Meeting minutes
Minutes Review
<kaz> Nov-2
Ege: (Goes over the minutes from two weeks ago -- last meeting was cancelled due to low turnout)
… does anyone want to propose changes?
Daniel: (notices that the names are not rendered correctly, but this has been fixed in the meantime))
Ege: Any objections?
There are no objections, minutes are approved
Topics for the Next Charter
<kaz> wot PR 1035 - Create new charter proposal for binding templates
Ege: In PR 1035, I created an initial proposal for the next charter period
… one topic are additional bindings (protocols/platforms such as BACnet and data formats like CBOR)
… this is just a proposal, are there any comments?
… in the main call, we discussed that each task force should come up with their own proposals
… so we don't need main call approval
Kaz: I've got the impression that binding templates are becoming more and more important
… should we switch the binding documents to the REC track?
Ege: They should definitely become normative
… I need to have a closer look into the different document types, though
Kaz: In that case, the question probably affects the whole working group and should be discussed with the rest of the group
… You should add the label of "WG New Charter Plans 2023" and also clearly state "this proposal to make Binding Templates normative should be discussed by the whole WG."
Cristiano: I am in favor of moving it to REC or registry track
… the validation of additional bindings/extensions should also be considered for the next charter period
Ege: (adds these points to the PR)
Sebastian: Regarding OPC-UA, it was discussed in the main call that we could work on this together with the OPC Foundation
Ege: If there are no additional points, then I would go ahead with merging
… (merges the PR)
… (also adds a comment with the discussion results)
Binding Templates PRs
PR #197
<kaz> PR 197 - Adjust terminology usage in core document
Ege: In this PR, I propose changing all mentions of "Protocol Binding" to "Protocol Binding Template"
… as we discussed before
… I also made sure that the Core document is referenced correctly
… I incorporated feedback from Cristiano, resolving all ReSpec errors
… (proceeds with merging the PR since there are no objections)
PR #198
<kaz> PR 198 - [WIP] Overview of the binding templates documents and relationship with others
Ege: This PR is supposed to explain the relationship of the different Binding Template documents
… for now it is just as a draft and still Work in Progress
… I added a figure explaining the relationship, that might need some more work
Sebastian: These are very useful additions
Ege: The textual explanation is still a bit missing
… Mizushima-San, could you show this proposal to stakeholders and ask for feedback?
… (gets no answer from Mizushima-San)
… I will tag you in the PR and also send you an email
PR #193
PR 193 - Alternative proprosal for handling CoAP Content-Formats
Jan: we had discussion about this but not in detail
Ege: could you explain the discussion?
Jan: klaus proposed to remove contentType value and propose own words
Jan: I have proposed to keep the contentType and make sure to match the two values
Ege: I prefer jr approach
Ege: can we have RFC assertions
Kaz: you can still use the words in lowercase but it is confusing. We should avoid these terms if possible
Cristiano: One more comment about the content of the PR
… if we introduce this new keyword, validation might be harder since you still need a copy of the registry to match content-format and content type
Jan: Content-Format would rather be a hint for Consumers
Ege: If both contentType and Content-Format need to be present then the PR needs to be updated
… has Klaus stated his preference regarding the two PRs yet?
Jan: I think he was a bit skeptical still, but he hasn't reacted to the latest discussion
PR #189
<kaz> PR 189 - Delete "CoAP in RDF"
Ege: This is another CoAP PR
… wants to remove the CoAP in RDF document
… which is outdated
… but it does not provide a replacement which would be required for providing a @context file
… this was also noted by Cristiano
Cristiano: We should at least create a simple @context file, mapping the current state of the document, not a full ontology
Ege: Since it is very WoT-specific, the ontology does not need to be that large
Cristiano: We can move on with this PR, moving the ontology the archive. Then we can fix the problem later
Ege: (adds a summary comment to the PR)
… I will talk to Klaus regarding moving it the archive
… which should be located at the top-level of the repository
… (adds an Archive folder with a README explaining its purpose)
… any objections to adding this file?
… (there are none, folder and README file have been created)
… there have been merge conflicts with the PR anyway
Thing Description
Features at risk
Sebastian: is there anyone planning to implement some features?
Ege: playground can help with the text direction related assertions
Sebastian: how about the OAuth2 assertions
Cristiano: I think the problem is device and code flow. Client is implemented I think
Daniel: client is used
https://
Ege: here are tds from ditto and node-wot
Sebastian: nodewot is using client and ditto is using code
Sebastian: let's ask what is happening in saywot
Kaz: we should skim the TD implementation report results
Sebastian: so maybe we have implementations but they are not picked up
Sebastian: we have only 9 or so not implemented assertions
PR 1744
<kaz> PR 1744 - CR exit statement in ED
Sebastian: I would like to add the CR Exit criteria
Sebastian: any objections?
Daniel: do we need something for Proposed REC exit?
Kaz: it is AC reps voting
Sebastian: hearing no objections
PR 1684
<kaz> PR 1684 - Fix shacl, context and ontology
<kaz> PR 1684 - Fix shacl, context and ontology
Sebastian: is there anything new?
Cristiano: I did some work but no good news
Cristiano: if we solve one aspect, the other is broken
Sebastian: it is a lot to process now but I see that we have a circle situation
Sebastian: semantic experts should have a discussion on this. Maybe elodie if she is member now?
Kaz: we need siemens input about her status
Kaz: about using ontologies, dependency on some specific ontology as part of the normative description is problematic. WoT Thing Description itself should be available for various possible ontologies and schemas. We can mention "For example, this ontology can be used like this." as an informative example, though.
Sebastian: it has no impact on the td document itself
Sebastian: I will check Elodie's status and invite her one of the next td meetings
Kaz: OK. Note that we can ask existing experts within W3C like Manu for their advice too.
Cristiano: I have lost connection, sorry for not answering. I can try to work around one problem
PR 1733
Sebastian: Michael Lagally has used wrong list
<kaz> i|MichaelLagally|PR 1733 - Overview - all TD implementations|
Ege: we can bring his python script now and generate it again
Sebastian: it is a nice to have document
Issue 1740
<kaz> Issue 1740 - Correct nitpick in TD JSON Schema
Sebastian: A colleague of mine spotted this
Ege: I have done a mistake and directly pushed it without using a Pullrequest, is it ok
Kaz: yes if the content is correct
Sebastian: this is also just informative
Issue 805
<kaz> Issue 805 - Improve Explainer with User-Oriented Use Cases
Sebastian: this is done with accessibility group and it is proposed closing for a while
<kaz> (closed)
Issue 839
<kaz> Issue 839 - Clarify InteractionAffordance::contentType vs DataSchema::type
Sebastian: this is done right?
Ege: yes, this is a binding templates topic and text, xml bindings shoud help here
Issue 883
<kaz> Issue 883 - Automate running TD rendering script
Sebastian: this is proposed closing
Ege: husky hook is solving this sort of
Daniel: it is halfway there
Ege: we should not automate it the way it is due to svg rendering process
Daniel: I also see unusual git diffs
issue 893
<kaz> Issue 893 - Evaluate AsyncAPI
Sebastian: we can close it here right?
Ege: yes, we can move to bindings as well. It is also important for websocket discussions later on
issue 902
Jan: we can transfer it instead of closing
Sebastian: ok let's do it
Sebastian: so what happened to the old one?
Jan: it should redirect
<kaz> wot-discovery Issue 440 - Standardizing how to describe the location of the TD|
Cristiano: you should update the propose closing label
issue 903
<kaz> Issue 903 - Thing Model of an SDF/OneDM Example
Sebastian: Jan's tool have these examples so we can close this
<kaz> [adjourned]