W3C

– DRAFT –
WoT-WG - TD-TF

02 November 2022

Attendees

Present
Cristiano_Aguzzi, Daniel_Peintner, Ege_Korkan, Erich_Barnstedt, Kaz_Ashimura, Michael_Koster, Michael_McCool, Sebastian_Kaebisch, Tomoaki_Mizushima
Regrets
-
Chair
Ege/Sebastian
Scribe
cris_, dape

Meeting minutes

minutes review

<kaz> Oct-26

Ege: last week we discussed the binding templates topics
… ontology links
… then we discussed TD topics
… CR transition
… we decided to have another test fest in December
… we look at some deferred PR and propose closing issues
… no blockers and started the next step for CR transition
… does anyone have any change requests?
… hearing none; minutes are approved

Agenda

Ege: anyone wants to add something?
… ok

and Binding Templates

PR on content type

<kaz> wot-thing-description PR 1564 - explain contentType usage

Ege: I move the content of the pr to the appendix and in the text a put link a to it
… got feedback from Klaus
… headers need to be taken into account
… now it is ready for review
… I'll do examples later

Daniel: I was wondering if it covers all cases

Ege: I hope it is covering all the cases
… do you have a case in mind?

<cris_> s/there isn't/it is covering all the cases/

Sebastian: it is very helpful
… I like the fact it is in the appendix

Cristiano: +1

Ege: any other concerns or questions?

Cristiano: so is it ready for merge?

Ege: yes

Kaz: this kind of complicated description should be discussed with WoT developers

Ege: it is very important to get feedback from developers
… we are planning office hours in the WoT CG dedicated to get this kind of feedbacks

Sebastian: I agree with this aspect
… regarding the structure of Binding Templates, too

Ege: we'll discuss it in a moment
… there are some bits of this hints in the Scripting API

Cristiano: +1

Ege: ok merging PR

Binding Templates

new charter proposal

<kaz> wot PR 1035 - Create new charter proposal for binding templates

Ege: I got already some initial feedback
… I fixed a bunch of issues
… but I waiting for Klaus to further investigate some comments

PR 182

Ege: I fixed merge conflicts and merged as discussed last time

<Ege> PR 182 - Ontology links

PR modbus design

Ege: cristiano provided fixes for the feedbacks that he got last time

PR 183 - feat(modbus): move addres and quantity to URL components

Ege: I looked for feedback inside siemens and they are ok with both URI proposals
… URI base design is the currently understood as best practice
… if we merge this PR this means that we have to follow the same approach with the other bindings

Cristiano: I agree that this PR has implications greater than the modbus binding

Ege: I plan to put this rule in the core document

Issues

<Ege> https://github.com/w3c/wot-binding-templates/issues/196

Issue 196

<kaz> Issue 196 - Adding binding template document structure figure

Ege: it is about document structure

Sebastian: it is helpful to have this overview, but we need to collect feedback from the Japanese community group
… is it really payload binding or serialization binding ?

Ege: it is about serialization
… maybe we can call it: payload serialization binding template

Sebastian: ok

Kaz: Is this a future proposal?
… because it split the Binding Templates document even more

Ege: it is not changing anything, it describes the current structure

Kaz: it is more important to describe the external relationships with the existing specificationss
… namely: Architecture, Discovery, Profiles, and Thing Description

Ege: I see
… we can extend the graph with that information
… we have the "use" relation

Kaz: the diagram might be useful for some of the people, but we can use text to describe the same relations.

Ege: ok but I think figure can still be added

Kaz: the diagram itself might be fine, but some developers might not be sure what the relation "use" means
… that is why text would help to clear that out

Issue 187

<Ege> Issue 187 - [Modbus] Usage of "zeroBasedAddressing" Parameter

Cristiano: I'm not sure about why we introduced that parameter, I have to recall the history
… and then we can discuss how it relates to the new changes in the modbus pr

Issue 139

<Ege> Issue 139 - XML template is more for green field devices

Ege: the issue is about how we can describe xml payloads in TD

Daniel: this conversion is coming from a spec that Taki and I worked on previously

<dape> https://www.w3.org/XML/EXI/docs/json/exi-for-json.html

Daniel: it is not a real spec sadly
… x-query did something similar
… there were some downsides

Ege: that should cover how to validate the payload with json schema, but not how to describe the payload with json schema

Daniel: it is a lossy conversion
… there are corner cases

Ege: I think we can just state the corner cases and do a best effort approach

Daniel: that's right

Ege: main question is who is motivated to bring up a proposal?

Daniel: I can issue a proposal

Cristiano: you can use the PR that I did as a template if you like

Kaz: I don't understand the need for the feature
… the issue is one year old
… we need to clarify the priority of the requirements

Sebastian: sadly there was no time for working on this
… we can take a specific example
… there are a couple of ISO and other formats to look at
… also ask feedback from people

please continue to clarify that kind of industry need for all the features. not only for this feature but all the features, I mean.

Sebastian: also OPC-UA use xml
… among other formats

Issue 93

Issue 93 - Create RDF representations of CoAP and MQTT vocabulary

Ege: propose closing
… any objections ?
… closed

Issue 194

Issue 194 - Improve the htv:methodName, cov:method usage

Ege: feedback from a dev, it request a better design of form operations

Cristiano: I would favor a better design of forms

Sebastian: we avoided a fixed index position for inferencing features
… we had this arithmetic approach in the beginning
… but it was more complex

Cristiano: I agree

Thing Description

Sebastian: plug fest, and closing issues

TD

Add CR exit criteria in sotd section

<kaz> CR Transition Request for TD 1.1

Sebastian: Swick asked for exit criteria
… has been added in the meanwhile
… <Sebastian showing SOTD section>

Sebastian: seems exit criteria is still missing in SOTD

McCool: I am double checking

Sebastian: Ahh, only applied to publication folder and not main branch

<sebastian> Files changed in PR 1736 - CR exit criteria

Sebastian: at risk criterias with no more than 2 implementations will be converted to informative statement

McCool: special clause
… old vs new Ids
… remaining at risk items can be checked against old publication

Sebastian: will create PR to add this exit criteria statement also to main branch

McCool: makes sense

<sebastian> https://github.com/w3c/transitions/issues/467

Sebastian: see transition request link above

Missing Implementations

<kaz> features at risk listed on the SoTD section of the TD 1.1 draft

Sebastian: Should look "at-risk" features
… implementors might try to overcome such features
… PlugFest planned in December also
… please check your implementations
… 1,5 months left

Sebastian: any news from PlugFest call

McCool: have created a readme under events
… please have a look at it and check the goals

<sebastian> README.md for the December Testfest

McCool: resolve at risk items is one goal
… some assertions seems to miss updates ... to fill in certain blanks
… we seem to have 2 conflicting CSV files
… XXXX in a row indicate no input given
… we need 2 passes for each feature

<kaz> Lagally's generated CSV to see which implementations cover which features

McCool: atrisk.csv lists all missing assertions

<sebastian> https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/blob/Impl-Xref/testing/atrisk.csv

McCool: Kaz suggested to look for volunteers

Kaz: I suggest all to join next TestFest call or at least sign up on the volunteers list ;)

Sebastian: I will be not available next week

McCool: I will be out-of-office for 2 weeks also

Ege: I can join the call and will try to push forward

Check the status of open PRs

https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/pulls

Sebastian: PR 1684

PR 1684 - Fix shacl, context and ontology

Sebastian: ethieblin provided feedback

Cristiano: she is mentioning other issues also
… I guess we can tackle these in other PRs
… this PR is about strings
… SHACL has plain strings and language strings
… render script has bugs too
… 2nd comment in PR, having 2 dataTypes
… need to fix this everywhere
… we can say that title is human readable
… in this PR I forced everything to be a language string
… I used default language to EN
… ethieblin mentioned this cannot be changed
… I need to find a solution.. default language can be set by user
… will ask ethieblin for clarifications
… other point
… hasSecurityConfiguration changed @type to string
… ethieblin makes the point it should remain @id
… suggest to fix it later, in another PR

Sebastian: what would be the solution?

Cristiano: using @id is correct

McCool: I think it is a string, not an URI
… we could have a conversion process

Cristiano: Mhh, I think we have a problem here
… security definitions are translated to URIs

McCool: string is supposed to be unique
… can use pre-processor

Cristiano: we need to retain the id in the RDF process

Sebastian: Does this mean ethieblin is not correct?

Cristiano: Yes and no... but there are misalignments

Kaz: PR 1684 is identified as editorial change
… doesn't it impact implementations ?
… is it a bug fix?
… if so we should fix NOW

Sebastian: This PR does not have impact on tables

Kaz: Please check tables ... I see changes

<kaz> diff

Cristiano: I do not expect changes... but yes there are changes
… string to langString

Sebastian: That's a problem.. we cannot change that now

Cristiano: I think we can leave it as it was... I will revert this change

Sebastian: Yes, should show up as string again

Cristiano: Okay, will do and it will be an editorial change again

Cristiano: there was one more issue
… hasRelationType used to be ObjectProperty
… seems we just need strings.. not always URIs

Sebastian: Suggest to stick to string to not introduce changes
… version 1.0 used string also

Cristiano: Okay, let's leave it as it is
… will also check examples... ethieblin pointed at some examples

Cristiano: BTW, added GitHub action scripts
… like validation
… I added some tests
… people can provide more valid TDs

Ege: Did you move TM models

Cristiano: Yes

Sebastian: Cool
… GitHub actions does what exactly?

Cristiano: It takes TDs and translates it and checks RDF
… it also does SHACL validation
… but it is very basic since we just have some simple examples

Sebastian: Would be nice to test all TDs from PlugFests

Cristiano: Yes, but it would be a big impact ..

<Ege> https://github.com/thingweb/thingweb-playground/tree/master/packages/core/examples/tds/valid

Ege: for TD 1.0 we have TDs that cover all features
… not covering all features of 1.1 yet

Ege: We also have examples for TMs

Cristiano: Can we create a script that merges all TDs into one BIG TD
… and test this BIG TD ?

Ege: security might cause issues

Sebastian: PR looks good... some more changes needed ... recorded in comments

Cristiano: I will work on it

Sebastian: Suggest to check next week again.. or in 2 weeks
… other PRs are not urgent and we should wait till CR is published

Sebastian: Homework for everyone... added "propose closing" labels to some issues
… please have a look

[adjourned]

Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by scribe.perl version 192 (Tue Jun 28 16:55:30 2022 UTC).