Meeting minutes
Guest
<kaz> W3C Patent Policy 2020
Ege: introducing Bjorn Kamper and reminder about the patent policy
Bjoern: agrees to the patent policy and introduces himself
Kaz: reminder that the words in this call may be used as part of a W3C specification and need to agree on this point
Bjoern: agreed
Bjoern: has projects around information modeling and communication protocols
Bjoern: working on administration shell and OPC-UA
… created OPC companion specs for pumps and compressors
… interested in the BACnet binding for automated creation of monitoring points from information models
Koster: to clarify that TD will map diverse protocols to a common information model
Bjoern: yes, AS is the common information model
Kaz: are you using the protocol binding to adapt to different protocols?
Bjoern: yes, we base this on experience with the modbus binding
Ege: other questions?
review minutes from last week
<kaz> Nov-23
Ege: any comments or changes?
Ege: we need to correct the initials of some people, minutes approved
binding template PRs
PR 209
<kaz> PR 209 - BACnet Binding
PR #209, template for binding templates
Klaus: this is a starting point based examples in the original issue #144
Klaus: we need to respect the BACnet copyright and check for usage rules
Ege: does anyone know what the guideline is?
Klaus: the best outcome is to have BACnet people involved and contributing
Kaz: we need to look at the charter and see what we should include in the W3C document. I don't think copying the content, which is defined by the other SDO, to the Binding Templates document and publish it using the W3C WG Note CSS is included.
Klaus: for example, we need to describe the URL format, which is described in the ASHRAE document
… best would be to get ASHRAE to register the URI scheme with IAMA and make it public
Koster: we also need to look at vocabulary and payload binding
Ege: is Joel Bender the correct contact?
Koster: what is the question to Joel?
Ege: collaborate on the URI scheme and vocabulary
Kaz: we spoke with Joel earlier in the year, but we should, as a group, think more about how we work with these external resources and clarify our needs
… and it should be done in the context of an official liaison agreement, at least a simple liaison.
Sebastian: our charter does have a provision for interacting with external organizations around binding templates
Kaz: we need to have more discussion and get beyond the abstract charter
<kaz> current WoT WG Charter
Ege: OK, we will schedule that discussion
review the updated and simplified binding templates document
<kaz> PR 198 - Overview of the binding templates documents and relationship with others
Ege: please review and see if we can merge the updates next week
Cristiano: looks good, will review and provide feedback
content negotiation for CoAP
<kaz> PR 193 - Alternative proposal for handling CoAP Content-Formats
Ege: Jan has updated the document
Ege: discussion of the use of the accept option
… any comments or questions?
Klaus: didn't have time to look at the changes, but looks good except for the missing table entry
… if Jan will update and send to Klaus, he will review and approve
Ege: if no further objections, we will merge on Klaus' approval
<Ege> proposal: merge PR 193 once Klaus Hartke gives positive review
RESOLUTION: Merge PR 193 once Klaus Hartke gives positive review
PR #211, remove link to the CoAP ontology
<kaz> PR 211 - Remove ontology link from coap
Ege: any objections?
… merged
PR #183, Modbus design
<kaz> PR 183 - feat(modbus): move addres and quantity to URL components
Ege: we have already discussed, are there any further comments?
Cristiano: it looks like everything is addressed
… there is some work to support a future subscription mechanism that doesn't impact this PR
Ege: we should track this and see what the requirement to support is
Ege: there is a general question about non-IP protocols
Ege: is there a need to identify observable properties vs. polling?
Cristiano: there are issues about programming the sample rate, etc.
… there needs to be an abstraction
Cristiano: we should think the modbus case through
Kaz: we need to think about the general use case across different protocols
… both the abstraction and the concrete translation requirements
… for example, the payload mapping for BACnet
Ege: interesting to think about where the consumer functions need to go in the WoT specifications
PR #210, CODEOWNERS to automate review requests
<kaz> PR 210 - Create CODEOWNERS
Klaus: owners should also have permission to write
Ege: authors should be code owners
Kaz: do we really need this?
Ege: the reasons are automation and transparency
Koster: the automation would be helpful for me
Ege: the automation would help because we have a lot of documents
Kaz: we still need to have leads keep track of the process
Daniel: is write access for code owners necessary?
Klaus: it looks like write access is required to make code owners work
Kaz: we could give editors write permission through the editors team
Klaus: then all team members would get all review requests
Sebastian: I have the ability to change the settings as needed
Ege: the action needed is to add Klaus and Cristiano to the editors team
Kaz: I can do that
ACTION: kaz to give Klaus and Cristiano write permission for wot-binding-templates
how to use @context for vocabularies
<kaz> PR 212 - Add context and vocabulary requirement
Ege: this is done by example but not specified
Cristiano: is it a question of specifying the IRI?
Ege: it's needed to resolve references
Cristiano: can we allocate the IRIs for each vocabulary?
Ege: yes, we need to publish these
Klaus: we need specific instructions
Ege: creating a follow-up issue #216 for this
Ege: any more comments?
… merged
Klaus: has permission to merge now
Kaz: we should be careful about the policy now, so we avoid accidental merges
schemas for protocol binding templates
<kaz> Issue 205 - JSON Schemas of Protocol Binding Templates
<cris_> +1
Ege: proposing to include a schema with a protocol binding, please review issue #205
TD
CR Transition
<kaz> transitions issue 467 - CR Request for Web of Things (WoT) Thing Description 1.1
Ege: the CR Transition Request has been issued on the transition repository
… there is still an issue of API keys in JSON payloads
<kaz> 6.3.4.5 API key usage
Ege: there seems to be an old pattern that we may not need to support
Daniel: this is also being reviewed in the security team
new charter items, issue #1033
<kaz> ege: lease review and propose items for discussion next week
PR for ordering assertions as they appear in the specification
<kaz> PR 1752 - Update Implementation Report (Indexing)
Sebastian: we agreed to do this
Ege: merged
<Ege> https://
<kaz> wot PR 1033 - Create new charter items for TD
Ege: please review and prepare for discussion
issues labeled to be closed
Sebastian: start with the oldest
<Ege> https://
Ege: issue #1135 - closed
<Ege> https://
Ege: issue #1177 - composition vs. inheritance
… there are examples of composition in the TD 1.1 document
Sebastian: agree
Ege: closed
<Ege> https://
Ege: issue # 1267, W3C logo
Kaz: we can ignore this, as the public version doesn't have the issue
Ege: closed
<Ege> https://
(back)
Ege: issue #1280 closed
<Ege> https://
<Ege> https://
Ege: issue #1350 - use case documents for TD and protocol binding
Sebastian: we can review at the use case call next week
Ege: OK
<Ege> https://
Ege: issue #1413 - available language/locale
Sebastian: there was another issue that was closed in i18n
Ege: closed
<Ege> https://
Ege: issue #1497 - identifiers don't rotate enough
… security has reviewed and proposed closing
… closed
Ege: we are out of time today, is there any other business
… none, adjourned