:15 <cris_> mc: we could add a new optional field
16:22:25 <cris_> ... with the schema embeded
16:22:40 <dape> q+
16:23:55 <cris_> q?
16:23:58 <cris_> ack c
16:24:26 <cris_> jan: what about having a json pointer? similar to tm:ref
16:24:38 <McCool> q+
16:24:45 <cris_> ... and maybe define override mechanisms
16:25:13 <cris_> seb: yeah, then there's the question of reusing the same feature from json schema
16:25:44 <cris_> q?
16:26:03 <kaz> ack jk
16:26:06 <kaz> ack d
16:26:24 <cris_> dape: I would definitely not limit this feature only for actions or events.
16:26:49 <cris_> ... just a reminder that property extends DataSchema therefore it is used as a validation json schema
16:26:56 <dape> ack dape
16:26:57 <cris_> ... this would not long be the case
16:27:07 <cris_> s/long/longer/
16:27:42 <cris_> mc: the json pointer thing is complicated and is incompatible with how we treat security definitions
16:28:05 <cris_> ... on the other hand I think we could handle it just for actions or events
16:28:43 <cris_> seb: Maybe we can simply post pone this for TD 2.0
16:28:56 <cris_> ... I'm concerned about side-effects
16:31:28 <cris_> subtopic: Issue XXX
16:31:48 <cris_> seb: the webhook example is missing the subprotocol keyword
16:32:04 <cris_> ... it should mention "webhook"
16:32:21 <cris_> ... the problem is that webhook is not a well defined protocol
16:32:38 <cris_> ... what should we do?
16:32:39 <kaz> s/XXX/1352/
16:34:10 <cris_> ... one idea could be to introduce a set of string values to indicate a non standard webhook implementation
16:34:34 <cris_> q+
16:34:47 <sebastian> ack m
16:37:18 <cris_> cris: I would not using special patterns for indicating the webhook protocol
16:38:40 <cris_> mc: I agree, we might introduce the subprotocol once we have expirence and verified that we can describe the implementations using additional keywords
16:40:59 <cris_> subtopic: issue 1363
16:41:06 <cris_> seb: we already discussed this
16:41:22 <cris_> mc: I did one part of it
16:41:28 <cris_> ... I can conver it for next week
16:41:39 <cris_> subtopic: issue 1325
16:43:10 <cris_> seb: the TD spec should strictly specify that keyword are presented and validated as case sensitive
16:43:43 <cris_> ... I would simply add a sentence in the very beginning
16:43:55 <cris_> ... asserting that all the terms defined are case-sensitive
16:44:20 <cris_> mc: is there anything that is not case-sensitive?
16:44:28 <dape> q+
16:44:39 <cris_> ack c
16:45:15 <dape> ack dape
16:48:01 <cris_> topic: feature freeze
16:48:52 <cris_> seb: I'm not seeing any new feature request besides eventing
16:49:04 <cris_> q+
16:51:55 <sebastian> proposal: group decides to freeze the discussed feature set for the TD 1.1. There is an exception for the eventing discussion which will be decided next week.
16:51:59 <cris_> cris: does the new PR about thing link have some implications?
16:52:03 <cris_> mc: no
16:53:22 <sebastian> resolution: group decides to freeze the discussed feature set for the TD 1.1. There is an exception for the eventing discussion which will be decided next week.
16:53:51 <cris_> topic: WoT binding
16:54:01 <cris_> seb: we alreding discussed it in the intro
16:54:15 <cris_> ... let's close the section
16:54:27 <kaz> [adjourned]
16:54:34 <kaz> rrsagent, draft minutes
16:54:34 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/02/02-wot-td-minutes.html kaz
16:54:42 <dape> s/alreding/already
16:54:49 <kaz> rrsagent, draft minutes
16:54:49 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/02/02-wot-td-minutes.html kaz
17:01:48 <sebastian> sebastian has joined #wot-td
19:55:43 <Zakim> Zakim has left #wot-td