15:11:54 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #wot-td
15:11:54 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2022/11/23-wot-td-irc
15:12:00 <kaz> meeting: WoT-WG - TD-TF
15:12:46 <kaz> present+ Kaz_Ashimura, Daniel_Peintner, Ege_Korkan, Klaus_Hartke
15:13:21 <kaz> agenda: https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/WG_WoT_Thing_Description_WebConf#November_23.2C_2022
15:14:33 <kaz> scribenick: kaz
15:15:46 <kaz> present+ Jan_Romann
15:16:00 <JKRhb> JKRhb has joined #wot-td
15:16:09 <kaz> topic: Minutes
15:16:14 <kaz> -> https://www.w3.org/2022/11/16-wot-td-minutes.html Nov-16
15:16:45 <kaz> ek: (goes through the minutes)
15:16:55 <kaz> present+ Tomoaki_Mizushima
15:18:49 <kaz> ... another subtopic for PR 193 to be added between "... I will tag ..." and "Jan:  had discussion"
15:23:27 <kaz> kaz: updated
15:23:30 <kaz> approved
15:23:41 <kaz> topic: Binding Templates
15:24:03 <kaz> subtopic: PR 198
15:24:22 <kaz> -> https://github.com/w3c/wot-binding-templates/pull/198 PR 198 - Overview of the binding templates documents and relationship with others
15:24:29 <kaz> ek: already mentioned last week
15:24:34 <kaz> q+
15:26:11 <kaz> kaz: would be better to have two diagrams separately
15:27:20 <kaz> ... one for relationship among WoT specs within one of the earlier sections
15:27:28 <kaz> ... and the internal relationship here within section 4
15:27:44 <kaz> ... maybe I should have been clear about that point last week
15:27:46 <kaz> ek: ok
15:28:17 <kaz> ... btw, Mizushima-san, have you had discussion with the JP developers about the structure of the Binding Templates spec?
15:28:32 <kaz> present+ Sebastian_Kaebisch, Tomoaki_Mizushima
15:29:05 <kaz> kaz: he's planning to have an event next year
15:29:10 <kaz> ... so no concrete response yet
15:29:12 <kaz> ek: ok
15:29:26 <kaz> ... (adds comments based on today's discussion)
15:29:47 <kaz> present+ Matthias_Kovatsch
15:30:19 <sebastian_> sebastian_ has joined #wot-td
15:30:37 <kaz> mk: originally we wanted to have an independent document for "Binding Templates"
15:31:05 <kaz> ... but this document doesn't really describe the templates themselves
15:31:20 <kaz> ek: actual binding is described by the Thing Description
15:31:41 <kaz> mk: for example, Siemens has some specific binding
15:31:52 <kaz> q?
15:31:54 <kaz> ack k
15:32:01 <kaz> kh: agree with Matthias
15:32:38 <kaz> ... the current document doesn't match what people have been talking about
15:32:41 <kaz> ek: ok
15:32:51 <kaz> ... I'll open another issue on that
15:32:53 <kaz> q?
15:32:55 <kaz> q+
15:33:12 <kaz> ack k
15:33:26 <kaz> zakim, who is on the call?
15:33:26 <Zakim> Present: Kaz_Ashimura, Daniel_Peintner, Ege_Korkan, Klaus_Hartke, Jan_Romann, Tomoaki_Mizushima, Sebastian_Kaebisch, Matthias_Kovatsch
15:33:53 <kaz> ek: we can reopen Issue 143
15:34:02 <kaz> ... actually, it's still open
15:34:35 <kaz> -> https://github.com/w3c/wot-binding-templates/issues/143 Issue 143 - "Protocol Binding" vs. "Binding Template"
15:35:10 <kaz> kh: our expectation is having a specific document named "Binding Templates" which describes the Binding Templates
15:35:28 <kaz> ek: ok
15:35:36 <kaz> q+
15:36:29 <kaz> kh: the core Binding Templates document should describe the mechanism of the WoT Binding Templates
15:36:36 <kaz> ek: ok
15:36:45 <kaz> q?
15:36:53 <dape> q+
15:37:33 <kaz> ack k
15:37:47 <kaz> kaz: agree with Matthias and Klaus
15:38:12 <kaz> ... the core Binding Templates document should have clearer description on the mechanism of "Binding Templates"
15:38:18 <kaz> ... and how to generate them
15:38:28 <kaz> ... Mizushima-san's point should be also similar
15:38:56 <Mizushima> +1 I agree with Matthias and Klaus, too.
15:39:13 <kaz> dp: good to align the terminology with WoT Architecture as well
15:39:15 <kaz> ack k
15:39:16 <kaz> ack d
15:39:31 <kaz> mk: multiple aspects to be considered
15:39:49 <kaz> ... so we use "Binding Templates" as plural
15:40:33 <kaz> ... both the concept of the Binding Templates and protocol-specific templates to be described
15:40:51 <kaz> ek: ok
15:41:07 <kaz> ... think the Terminology of the WoT Architecture specification is flexible enough
15:41:57 <kaz> -> https://w3c.github.io/wot-architecture/#terminology WoT Architecture 1.1 - 3. Terminology
15:43:35 <kaz> [[
15:43:36 <kaz> Binding Templates
15:43:36 <kaz> A re-usable collection of blueprints that enable a Thing Description to be used with a specific protocol, data payload format or an IoT platform that combine both of them in specific ways. This is done through additional descriptive vocabularies, Thing Models and examples that aim to guide the implementers of Things and Consumers alike.
15:43:38 <kaz> ]]
15:43:52 <kaz> rrsagent, make log public
15:43:56 <kaz> rrsagent, draft minutes
15:43:56 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/11/23-wot-td-minutes.html kaz
15:44:57 <kaz> ek: the description of the Binding Templates Note should be inline with the above terminology definition
15:45:13 <kaz> subtopic: PR 188 and PR 193
15:45:40 <kaz> -> https://github.com/w3c/wot-binding-templates/pull/188 PR 188 - Define CoAP Content Negotiation
15:45:58 <kaz> -> @@@
15:46:10 <kaz> kh: let's look at the detail here
15:46:35 <kaz> s|@@@|https://github.com/w3c/wot-binding-templates/pull/193 PR 193 - Alternative proprosal for handling CoAP Content-Formats|
15:46:44 <kaz> ek: (shows the preview for PR 193)
15:47:06 <kaz> -> https://deploy-preview-193--wot-binding-templates.netlify.app/bindings/protocols/coap/ Preview
15:47:07 <sebastian_> q+
15:47:29 <kaz> -> https://deploy-preview-193--wot-binding-templates.netlify.app/bindings/protocols/coap/#example-request-contentFormat specifically Example 3
15:47:44 <kaz> kh: contentFormat 60 is used as a hint
15:48:11 <Ege> q?
15:48:15 <kaz> ... the question is if we need another member to show the expectation explicitly
15:48:40 <kaz> sk: TD brought the contentType as mandatory feature
15:48:55 <kaz> ... what is our assumption here?
15:48:57 <kaz> ack s
15:49:08 <kaz> ... you can skip it if needed
15:49:30 <kaz> ... in that case, the default is application/json
15:50:04 <kaz> kh: application/json to be 50
15:51:15 <kaz> q+
15:51:18 <JKRhb> q+
15:51:36 <kaz> ... should we even more explicit?
15:52:08 <kaz> ek: accept to be included also
15:52:21 <kaz> kh: what content option to be included here?
15:52:34 <kaz> ... must we put the information explicitly?
15:53:00 <kaz> mk: my argument within the issue as well
15:53:29 <kaz> ... if you need to set the accept option, additional term on what would be accept to be specified
15:53:35 <kaz> ... there two different cases
15:53:38 <Ege> q?
15:54:32 <kaz> kaz: what is really needed for binding?
15:54:34 <kaz> ack k
15:54:51 <kaz> ek: the way to give hints itself might not be necessary
15:56:20 <kaz> kaz: it's kind of redundant to have both contentType application/cbor and contentFormat 60
15:56:24 <kaz> mk: right
15:56:51 <kaz> ... should be processed outside of the object
15:57:04 <kaz> zakim, who is on the call?
15:57:04 <Zakim> Present: Kaz_Ashimura, Daniel_Peintner, Ege_Korkan, Klaus_Hartke, Jan_Romann, Tomoaki_Mizushima, Sebastian_Kaebisch, Matthias_Kovatsch
15:57:38 <kaz> kh: may need it for compatibility purposes
15:57:41 <kaz> mk: ok
15:57:53 <kaz> jr: regarding the set of options
15:58:14 <kaz> ... my understanding is around multiple forms
15:58:33 <kaz> ... if we have another form object
15:58:40 <kaz> ... you could select the form
15:58:49 <kaz> ... by providing a set of options
15:59:29 <kaz> mk: you wouldn't need to use CoAP-specific term for that purpose
15:59:48 <kaz> ... can be handled by an upper-level process of the application
16:00:07 <kaz> ... setting an acceptable option
16:00:11 <kaz> s/set/by set/
16:00:13 <kaz> q?
16:00:16 <kaz> ack j
16:00:31 <kaz> q?
16:00:33 <kaz> q+
16:00:57 <kaz> kaz: time check
16:01:05 <kaz> ... we're at the top of the hour
16:01:15 <kaz> ... but will we continue this discussion?
16:01:20 <kaz> ek: yes, 15 more minutes
16:01:36 <kaz> jr: consumer to select the option
16:01:47 <kaz> scribenick: dape
16:02:14 <dape> MK: 2 forms with 2 options JSON/CBOR
16:02:27 <dape> ... we need to set Accept option
16:02:56 <dape> EK: Jans proposal seems fine then
16:03:03 <kaz> q?
16:03:05 <kaz> ack k
16:03:09 <dape> ... we might need to add such a 2 form example
16:03:24 <dape> KH: +1, looks good with this new example
16:03:37 <dape> JR: what about HTTP?
16:03:53 <dape> ... accept header needed there as well?
16:04:08 <dape> KH: Yes, exactly the same thing
16:04:18 <dape> JR: makes sense
16:05:34 <dape> EK: in the case contentType is not describable one must put accept
16:06:02 <dape> ... e.g, PDF under same resource ...no dataSchema possible for it
16:09:03 <dape> KH: w.r.t. HTTP protocol binding
16:09:11 <dape> ... should we have similar example ?
16:09:31 <dape> EK: Yes, agree
16:10:14 <dape> JR: will update PR 193
16:10:53 <mjk> mjk has joined #wot-td
16:11:37 <dape> SUBTOPIC: PR#204
16:12:19 <dape> EK: decision, move ontology to archive folder
16:12:27 <kaz> i|decision|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot-binding-templates/pull/204 PR 204 - Move Coap Ontology|
16:12:35 <dape> .... Klaus approved PR
16:13:03 <dape> ... merging
16:13:04 <kaz> q+
16:13:52 <dape> Kaz: if we remove this notation ... how to deal with vocabulary?
16:14:08 <dape> ... issue #97 tracks this issue
16:14:31 <dape> s/... issue #97 /EK: issue #97
16:14:54 <dape> Kaz: what would document describe ?
16:15:07 <dape> EK: explain how to use... default mapping
16:16:32 <dape> Kaz: It would be easier explaining the binding in core document
16:17:01 <dape> EK: I think we would loose people
16:17:23 <dape> Kaz: I suggest to include content in core document
16:17:52 <dape> EK: issue#191 ?
16:18:11 <sebastian_> q+
16:18:11 <dape> ... we are looking for additional arguments
16:18:20 <dape> ... need people's opinion
16:18:52 <dape> Kaz: Not about single vs. multiple documents
16:19:25 <dape> ... need to think about machine and human readable part
16:19:26 <kaz> ack k
16:19:35 <dape> SK: I prefer splitting the documents
16:19:46 <dape> ... core should explain basic concepts
16:20:05 <dape> ... details about protocol binding should be in its own document
16:20:13 <dape> ... makes it also independent
16:20:29 <kaz> s/machine and human readable/machine-readable and human-readable/
16:20:39 <kaz> q+
16:20:46 <kaz> ack s
16:21:11 <dape> ... new protocol would require to touch core document
16:21:30 <dape> ... DID takes similar approach.. core and link is provided
16:22:32 <dape> Kaz: My core point is: we need to clarify how to bind protocol
16:22:48 <dape> ... w.r.t. DID: DID is different
16:23:27 <dape> ... would mean binding needs to change to registry
16:24:23 <dape> ... structure/description of binding mechanism is the problem
16:25:04 <dape> ... the concept needs to be properly described
16:25:10 <dape> EK: I think I understand
16:25:53 <dape> Kaz: Issue should #97 should change name
16:26:01 <dape> EK: will create a new issue
16:26:27 <kaz> s/change name/change the title and the content/
16:27:01 <dape> Kaz: I will create a new issue
16:27:11 <kaz> present+ Michael_Koster
16:27:20 <kaz> q?
16:27:22 <kaz> ack k
16:27:25 <dape> ... should clarify other questions as well
16:28:45 <dape> TOPIC: TD
16:29:04 <dape> SUBTOPIC: status of the TD wide review for CR transition
16:29:26 <dape> SK: I am still waiting for feedback
16:30:07 <dape> ... some horizontal  issues are solved
16:30:48 <dape> ... a problem  that makes it show up "needs resolution" might be a GitHub label issue
16:31:21 <dape> SK: Not sure if this actually an issue
16:31:40 <dape> ... Ralph just asked for exit criteria.. which we provided
16:31:49 <dape> ... maybe Kaz can ping W3C
16:32:07 <kaz> s/ping W3C/ping Ralph and PLH/
16:32:14 <kaz> q_
16:32:15 <kaz> q+
16:33:39 <dape> Kaz: will try to talk to them if we don't get any response
16:33:39 <kaz> s/q_//
16:34:05 <dape> SK: Thanks
16:34:39 <dape> ... would be just good to know if we missed anything
16:35:11 <dape> SUBTOPIC: Missing Implementations
16:35:32 <dape> SK: We should start implementing at risk features
16:35:47 <dape> ... I think Ege has some good news
16:36:09 <dape> EK: played with multilanguages
16:36:31 <dape> ... since playground is in browser it works out of the box
16:36:42 <dape> ... a single assertion is still misisng
16:36:51 <dape> ... editdor supports the same
16:37:16 <dape> ... McCool run tools to generate report
16:37:44 <dape> ... we might need to wait for new implementation report
16:37:54 <dape> SK: Anyhow, good news
16:38:19 <dape> ... 2 assertions are fixed
16:38:28 <dape> EK: I think even 3 of them..
16:38:36 <dape> ack kaz
16:38:58 <dape> SK: PlugFest planned from 12-16
16:39:15 <dape> ... since Kaz is not available on 16 we will stop Dec 15
16:39:28 <kaz> s/will try/as mentioned during the Chairs call 5 hours ago, I'd suggest you ask PLH for help. I'll try/
16:39:42 <dape> EK: I will check oauth from sayWOT
16:40:01 <kaz> s/oauth/OAuth/
16:40:03 <dape> SUBTOPIC: PRs
16:40:06 <kaz> q?
16:40:10 <dape> ... same set as last time
16:40:26 <dape> ... I suggest to wait till we have released CR
16:40:51 <dape> ... to avoid confusions
16:41:05 <kaz> s/multilanguages/td-multi-languages/
16:41:23 <dape> SUBTOPIC: Issue#1747
16:41:35 <dape> EK: about member submission
16:41:55 <dape> ... googling brings up out-dated documents
16:42:00 <kaz> i|We should start|-> https://w3c.github.io/wot-thing-description/testing/report11.html draft implementation report|
16:42:14 <dape> ... people look at it and see W3C.. looks official
16:42:21 <dape> ... what can we do about
16:42:27 <kaz> s/td-multi-languages/multilanguages/
16:43:44 <dape> SK: Web thing model shows older date
16:43:47 <kaz> q+
16:44:19 <dape> ... Agree it is confusing to see this document on Google being a sub-document
16:44:22 <kaz> i|about mem|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues/1747 Issue 1747 - Add a warning about the "other" Thing Model specification|
16:45:06 <dape> q?
16:45:23 <dape> Kaz: I suggest we ignore Google results
16:45:43 <dape> ... member submission is just a member submission
16:45:51 <dape> ... not part of W3C
16:47:06 <kaz> s/W3C/W3C Recommendation/
16:47:07 <dape> EK: We can not do anything?
16:47:28 <dape> SK: Can we ask W3C system people to lower rank certain entries
16:47:44 <dape> ... we cannot influence Google
16:48:11 <dape> Kaz: Like confusion W3C and w3cschool
16:48:16 <dape> ... we cannot avoid this
16:48:51 <kaz> s/Kaz: Like confusion W3C and w3cschool//
16:48:59 <dape> SK: Maybe system folks have ideas
16:49:05 <dape> EK: I can try to ask
16:49:18 <dape> ... btw, do member submission expire ?
16:49:40 <dape> Kaz: all documents will remain. This is W3C policy
16:49:58 <dape> EK: member submission changed?
16:50:10 <dape> Kaz: Yes, it can be updated
16:50:39 <dape> ... work stems from 2015, before WoT started
16:50:47 <kaz> s/... we cannot avoid this/Kaz: we cannot avoid this kind of similar entry to be searched/
16:51:01 <dape> SUBTOPIC: Issue#915
16:51:24 <dape> SK: old issue about RDF
16:51:27 <kaz> s/stems/items/
16:51:39 <dape> ... I think we solved it
16:52:04 <dape> ... Hence, I suggest to close it
16:52:54 <dape> ... -> closing
16:53:03 <dape> SUBTOPIC: Issue#998
16:53:12 <dape> SK: security-based issue
16:53:29 <kaz> i|old issue|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues/915 Issue 915 - Vocabulary term "scheme" not defined when used inside securityDefinitions|
16:53:41 <dape> ... McCool mentions and proposes closing label
16:54:18 <dape> ... -> closing
16:54:18 <kaz> i|security-based|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues/998 Issue 998 - [security] API key and PSK security schemes are not referenced or explained|
16:54:55 <dape> SUBTOPIC: Issue#1053
16:55:02 <dape> SK: Ege put propose closing
16:55:17 <dape> ... Ben added defer 2.0
16:55:41 <kaz> i|Ege put|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues/1053 Issue 1053 - Consider adding DataSchema to response and additionalResponses|
16:55:47 <dape> ... Ben asks for schema for response container
16:56:16 <dape> EK: I don't remember closing it.. it doesn't make sense
16:57:09 <dape> ... it relates to query action in Profile
16:58:09 <dape> SK: Shall we close this issue? Or revisit it in TD2.0?
16:58:23 <dape> EK: I suggest to close it
16:58:45 <dape> SK: discussed in query action topic?
16:58:47 <dape> EK: Agree
16:58:59 <dape> MK: Bigger question
16:59:26 <dape> ... what if we have data schema ... in abstract fashion
16:59:41 <dape> ... suggest we close.. if something remains we should open other issues
17:00:19 <dape> [adjourned]
17:01:45 <kaz> rrsagent, draft minutes
17:01:45 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/11/23-wot-td-minutes.html kaz
17:02:59 <kaz> chair: Ege/Sebastian
17:03:00 <kaz> rrsagent, draft minutes
17:03:00 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/11/23-wot-td-minutes.html kaz
17:03:59 <kaz> s/MK:/MJK:/
17:04:01 <kaz> rrsagent, draft minutes
17:04:01 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/11/23-wot-td-minutes.html kaz