14:03:08 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #wot-td
14:03:08 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2022/05/25-wot-td-irc
14:03:41 <mjk> mjk has joined #wot-td
14:07:35 <sebastian_> sebastian_ has joined #wot-td
14:07:57 <mlagally> mlagally has joined #wot-td
14:09:46 <JKRhb> scribenick: JKRhb
14:09:54 <JKRhb> topic: Minutes Review
14:10:06 <JKRhb> rrsagent, please draft the minutes
14:10:06 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/05/25-wot-td-minutes.html JKRhb
14:10:44 <JKRhb> rrsagent, please make log public
14:11:00 <JKRhb> chair: Sebastian
14:11:51 <dape> dape has joined #wot-td
14:12:22 <JKRhb> sk: (after presenting today's agenda, starts reviewing the minutes of the meeting)
14:12:52 <JKRhb> ... we started with a minutes review and the wide review
14:13:05 <JKRhb> ... talked about security related issues, e.g. IDs
14:13:13 <JKRhb> ... then we checked some PRs
14:13:53 <JKRhb> ... Michael Lagally pointed out that PRs often contain unrelated changes, which is caused by the render script
14:14:22 <JKRhb> ... this only affects the rendered version of the document, though
14:14:42 <JKRhb> ... then we moved on to other PRs
14:14:55 <JKRhb> ... JSON schema and ReSpec fixes were discussed
14:16:35 <JKRhb> ... also @context requirements for Thing Models
14:16:36 <kaz> i|after pre|-> https://www.w3.org/2022/05/18-wot-td-minutes.html May-18|
14:16:55 <JKRhb> rrsagent, please draft the minutes
14:16:55 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/05/25-wot-td-minutes.html JKRhb
14:17:35 <JKRhb> ... a PR regarding an updated testing template was postponed to this meeting
14:17:41 <kaz> meeting: WoT-WG - TD-TF
14:18:09 <JKRhb> ... as well as a PR regarding text direction
14:18:29 <JKRhb> ... another PR regarding double encoding in tm:ref was merged
14:18:35 <kaz> present+ Kaz_Ashimura, Sebastian_Kaebisch, Cristiano_Aguzzi, Daniel_Peintner, Ege_Korkan, Jan_Romann, Michael_Koster, Michael_Lagally, Michael_McCool, Tomoaki_Mizuhsima
14:18:42 <JKRhb> ... that is it, many PR were discussed
14:18:46 <JKRhb> ... any comments?
14:18:49 <kaz> rrsagent, draft minutes
14:18:50 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/05/25-wot-td-minutes.html kaz
14:19:01 <JKRhb> There are no comments
14:19:20 <JKRhb> sk: Seems not the case, then please bring the minutes to the public, Kaz.
14:19:31 <JKRhb> topic: PRs
14:20:00 <JKRhb> sk: Let's start with the easy ones
14:20:10 <JKRhb> subtopic: PR #1507
14:20:32 <JKRhb> sk: This PR improves our diagrams in the document
14:20:52 <JKRhb> ... the SVG files currently present in the document are auto-generated
14:21:26 <JKRhb> ... good proof that the ontologies are well-defined, however, they are not very suitable for being displayed in a specification
14:22:00 <JKRhb> ... the PR improves the visual quality, however, they are manually generated, the boxes and lines are done by hand
14:22:20 <JKRhb> s/done by hand/adjusted by hand/
14:22:59 <JKRhb> ... pleas don't be confused as the diff compares the new diagrams to the ones from the 1.0 version
14:23:08 <JKRhb> s/pleas/please/
14:23:45 <JKRhb> ... I noticed, that there is something I need to add to the render script, which is not adjusted yet
14:23:57 <JKRhb> ... otherwise the new figures would be overridden again
14:24:01 <kaz> i|This PR im|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/pull/1507 PR 1507 - Beautify infromation model drawings|
14:24:27 <JKRhb> dp: Aren't only the SVGs automatically generated but not the PNGs?
14:25:06 <JKRhb> ... rerendering the SVGs then does not make a difference if PNGs are used in the document
14:25:31 <JKRhb> sk: You are right, rerendering the SVGs does slow down the rendering process, though
14:25:45 <JKRhb> ... but the script does not need to be updated for this PR
14:25:50 <JKRhb> ... any comments?
14:25:53 <JKRhb> There are none
14:26:01 <JKRhb> sk: Then I would proceed to merging
14:26:19 <JKRhb> dp: Just a quick question: You used the SVGs as a starting point and then adjusted them?
14:26:29 <JKRhb> sk: Exactly
14:26:37 <JKRhb> ... okay, then let's merge this one
14:27:00 <JKRhb> PR is merged
14:27:24 <JKRhb> sk: In the review phase, the alignment of the diagrams with the tables is something that needs to be ensured
14:27:33 <JKRhb> subtopic: PR #1506
14:27:44 <JKRhb> sk: This is the next easy PR
14:27:55 <JKRhb> ... it is about the Thing Model section
14:28:21 <JKRhb> ... it provides a new guideline for the replacement of a TM's ID value, which should now use a placeholder
14:28:32 <JKRhb> ... this can then be used for the TD generation process
14:28:38 <JKRhb> mm: This is new, right?
14:28:50 <JKRhb> sk: This is new, coming from the discussion with Cristiano
14:28:55 <cris__> q+
14:29:12 <JKRhb> ... previously, it was not stated what to do with the ID in a Thing Model
14:29:39 <JKRhb> mm: I think we can agree that the ID in a TM is only for the TM, not for the TD
14:30:13 <JKRhb> ... I think the process should demand that the old ID should be deleted and a new one should be generated instead
14:30:36 <JKRhb> ... introducing a template just causes potential trouble
14:31:10 <JKRhb> sk: The placeholder can be used to enforce generating a new ID
14:31:34 <kaz> i|This is the next|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/pull/1506 PR 1506 - Note about the id derivation from TM|
14:31:46 <JKRhb> ... prescribing an ID in a TM would imply that only one TD can be generated from the TM
14:32:08 <JKRhb> mm: Using TMs for singletons like this is an anti-pattern
14:32:52 <JKRhb> ... there is an assertion in the Security and Privacy Considerations to not embed metadata in IDs
14:33:33 <JKRhb> ... IDs are not as well protected as the TD itself
14:33:54 <JKRhb> ... privacy-critical IDs should be modelled as a property
14:34:32 <JKRhb> ... I am okay with this merging this PR, but I want to understand the reasoning behind the new assertion
14:34:54 <JKRhb> sk: This is just an example, but we can remove the assertion
14:35:25 <JKRhb> mm: We can use a placeholder for the ID, but it would be better to require the use of something like UUIDv4
14:35:40 <JKRhb> sk: I can make changes to the PR
14:36:22 <JKRhb> ca: I am okay with the changes, the PR was more about giving an example for the use of IDs in templates (?)
14:37:02 <JKRhb> mm: Lot's of people embed IDs in URLs, but this is more of a Discovery issue
14:37:26 <JKRhb> ... please add an assertion that people should not embed metadata in IDs
14:37:40 <JKRhb> ca: How about adding another field tm:id?
14:38:08 <JKRhb> mm: Yeah, there is a problem with the overlap of TD IDs with RDF @id
14:38:21 <cris__> ack c
14:38:40 <JKRhb> ... not requiring this to change, but it is something that needs to be considered
14:40:25 <JKRhb> The PR is updated in accordance with the discussion, using a {{RANDOM_ID_PATTERN}} in the id field
14:40:50 <kaz> rrsagent, draft minutes
14:40:50 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/05/25-wot-td-minutes.html kaz
14:41:19 <JKRhb> sk: Any more comments or objections?
14:41:59 <JKRhb> There none, Things are merged
14:42:08 <JKRhb> s/Things are/PR is/
14:42:17 <JKRhb> subtopic: PR #1505
14:42:23 <McCool_> s/Using TMs for singletons like this is an anti-pattern/Using this feature to embed metadata in the ID is an antipattern/
14:42:40 <kaz> -> https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/pull/1505 PR 1505 - Updated Implementation Report and Results Files - May 2022
14:42:49 <JKRhb> sk: This PR is about the updated Implementation report
14:43:07 <JKRhb> mm: There were a lot of annoying issues with the csv files
14:43:30 <JKRhb> ... most of them have been fixed, the manual assertions need to be reviewed, though
14:43:50 <JKRhb> ... there are a lot of new security-related assertions
14:44:19 <JKRhb> ... many fields have 0 entries right now, but most of the assertions can be simply answered with "yes"
14:45:32 <JKRhb> ... we have a lot of manual assertions that need to be addressed at the next test fest
14:46:11 <JKRhb> sk: Let's merge this for now, after the next plugfest in two weeks we will have a new version
14:46:16 <JKRhb> PR is merged
14:47:34 <JKRhb> subtopic: PR #1501
14:47:56 <JKRhb> sk: This PR is an overview of the assertions that do not have a test report yet
14:48:20 <JKRhb> ... for every feature with missing implementations, the PR adds an at-risk label
14:48:58 <JKRhb> ... I didn't include the label for every feature
14:49:13 <JKRhb> mm: Did you also edit the csv files?
14:49:36 <JKRhb> sk: I added the labels directly to the document, not edited any csv files
14:50:35 <JKRhb> mm: Before, I generated the at-risk labels from csv files, adjusting the CSS
14:51:09 <JKRhb> ... I created a testingatrisk.css file before
14:51:28 <JKRhb> ... I need to check my script again
14:52:10 <JKRhb> sk: There are a number of features which are low-hanging fruit, this should probably not be included
14:52:38 <JKRhb> mm: The script cannot distinguish these, works only on the basis of test results
14:52:57 <JKRhb> ... people should provide tests for these
14:53:21 <JKRhb> ... I will double-check my script if it still works and will create a new PR for that
14:53:27 <JKRhb> ... we can then discuss it next time
14:54:05 <kaz> i|This PR is an o|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/pull/1501 PR 1501 - WIP: Add at-risk hints|
14:55:33 <JKRhb> mm: There are also sections, which are being marked as at-risk. These need to labelled manually
14:56:03 <JKRhb> sk: I'll mark my PR as a draft, for now. Let's move on to the next PR
14:56:13 <JKRhb> subtopic: PR #1498
14:56:50 <JKRhb> -> https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/pull/1498 PR 1498 - Update template.csv for testing
14:57:03 <JKRhb> ek: Did not have time to work on the PR
14:57:20 <JKRhb> mm: There might be conflicts if we work on the same file
14:57:42 <JKRhb> ... my suggestion would be to use a different file name, e.g. assertions.csv
14:57:56 <JKRhb> ... there differences in the columns
14:58:12 <JKRhb> ek: I actually use your script, but it is probably an old one
14:59:18 <JKRhb> mm: If you are only interested in assertions, there is script by Tomoaki-San(?), which you can use
14:59:41 <JKRhb> subtopic: PR #1499
15:00:27 <JKRhb> -> https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/pull/1499 PR 1499 - Reference to string-specific directional information
15:00:37 <kaz> s/Tomoaki-san(?)/Toumura-san/
15:01:18 <JKRhb> sk: This is a PR that deals with an issue raised by the i18n task force
15:02:17 <JKRhb> ... a problem here is that the new reference is a group note, causing problems if we include in an assertion
15:02:41 <kaz> q+
15:02:46 <JKRhb> ... proposal: Keep the old process, but add a reference in a note
15:02:46 <McCool_> (I can take over minutes after this issue is concluded)
15:03:45 <JKRhb> kaz: I don't know if this PR actually resolves Addison's point, it needs further review
15:04:21 <JKRhb> sk: It is about a paragraph about text-direction
15:04:34 <JKRhb> ... replacing it with the referenced guideline document
15:04:55 <JKRhb> ... the problem is, that all sentences here are assertions
15:05:17 <JKRhb> kaz: We should think about which description should be added to the specification to clarify the expected features
15:05:25 <McCool_> q+
15:05:32 <JKRhb> ... and then extract the RFC keywords, before testing the assertions
15:05:56 <JKRhb> ... we should check if the text actually contains what we want to express in the TD specification
15:06:17 <JKRhb> mm: Problem is, these concerns are raised by the i18n group
15:06:47 <JKRhb> ... the string meta-data document, which is supposed to be cited, is quite vague in my opinion, though
15:07:24 <JKRhb> ... the core issue is about text-rendering, however
15:07:51 <JKRhb> ... not about encoding information
15:09:34 <JKRhb> ... citing the string-meta document might be more future-proof than pre-scribing a process for determining text-direction ourselves
15:09:59 <JKRhb> ... the main problem is that string-meta is a group note
15:10:28 <JKRhb> kaz: It is not a problem from the W3C standpoint, so it could be included
15:12:57 <JKRhb> ... if the content is okay from our point of view, then citing the document will make our lives easier
15:13:26 <JKRhb> mm: It also eliminates a lot of test cases
15:13:52 <McCool_> scribenick: McCool_
15:14:13 <McCool_> seb: conclusion, let's merge, and this resolves all internationalization issues
15:14:32 <McCool_> ... and also done with all important PRs needed for next version, WD or CR candidate
15:14:53 <McCool_> topic: issues
15:15:05 <McCool_> seb: let's look at issues see if there is anything important
15:15:15 <McCool_> subtopic: issue #1513
15:15:27 <McCool_> ege: about the right JSON version
15:15:47 <McCool_> ... we thought we were at the wrong version, but we are ok
15:15:59 <McCool_> ... so can close this issue, nothing has to be done
15:16:12 <McCool_> ... see Jan's comment
15:16:41 <McCool_> ... basically we are using the Draft 7, and want to stick with that version
15:16:57 <McCool_> ... as this is the most commonly supported version
15:17:18 <McCool_> seb: (adds notes to issue)
15:17:28 <McCool_> seb: closes issue
15:18:23 <McCool_> seb: will Lagally have concerns?
15:18:38 <McCool_> mm: we discussed this in profiles call, agreed to just be consistent with TD
15:18:42 <McCool_> ... so not a worry
15:18:48 <kaz> i|about the right|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues/1513 Issue 1513 - Update JSON Schema validation reference|
15:18:58 <McCool_> subtopic: issue #1508
15:19:27 <McCool_> jr: items vs. submodel
15:19:55 <McCool_> ... what to do with collections, items, etc.
15:20:02 <McCool_> seb: thought I had an example about this
15:20:17 <McCool_> jr: is an example for replacing a submodel with item links
15:20:18 <kaz> i|items vs|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues/1508 Issue 1508 - item vs tm:submodel in TMs|
15:20:29 <McCool_> ... was wondering if you could also use item links directly
15:21:01 <McCool_> ... suppose I want to generalize a TD by converting to a submodel, would be easier if could just use item links in TMs
15:21:36 <cris__> q+
15:21:42 <kaz> ack k
15:21:46 <McCool_> mm: so is the problem that going from TD->TM is difficult?
15:21:58 <McCool_> jr: partially; two different composition mechanisms
15:22:11 <McCool_> ... TD uses item links, TMs use submodel
15:22:16 <kaz> ack m
15:22:55 <McCool_> mm: do these mean different things semantically?
15:23:52 <McCool_> seb: in TD is only metadata, not really needed; in TM is required functionally
15:24:54 <McCool_> seb: but it seems you would also like to describe the relationship
15:24:57 <McCool_> jr: right
15:26:13 <McCool_> mm: are there any item links in TDs that do not map to submodels in TMs?
15:26:29 <McCool_> seb: interesting use case, want to understand the scenario
15:27:03 <McCool_> cris: we introducted submodel but really did not clarify how it is different from item
15:27:11 <McCool_> s/introducted/introduced/
15:27:58 <McCool_> mm: if it is different, we should say how; if not, then should get rid of separate name
15:28:10 <McCool_> cris: but I do feel they are different, but it is subtle
15:28:55 <McCool_> mm: I feel someone needs to write some definitions to clarify what each term means
15:29:25 <McCool_> seb: Jan, I suggest you try to clarify this in the issue, but we probably need to defer to the next major TD version
15:29:58 <McCool_> jr: sure, it's just something I noticed that came up during conversion; but I will try to elaborate some use cases
15:30:28 <McCool_> seb: (comments on issue; defers to TD 2.0)
15:30:46 <McCool_> subtopic: issue #1510
15:31:01 <McCool_> seb: TD JSON not backward compatible with 1.0
15:31:33 <McCool_> dape: there is a strict context check; not allowed to have just 1.0 context
15:32:04 <McCool_> ... but it means that 1.1 is not technically backward compatible
15:32:08 <McCool_> +q
15:32:14 <cris__> q+
15:32:19 <cris__> ack c
15:32:21 <cris__> q+
15:32:38 <Ege> q+
15:33:53 <McCool_> mm: so should we use ben's suggestion of different code paths?
15:34:28 <McCool_> ... or an "if"?
15:34:49 <kaz> rrsagent, draft minutes
15:34:49 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/05/25-wot-td-minutes.html kaz
15:34:52 <McCool_> dape: discussed this with ege, conditional tests are difficult to implement in JSON Schema
15:35:31 <McCool_> cris: well, if we do that, we do need to update some assertions
15:36:27 <McCool_> seb: statement for use of @context
15:36:28 <kaz> i|TD JON not b|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues/1510 Issue 1510 - TD JSON Schema not backwards-compatible with v1|
15:36:56 <McCool_> dape: back to an implementation, have use v1.0
15:37:15 <McCool_> ... upgrade to something that can handle v1.1, now old TDs fail
15:38:05 <McCool_> dape: would be ok if failing for 2.0, but 1.1 is supposed to be backward compatible
15:38:27 <McCool_> ege: is also about issue about defn of backward compatibility
15:38:39 <McCool_> ... we want a new consumer to read an old TD
15:38:45 <McCool_> ... but not the other way around
15:39:17 <McCool_> ... maybe we need an assertion that a 1.1 consumer can consume a TD 1.0
15:40:55 <McCool_> ege: assertion about TD 1.0 should be changed a bit...
15:41:21 <McCool_> ... need to be careful about consumers/producers
15:41:38 <McCool_> mm: need a concrete assertion to look at
15:41:58 <McCool_> seb: let's do it live, as a normative change this is not something we have a lot of time for
15:43:47 <McCool_> mm: suggest just add an assertion saying TD 1.1 consumers must accept TD 1.0 inputs.
15:44:05 <kaz> rrsagent, draft minutes
15:44:05 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/05/25-wot-td-minutes.html kaz
15:44:25 <McCool_> ege: agree, can be very simple
15:44:49 <kaz> i|TD JSON not b|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues/1510 Issue 1510 - TD JSON Schema not backwards-compatible with v1|
15:46:02 <kaz> rrsagent, draft minutes
15:46:02 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/05/25-wot-td-minutes.html kaz
15:48:25 <McCool_> seb: (types in an assertion, various wordsmithing discussions...)
15:48:40 <cris__> +1
15:49:42 <McCool_> seb: creating PR #1515
15:50:32 <McCool_> dape: does not completely solve problem... JSON schema needs to be updated
15:50:55 <McCool_> mm: no, it's ok, assertion points at the old spec, and so old JSON schema
15:51:43 <McCool_> ege: still think it will be confusing, people may still try to use the new schema to validate old TDs
15:51:58 <McCool_> mm: I think that can be resolved with some informative text, etc
15:52:13 <McCool_> topic: WD update decision
15:52:37 <McCool_> seb: are we ready for a freeze, start a two-week review, publish a WD update for review
15:52:58 <McCool_> ... if there are no major problems found in the next week, this can be the CR candidate
15:54:07 <McCool_> proposal: publish, after a two-week review starting today, branch X as a WD update
15:54:30 <McCool_> proposal: publish, after a two-week review starting today, branch cr-wd-update as a WD update
15:54:34 <sebastian_> cr-wd-update
15:54:51 <McCool_> proposal: publish, after a two-week review starting today 25 May 2022, branch cr-wd-update as a WD update
15:55:27 <sebastian_> https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/tree/cr-wd-update
15:55:36 <McCool_> proposal: publish, after a two-week review starting today 25 May 2022 and a resolution in the main call, branch cr-wd-update as a WD update
15:55:49 <McCool_> proposal: publish, after a two-week review starting today 25 May 2022 and a resolution in the main call, branch cr-wd-update (https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/tree/cr-wd-update) as a WD update
15:56:12 <McCool_> resolution: publish, after a two-week review starting today 25 May 2022 and a resolution in the main call, branch cr-wd-update (https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/tree/cr-wd-update) as a WD update
15:57:01 <McCool_> mm: suggest we discuss who does the prep work
15:57:41 <McCool_> mm: about how long will it take?
15:57:47 <McCool_> kaz: about 1 day of work
15:58:05 <kaz> -> https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/tree/main/publication/ver11/3-wd guide
15:58:08 <McCool_> mm: where is process documented?
15:58:59 <McCool_> dape: I can take a stab at it
15:59:22 <McCool_> seb: also, for next week, no TD call due to Hannover Fair
15:59:44 <McCool_> ... so next mtg will be June 8
16:00:22 <kaz> rrsagent, draft minutes
16:00:22 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/05/25-wot-td-minutes.html kaz
16:00:32 <McCool_> mm: pls update the wiki, I will update the calendar
16:00:54 <McCool_> seb: adjourn, thanks for all your work, and have a good holiday
16:01:19 <kaz> i/also, fo/topic: Next meeting/
16:01:25 <kaz> rrsagent, draft minutes
16:01:25 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/05/25-wot-td-minutes.html kaz
16:01:31 <kaz> [adjourned]
16:01:33 <kaz> rrsagent, draft minutes
16:01:33 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/05/25-wot-td-minutes.html kaz
18:58:07 <Zakim> Zakim has left #wot-td