Meeting minutes
minutes
https://
any objections?
no
IANA TM content type registration
https://
references to the security sections are now fixed by WD4
<kaz> RFC 6901
IANA suggest also to add section 6 of the RFC6901
any objections?
Daniel: maybe its not good to link to specific setions which may changed in the future
I think the document is stable and will be not changed anymore
otherwise a new RFC will be published
I accendenty commited this new text to the main
https://
the section 6 should have a seperate link othwerwise it goes to section 3 only
PRs
#1564
https://
<kaz> preview - 5.3.4.2.2 Response-related Terms Usage
Ege: I draw another kind of representation. Kind of decission tree
… please comment on this or you have another ideas for a compact representation
… since this is just informative, can be also included at later point such as during CR review phase or transition
#1630
https://
JSON Schema fix for instanceName
Kaz: back to PR 1564, it depends on whether we want to express the rule as (1) combination of possible options or (2) some kind of algorithm. We might want to ask Zoltan for opinions about a possible representation
decide to merge #1630
#1638
https://
Ege: can it be that some assertion where removed for security, can it be?
McCool: yes this is ok
we discussed this last week already
decided to merge
#1649
https://
<kaz> preview - 9.3.3 Composition
Daniel: a recommendation also allows to use a complete different strategy, right?
yes
Kaz: we're using JSON-LD as the basis for TD and TM, so we could define some additional namespace to distinguish instanceName. Maybe also ask JSON-LD for some advice
Cristiano: for consumer this flexiblity makes everything complicated since it is maybe not identifyable where which property definitions is comming from
decided not to merge yet, another iteration is needed
Kaz: btw, basically this issue (=Issue 1556 which is the basis of PR 1649) is related to the mechanism of objective programming language's inheritance between a Class and an Instance. So we should have that viewpoint as well.
#1652
https://
Ege: I think there is no need to define an assertion for this. An explaintion would be enough
McCool: I agree with Ege
ok, will ne not be merged. I will provide an update
#1653
https://
Ege: just a JSON Schema extension for security definitions
Cristiano: there is a script that takes over from TD Schema to the TM Schema. We should check if this is not result a manditory definition in TMs, which shouldn't
Ege: I will check later and will merge this PR then
group is ok with it
#1654
https://
Ege: there is a popular python validation that is not working with the current 'items' definition
Cristiano: is it a bug by our schema or by the implementation?
Ege: its a bug in our schema
… prefixItems means everything is in order. Its still an array.
… however, I'm waiting for some feedback form the JSON Schema authors. Maybe they have some additional comments.
ok, then lets wait until they response to Ege's mail
#1657
https://
we should rename "object properties" to "definitions"
#1658
https://
decided to merge
<McCool_> https://
#1659
https://
decided to merge
#1660
https://
Ege: this makes the definition of uriVariables more clear. It has now more text
decided to merge
#1661
https://
decided to merge
#1558
https://
McCool: for security we need another iteration
proposal: group decided to start the call for review of the latest TD 1.1. editor draft which is seen as potential CR transition
RESOLUTION: group decided to start the call for review of the latest TD 1.1. editor draft which is seen as potential CR transition
<kaz> [adjourned]