14:02:01 RRSAgent has joined #wot-td 14:02:01 logging to https://www.w3.org/2022/04/20-wot-td-irc 14:02:26 mjk has joined #wot-td 14:04:12 Mizushima has joined #wot-td 14:04:33 present+ Kaz_Ashimura, Ege_Korkan, Klaus_Hartke, Michael_McCool 14:04:36 chair: Ege 14:04:42 regrets+ Sebastian 14:04:49 present+ Daniel_Peintner 14:06:43 cris has joined #wot-td 14:07:29 present+ Cristiano_Aguzzi 14:07:42 dape has joined #wot-td 14:07:52 kh has joined #wot-td 14:08:33 -> https://www.w3.org/2022/Talks/0322-tools-ka/ Kaz's slides (see p6) 14:09:53 present+ Jan_Romann, Michael_Koster 14:11:04 topic: Meeting minutes 14:11:27 -> https://www.w3.org/2022/04/13-wot-td-minutes.html Apr-13 14:13:52 https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues/1467 14:15:58 s/1467/1467 to be added/ 14:16:13 JKRhb has joined #wot-td 14:16:39 topic: Agenda 14:16:58 i/Agenda/(minutes approved)/ 14:17:27 -> https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/WG_WoT_Thing_Description_WebConf#Apr_20.2C_2022 agenda for today 14:17:46 topic: Binding Templates: Pull Requests 14:17:57 MQTT Binding: https://github.com/w3c/wot-binding-templates/pull/156 14:19:06 relu91: PR is ready for review 14:21:50 i/MQTT/subtopic: PR 156/ 14:22:20 subtopic: CoAP improvement: https://github.com/w3c/wot-binding-templates/pull/157 14:23:00 i/CoAP/(postponed till the next call)/ 14:23:37 s/subtopic: Co/Co/ 14:23:44 i/CoAP/subtopic: PR 157/ 14:24:00 ege: Merged 14:24:18 subtopic: Modbus Binding: https://github.com/w3c/wot-binding-templates/pull/151 14:25:29 s/subtopic: Mod/Mod/ 14:25:36 i/Modbus/subtopic: PR 151/ 14:26:18 ege: Merged 14:26:39 subtopic: Discussion on text binding: https://github.com/w3c/wot-binding-templates/pull/140 and XML Binding: https://github.com/w3c/wot-binding-templates/issues/139 14:27:36 q+ 14:27:37 s/subtopic: Di/Di/ 14:27:55 i/Discu/subtopic: PR 140 and Issue 139/ 14:28:00 rrsagent, make log public 14:28:04 rsagent, draft minutes 14:28:14 s/rsagent, draft minutes// 14:28:17 rrsagent, draft minutes 14:28:17 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/04/20-wot-td-minutes.html kaz 14:28:59 q+ 14:29:16 zakim, who is on the call? 14:29:16 Present: Kaz_Ashimura, Ege_Korkan, Klaus_Hartke, Michael_McCool, Daniel_Peintner, Cristiano_Aguzzi, Jan_Romann, Michael_Koster 14:29:28 q? 14:29:58 present+ Tomoaki_Mizushima 14:31:10 relu91: Concept needed, but maybe suggested text is going to far? 14:33:59 q? 14:34:04 ack c 14:35:12 ege: Agrees 14:35:29 kaz: Can we really tell intention of the data if the format is text? 14:36:29 relu91: Could interpret text as number if parseable as such, otherwise it's difficult 14:36:46 kaz: Should be careful not to misinterpret data 14:37:19 McCool has joined #wot-td 14:37:25 q+ 14:37:46 ack k 14:38:15 relu91: This is only about payload formats 14:38:26 ack m 14:38:30 mccool: ... 14:39:54 s/.../also there is a possibility HTTP header says it's text but the actual content can be JSON/ 14:39:59 q+ 14:41:51 s/Should be careful not to misinterpret data/That's my point. For example, ECHOENT Lite Web API uses their Device Description which is similar to WoT Thing Description but their old specs used other text format or even binary format. So we should be careful about which type of payload data to be covered by the Binding Templates./ 14:48:03 q? 14:49:10 (some more discussion) 14:49:36 kaz: we should clarify our scope for the ver. 1.1 specs including TD and Binding Templates 14:49:49 https://github.com/w3c/wot/issues/1019 14:50:46 q? 14:51:31 ack k 14:51:44 s|https://github.com/w3c/wot/issues/1019|| 14:53:30 q+ 14:53:32 https://github.com/w3c/wot-binding-templates/issues/143 14:53:32 rrsagent, draft minutes 14:53:32 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/04/20-wot-td-minutes.html kaz 14:53:35 q? 14:54:06 q+ 14:54:37 ack c 14:54:38 ack k 14:55:04 i/143/topic: Issue 143/ 14:55:10 s/https/-> https/ 14:55:24 s/143/143 Issue 143 - "Protocol Binding" vs. "Binding Template"/ 14:55:51 kaz: Protocol Binding is a technology and Binding Template is a specification for that purpose 14:56:05 ... that should be explained by the Architecture spec 14:56:19 ... but if that's not clear enough, we should improve the Architecture spec 14:56:51 ... also the Binding Template Note should be confomant to the Architecture spec 14:56:55 ek: right 14:57:23 -> https://github.com/w3c/wot-binding-templates/issues/143#issuecomment-1104032038 Ege's comment 14:57:40 kaz: before closing the issue itself, we should check with Ben as well 14:57:45 rrsagent, draft minutes 14:57:45 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/04/20-wot-td-minutes.html kaz 14:58:12 meeting: WoT-WG - TD-TF 14:58:44 s/Binding Templates: Pull Requests/Binding Templates/ 14:59:00 s/topic: Issue 143/subtopic: Issue 143/ 14:59:02 rrsagent, draft minutes 14:59:02 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/04/20-wot-td-minutes.html kaz 14:59:08 topic: Thing Description 14:59:16 subtopic: Issue 125 14:59:47 q? 14:59:54 s/topic: Thing Description// 15:00:03 q+ 15:00:47 -> https://github.com/w3c/wot-binding-templates/issues/125 Issue 125 - Payload based protocols 15:01:31 mjk: should be in the binding 15:02:07 ack m 15:02:12 q+ 15:02:23 q+ 15:02:33 ack m 15:03:09 ek: my concern is you could get various possible subprotocols 15:03:14 ca: agree 15:03:21 ... would prefer something more generic 15:03:37 ... better to have a common way to handle this issue 15:03:54 ... currently it's just a subprotocol but actually scalable 15:03:56 q? 15:04:23 kaz: yeah, we should clarify our scope around subprotocols as well 15:04:27 https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/WG_WoT_Thing_Description_WebConf#Apr_20.2C_2022 15:04:28 rrsagent, draft minutes 15:04:28 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/04/20-wot-td-minutes.html kaz 15:06:17 s|https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/WG_WoT_Thing_Description_WebConf#Apr_20.2C_2022|| 15:06:33 i/MQTT Binding/scribenick: kh/ 15:06:35 rrsagent, draft minutes 15:06:35 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/04/20-wot-td-minutes.html kaz 15:07:09 i/(some more dis/scribenick: kaz/ 15:07:16 rrsagent, draft minutes 15:07:16 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/04/20-wot-td-minutes.html kaz 15:08:40 topic: Thing Description 15:08:44 subtopic: Wide review 15:08:55 q+ 15:09:42 ack k 15:09:51 scribenick: JKRhb 15:10:24 s/Wide/TAG/ 15:10:25 mm: There were an assertion in the architecture that we only support protocols with URI schemes 15:10:44 ... but we adjusted it that we can also support protocols like MQTT or OPC-UA 15:11:08 ek: Actually, the assertion was that the URI schemes need to be registered at IANA 15:11:15 ... and that got removed 15:11:17 i|There|-> https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/715 w3ctag/design-reviews Issue 715 - Web of Things (WoT) Thing Description 1.1: TAG and Security Review| 15:11:53 mm: The reason for the origial assertion was to make it web-like 15:12:03 https://w3c.github.io/wot-thing-description/#protocol-bindings 15:12:12 ... and allowing all mechanisms from the web 15:12:26 ... but every IP address is a URI, right? 15:12:58 ek: There are agreements on URI schemes in certain communities, for example in the case of MQTT 15:13:21 q+ 15:13:26 ack mc 15:13:27 ... and these schemes do not have to necessarily be registered at IANA anymore 15:14:41 mm: Technologies like Bluetooth or ZWave do not have URI schemes, but they can easily mapped to protocols with schemes 15:15:06 ek: We are focussing on IP based protocols right now 15:15:51 mm: We can give the author of the issue the answer that we are focussing on IP based protocols and otherwise use gateway solutions 15:16:45 kaz: We should ask the author for clarification or invite him to discuss the issue. 15:17:09 mm: There is an easy distinction: protocols that use IP and protocols that don't 15:17:21 ... question about scope 15:17:30 ... focus so far has been on IP based protocols 15:18:02 ... in theory, if there is a URI scheme for it, we support them, too, but we did not discuss those in length, yet 15:18:28 ... ZWave and Bluetooth are not out of scope in general, but are not feasible to support with our current scope 15:19:33 kaz: We can discuss non-IP based addressing 15:20:59 ... we should clarify our criteria for a protocol or technology that be used for WoT 15:22:18 The group discusses the wording for an answer to the issue's author 15:22:47 would propose: "the Wot TD is not meant for general web services, but there are often web services associated with IoT systems, such as proxies, shadows, and digitial twins, for which WoT TDs are appropriate" 15:25:51 q? 15:25:53 ack k 15:25:54 q+ 15:26:22 mm: I think non-IP protocols are implicitly out of scope of the current spec 15:28:10 kaz: regarding this GitHub Issue for TAG review itself 15:28:25 ... my suggestion is rather simply inviting them to our call as usual 15:29:19 mm: I have had contact with him before, the TD call might be a bit too late for his timezone, we can schedule a separate meeting 15:29:21 s/as usual/like we did for 1.0 specs/ 15:29:54 s/we can schedule a separate meeting/we can invite him to the main call 15:30:58 q- 15:31:40 subtopic: PR 1452 15:31:58 -> https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/pull/1452 wot-thing-description PR 1452 - WIP: fix: allow uri value only for in field of APIKeySecurityScheme 15:32:19 jr: tried to resolve conflicts but still some problems there 15:32:33 ... need to figure out what's happening 15:33:38 subtopic: PR 1468 15:34:14 -> https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/pull/1468 PR 1468 - feat(context): use "@type" instead of "rdf:type" 15:34:22 q+ 15:34:49 ek: CI is failing for this PR because the author has not signed the IPR 15:35:01 kaz: Is it an editorial change? 15:35:15 ek: The context is changed 15:35:41 kaz: In general, we should ask people to open issues instead of PRs 15:35:57 mm: Should we make the author an invited expert? 15:36:13 kaz: Not needed for this PR alone 15:36:29 ek: Author is very interested in RDF roundtripping 15:36:49 mm: Fixes technical issues, which are details but still relevant 15:37:20 kaz: We can consider the changes editorial changes, but we need to discuss if they really non-normative 15:37:33 mm: We can ask them to sign the IPR 15:38:13 ... problem if the changes turn out to be copyrighted later 15:38:45 ... if authors contribute code, then they certainly need to sign the IPR agreement 15:39:19 ... easiest way to let them sign the agreement is making them invited expert 15:40:01 kaz: I would like to first see if the changes are really needed 15:40:26 mm: Let's suppose it fixes a problem with roundtripping, then it is an important thing to get right 15:40:44 ... so I think they could raise an issue and let someone else fix the problem 15:41:26 ... an alternative could be to let the author state in their PR that they agree with the IPR policy 15:42:32 q+ 15:42:33 kaz: The person has created three other PRs, therefore we should be stricter 15:42:54 ... and tell the person that they should open issues instead 15:43:22 ek: Christian Glomb knows the author 15:43:52 dp: Why don't we simply accept them as an invited expert? 15:44:24 kaz: In this case we can make them an invited expert, depending on their affiliation 15:44:48 ... as they work with Siemens, we can discuss it with Sebastian next week 15:44:54 s/can/might be able to/ 15:45:01 ek: I also contacted Christian 15:45:09 s/can discuss/should discuss/ 15:45:10 topic: Issues 15:45:15 ack dape 15:45:18 subtopic: Issue 1415 15:45:27 ek: I propose closing this issue 15:45:50 s/topic: Issues// 15:45:54 ... as it has been resolved by PR 1465 15:46:10 s/1465/1415 15:46:22 subtopic: Issue 1412 15:46:34 i|propose|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues/1415 Issue 1415 - Definition of 'well-formed'| 15:46:48 ek: Can be closed as it was fixed by PR 1449 15:47:02 subtopic: Issue 1375 15:47:11 s/PR 1415/PR 1456/ 15:47:30 ek: This one can also be closed as there are separate issues for the checklist now 15:47:46 i|Can be|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues/1412 Issue 1412 - Languages of service-doc?| 15:47:48 subtopic: Issue 1384 15:48:04 ek: Thomas added the label "Propose closing" himself 15:48:19 ... I also think it can be closed 15:48:19 i|This one can also|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues/1375 Issue 1375 - i18n review checklist for TD 1.1 REC| 15:48:46 i|Thomas|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues/1384 Issue 1384 - A TD should be able to define which Properties are required| 15:48:52 subtopic: Issue 1462 15:50:04 ek: There haven't been implementations for the CertSecurityScheme which is why the scheme is not in the spec 15:50:24 i|There|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues/1462 Issue 1462 - Bringing back Cert Security Scheme| 15:50:24 ... there is one implementation now, which is why could add it back in 15:50:35 q+ 15:51:14 mm: I think the ship has sailed for adding new stuff to the spec, in TD 2.0 we should rework SecuritySchemes as extensions 15:51:30 kaz: We are already in an extended Charter period 15:51:47 ... we would probably need to mark this feature as "at risk" 15:52:10 ... I agree with Michael McCool that we should defer this 15:52:27 ... I propose to add the "Defer to TD 2.0" label to all remaining issues 15:52:34 s/at risk"/at risk" if we need to revert this./ 15:52:45 s/I agree/so I'd agree/ 15:52:58 s/all re/all the re/ 15:53:17 subtopic: Issue 1338 15:53:27 ek: Issue is probably not relevant anymore 15:53:48 ... Michael Lagally propose making title mandatory in affordances 15:54:14 i|Issue is|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues/1338 Issue 1338 - title must be mandatory for properties, actions and events| 15:54:37 s/remaining issues/remaining issues by default (and possibly can revisit them later)./ 15:54:59 ... does not actually solve the problem it tries to solve, causes i18n issues 15:55:26 mm: We are discussing this profiles 15:55:40 ... if no title is present, then you could also simply use the affordance key 15:56:08 ... similar to mandatory security definitions 15:56:43 q? 15:56:50 q- 15:56:59 ... people could also simply provide an empty string, which would cause more issues 15:57:07 ek: I am closing this issue then 15:57:19 subtopic: Issue 1324 15:57:54 ek: There has been a long discussion in response to the feedback by Ben 15:57:58 i|There|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues/1324 Issue 1324 - Feedback on latest Editor's Draft| 15:59:04 ... opened a new issue for one aspect of the discussion regarding a missing mapping between DataSchemas like "Subscription" and operations like "subscribeevent" 15:59:29 ... we could open the review issue by Ben and continue the discussion in the new one 15:59:57 q+ 16:00:04 dp: If the discussions in the old issue 1324 have been resolved then we can definitely close it 16:01:12 kaz: Before we close it we should cheeck with Ben that his points have been addressed 16:01:24 dp: On the other hand he could also simply reopen it 16:01:54 mm: We could mark it as "Propose closing" 16:02:08 kaz: I agree, then we can continue the discussion next week 16:03:55 ek: I also agree, I add to the issue that Ben could also close the issue if he thinks his points have been addressed 16:04:53 [adjourned] 16:04:58 rrsagent, draft minutes 16:04:58 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/04/20-wot-td-minutes.html kaz 18:13:33 Zakim has left #wot-td