14:51:44 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #wot-td
14:51:44 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2022/12/07-wot-td-irc
14:51:55 <kaz> meeting: WoT-WG - TD-TF
15:05:58 <Ege> kaz are you joining the TD call?
15:06:27 <cris_> cris_ has joined #wot-td
15:06:40 <JKRhb> JKRhb has joined #wot-td
15:12:06 <kaz> present+ Kaz_Ashimura, Ege_Korkan, Cristiano_Aguzzi, Jan_Romann, Klaus_Hartke, Michael_Koster, Sebastian_Kaebisch
15:12:27 <JKRhb> scribenick: JKRhb
15:13:30 <JKRhb> topic: Agenda
15:13:55 <JKRhb> ek: Only until 5:30 pm (CET) today
15:14:12 <JKRhb> topic: Minutes Review
15:14:23 <JKRhb> ek: (goes over last meeting's minutes)
15:14:50 <JKRhb> ... we had a guest regarding the BACnet binding
15:15:12 <JKRhb> ... dealt with CoAP PRs, Content negotiation will be resolved today
15:15:30 <JKRhb> ... we had Modbus PR, not sure why we didn't merge it
15:15:48 <JKRhb> ... we merged a PR regarding codeowners in the binding templates repository
15:16:07 <JKRhb> ... in the TD call, we looked at the CR transition and missing features
15:16:18 <JKRhb> ... new charter items
15:16:30 <JKRhb> ... deal with the order of assertions
15:16:42 <JKRhb> ... and closed a number of old issues
15:16:54 <kaz> q+
15:17:09 <JKRhb> ... looks quite good to me, full meeting, any objections to approving the minutes?
15:17:16 <sebastian> sebastian has joined #wot-td
15:17:50 <JKRhb> There are none, minutes are approved
15:18:13 <JKRhb> topic: Binding Templates PRs
15:18:15 <kaz> ack k
15:18:24 <JKRhb> subtopic: PR #198
15:18:34 <kaz> i|goes over|-> https://www.w3.org/2022/11/30-wot-td-minutes.html Nov-30|
15:18:40 <kaz> rrsagent, make log public
15:18:44 <kaz> rrsagent, draft minutes
15:18:44 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/12/07-wot-td-minutes.html kaz
15:19:05 <JKRhb> ek: We discussed this last time, Cristiano wanted to review it, are you fine with the changes?
15:19:15 <JKRhb> ca: Changes look good to me
15:19:23 <JKRhb> ek: (Merges the PR)
15:19:25 <JKRhb> Merged
15:19:40 <JKRhb> subtopic: PR #193
15:19:59 <JKRhb> ek: Last week, there was some feedback from the group to Jan
15:20:16 <JKRhb> ... in the meantime, there has been some discussion which has been resolved
15:20:23 <JKRhb> ... so we can go ahead with merging
15:20:33 <JKRhb> ... are there any remarks or objections to merging?
15:20:41 <kaz> i|We dis|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot-binding-templates/pull/198 PR 198 - Overview of the binding templates documents and relationship with others|
15:20:46 <JKRhb> ... not hearing anything, then we can merge the PR
15:20:54 <JKRhb> ... (merging)
15:20:57 <JKRhb> Merged
15:21:35 <JKRhb> ek: With this merged, we can also take content negotiation to the HTTP binding
15:21:43 <JKRhb> subtopic: PR #183
15:21:56 <JKRhb> ek: Coming back to the Modbus redesign PR
15:22:10 <JKRhb> ... we had some discussion which seems to be resolved
15:22:28 <JKRhb> ... would propose merging, are there any more comments?
15:22:30 <cris_> +1 for mergining
15:22:44 <JKRhb> ek: Okay, then we can merge
15:22:48 <JKRhb> ... (merging)
15:22:51 <JKRhb> Merged
15:23:09 <JKRhb> ek: With this we are done with the current PRs
15:23:19 <JKRhb> ... the rest are more for discussion in the future
15:23:29 <JKRhb> topic: Binding Templates Issues
15:23:42 <JKRhb> subtopic: Issue #213
15:23:56 <JKRhb> ek: Kaz opened this issue after last call
15:24:05 <JKRhb> ... this issue consolidates a number of others
15:24:12 <kaz> i|Last week|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot-binding-templates/pull/193 PR 193 - Alternative proposal for handling CoAP Content-Formats|
15:24:44 <kaz> i|Coming back|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot-binding-templates/pull/183 PR 183 - feat(modbus): move addres and quantity to URL components|
15:24:46 <JKRhb> ... the first deals with the ambiguity of what a Binding Template actually is
15:25:03 <JKRhb> ... the second one deals with the relationship to the ontologies
15:25:14 <JKRhb> ... I commented yesterday
15:25:28 <cris_> q+
15:25:41 <JKRhb> ... we are currently linking to the HTML version of the ontologies, so I would propose naming them ontology documentation
15:25:42 <kaz> i|the first|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot-binding-templates/issues/213 Issue 213 - Need for improving the description within the Binding Templates document|
15:25:43 <kaz> q+
15:25:47 <kaz> ack c
15:26:04 <JKRhb> ca: There are a lot of points, can we split the issue into multiple ones?
15:26:16 <JKRhb> ... not sure if it is more of a discussion issue
15:26:22 <JKRhb> ... we could also create a checklist
15:26:42 <JKRhb> kaz: Before creating this issues, I actually read all related documents and sub-documents
15:26:49 <JKRhb> ... and got really confused
15:26:52 <mjk> mjk has joined #wot-td
15:27:02 <mjk> q?
15:27:12 <JKRhb> ... I don't understand what you want to describe for binding purposes
15:28:30 <kaz> ack k
15:28:42 <kaz> rrsagent, make log public
15:28:45 <JKRhb> ... for example, if we want to create a liason we would use the existing documents as a basis. These should better explain how to bind existing SDOs and protocols to the WoT
15:28:49 <kaz> rrsagent, draft minutes
15:28:49 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/12/07-wot-td-minutes.html kaz
15:29:18 <kaz> chair: Ege
15:29:40 <kaz> present+ Tomoaki_Mizushima
15:29:46 <JKRhb> ek: I understand your question, I think the main problem is that we are explaining how to create a binding template but not what a binding is
15:30:05 <JKRhb> ... however, this is more an issue with the architecture document, in my opinion
15:30:23 <JKRhb> ... (shows the architecture document)
15:30:24 <kaz> q+
15:30:51 <JKRhb> ... there is an explanation in the document, that might not be that easy to understand
15:30:54 <Ege> q?
15:31:13 <JKRhb> ... however, the binding templates should also be able to work standalone
15:31:32 <JKRhb> ... the explanations need to be clarified in general
15:32:21 <JKRhb> kaz: I suggested a clarification already a year ago. We should clarify the relationship and the role of bindings/binding templates before going into the next charter period
15:32:39 <JKRhb> ek: But is the current explanation really that unclear?
15:33:10 <JKRhb> ... if so, then the explanation in the architecture document might need a refinement
15:33:32 <JKRhb> ... or the explanation needs to be included in the binding templates document
15:34:19 <sebastian> q+
15:34:20 <JKRhb> kaz: If there is a redundancy between the architecture and the binding templates, then we need to think about whether the latter is actually needed
15:34:44 <JKRhb> ... before creating new bindings, there is a clarification and a better explanation needed
15:35:11 <mjk> q+
15:36:10 <JKRhb> ... if the description is already included in the architecture, then the core document could be removed
15:36:33 <JKRhb> ... bindings are very important for the next charter period
15:36:52 <kaz> ack k
15:37:03 <JKRhb> ... and is the basis for further cooperations with, e.g., BACnet, NETCONF, or OPC UA
15:37:45 <Ege> q?
15:37:47 <cris_> q?
15:37:52 <JKRhb> ek: I think everyone agrees on that, the way is not that clear yet, though
15:38:51 <JKRhb> kaz: As I mentioned, I read the core document carefully again and what you are providing is not a guideline for how to create a binding but for how to create a document
15:39:12 <JKRhb> .. but that is not the most important point from an industry viewpoint
15:39:30 <JKRhb> sk: I can understand you, Kaz
15:39:57 <JKRhb> ... we need to take this into account to improve the clarity of the documents
15:40:09 <kaz> qq+
15:40:16 <JKRhb> ... however, we also need to take developer feedback into account
15:40:17 <kaz> ack s
15:40:44 <JKRhb> ... and I never heard that there are any problems
15:40:50 <JKRhb> ... or got bad feedback
15:41:04 <JKRhb> ... so we need to ask the developers again for feedback and what we need to improve
15:41:12 <JKRhb> kaz: That is correct
15:41:41 <JKRhb> ... also consider that this is an optional document for which we haven't provided an update yet
15:42:14 <JKRhb> ... therefore, the document has not been relevant for some implementors
15:42:26 <JKRhb> sk: You are right, we need to publish an update here
15:42:44 <JKRhb> kaz: I think the old version was also clearer than the current one
15:42:57 <JKRhb> ... maybe because some text has been removed
15:42:59 <kaz> ack k
15:42:59 <Zakim> kaz, you wanted to react to kaz
15:43:16 <JKRhb> ... we should reconsider the document based on the industry feedback
15:43:38 <Ege> q+
15:43:49 <JKRhb> sk: I would propose reaching out for feedback and to ask them if we should take the old direction or the new one
15:44:01 <cris_> +1 for asking feedback
15:44:25 <cris_> q+
15:44:42 <Ege> q?
15:44:52 <JKRhb> kaz: I agree, this is also why I asked Mizushima-San to invite implementors such as ECHONET or Takenaka
15:45:34 <JKRhb> sk: Maybe we should create a special issue where people can give feedback on their preferred style of document
15:45:51 <JKRhb> mjk: I agree that we need to develop the industry viewpoint
15:46:05 <JKRhb> ... we need to provide more than two options, though
15:46:19 <kaz> q?
15:46:22 <kaz> ack mjk
15:46:22 <JKRhb> ... the actual way of surveying the developers needs some more thinking
15:46:23 <kaz> q+
15:46:55 <JKRhb> ... the description/guidelines should be on a high-level
15:47:12 <kaz> rrsagent, draft minutes
15:47:12 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/12/07-wot-td-minutes.html kaz
15:47:30 <JKRhb> ... that could be used by developers to create a binding, after reading the architecture document
15:47:51 <JKRhb> ... we also haven't discussed how the governance for new bindings should work
15:48:08 <JKRhb> ... how should the artifacts be maintained?
15:48:23 <JKRhb> ... we probably need two documents for bindings
15:48:39 <JKRhb> ... 1. operational document with state-machines etc.
15:48:47 <Ege> q?
15:48:50 <JKRhb> 2. a document for the vocabulary
15:49:02 <JKRhb> s/2. a/... 2. a/
15:49:15 <JKRhb> ... sometimes, they could probably be combined
15:49:27 <mjk> ack m
15:49:54 <JKRhb> ... the ontology might not be published by the W3C
15:50:13 <JKRhb> ek: This is actually already the case for some bindings, e.g., HTTP
15:51:30 <cris_> ege: we didn't remove some parts they are moved to a dedicated orphaned section
15:51:36 <kaz> i/we did/scribenick: cris_/
15:51:41 <cris_> ... we have a todo iteme to bring it back
15:52:00 <cris_> s/iteme/item/
15:52:02 <Ege> q?
15:52:04 <cris_> ack e
15:52:04 <Ege> ack e
15:53:22 <kaz> ca: think the current structure is good
15:53:38 <kaz> ... the previous one is referring to the old TD 1.0 version
15:54:09 <kaz> ... so simply comparing the current Binding Templates doc to the old doc is a bit dangerous
15:54:17 <kaz> i/think/scribenick: kaz/
15:54:21 <kaz> ack c
15:54:21 <Ege> q?
15:54:55 <cris_> kaz: I am not asking to revert to the previous status
15:55:22 <cris_> ... but better I'm asking to think more about the structure before moving on with the updates
15:55:49 <cris_> ... I understand the complicated relationships with the other documents
15:55:54 <Ege> q+
15:55:57 <Ege> ack k
15:56:35 <cris_> ... but the structure is important and it should be done based on feedback of industry implementers
15:56:45 <cris_> ... that would make the document nicer
15:57:31 <kaz> s/but better/but rather/
15:57:46 <cris_> ege: the architecture document should give an abstract information about binding templates.
15:57:53 <kaz> s/other documents/other documents like WoT Architecture/
15:58:08 <mjk> q?
15:58:14 <kaz> s/the structure/the document structure/
15:58:15 <Ege> ack e
15:58:28 <cris_> ... on the other hand Protocol binding templates document should give an in depth and concrete explanation
15:58:29 <kaz> s/should be done/should be improved/
15:58:37 <cris_> ... I've created two issues
15:58:40 <kaz> s/based on/based on the/
15:58:47 <cris_> ... please consider them due to next week
15:58:50 <kaz> s/feedback of/feedback from/
15:59:45 <mjk> q+
15:59:53 <cris_> ... we have also to consider if the input can be anonymous or not
16:00:00 <kaz> q+
16:00:03 <kaz> ack m
16:00:12 <cris_> mk: I think when we do the survey we have to look for what we are missing
16:00:46 <cris_> ... we can get inputs to next work items
16:00:50 <mjk> ack m
16:00:56 <cris_> ... like a starting point
16:01:14 <kaz> s/like a/as a/
16:01:33 <cris_> ... first we have to be sure that the current document have the state that we want it to be
16:01:43 <McCool> McCool has joined #wot-td
16:01:49 <cris_> ... then we can ask feedback about what is missing and asking suggestion for improvements
16:02:00 <cris_> ... it should be clear that we are asking for gaps in the understanding
16:02:31 <kaz> q?
16:02:34 <Ege> q+
16:02:36 <Ege> q=
16:02:38 <Ege> q-
16:03:01 <cris_> kaz: I completely agree with Michael
16:03:51 <cris_> ... I also asked to Mishusima san to explain what we expect from protocol binding templates and how concrete protocols can be mapped to WoT
16:04:30 <cris_> ... we should ourselves improve our understanding of protocol binding mechanism
16:04:35 <cris_> ... and then ask feedback
16:05:02 <cris_> ege: my suggestion is to label issues that we have to be done before asking for feedback
16:05:24 <kaz> s/I also/That's why I also/
16:05:31 <kaz> s/asked to/asked/
16:05:34 <cris_> ... I can do it
16:05:43 <cris_> ... I already have some issues in mind
16:05:56 <Ege> q?
16:05:56 <cris_> ... core document should be prioritized
16:05:58 <Ege> ack k
16:06:16 <kaz> s/mapped to WoT/mapped to WoT when he organizes an event to get feedback from industry implementers./
16:06:51 <cris_> topic: Thing Description
16:06:59 <cris_> ege: welcome Elodie
16:07:35 <kaz> present+ Elodie_Thieblin
16:07:38 <kaz> q+
16:07:49 <cris_> ege: we have 67 types of labels
16:07:54 <cris_> ... what should we do?
16:08:02 <cris_> ... is it a problem?
16:08:45 <kaz> (Elodie's self intro to be moved later :)
16:08:58 <cris_> et: hello, I'm working on behalf of siemens. We did a prototype of a TDD. We had some questions about TD
16:09:11 <cris_> ege: she is an expert of Semantic web technologies
16:09:19 <cris_> ... it is good that we have her on board
16:09:26 <McCool> q+
16:09:31 <cris_> ... back to label issue
16:09:31 <kaz> ack k
16:09:43 <kaz> present+ Michael_McCool
16:09:46 <cris_> ... many of them have no assigned issues/pr
16:10:01 <cris_> mc: do we have redundant labels?
16:10:03 <kaz> i/back to label issue/subtopic: Issue labels/
16:10:21 <cris_> ... we should go one by one and understand if they are obsolete or redundant
16:10:44 <cris_> mk: I agree with Michael
16:11:03 <cris_> mc: don't delete them right away but open an issue to discuss.
16:11:23 <cris_> ege: problem is some of this labels make sense for past issues
16:11:38 <cris_> topic: CR transition
16:11:45 <cris_> mc: we have to add a label
16:11:50 <cris_> ... now is done
16:11:59 <cris_> ... and they will met on Friday
16:12:11 <cris_> ... so more news incoming
16:12:26 <cris_> topic: missing implementations
16:12:56 <cris_> ege: apikey in body is missing, but it is important (it used by Amazon greengrass)
16:13:24 <cris_> mc: I would prioritize basic functionalities
16:13:37 <cris_> q+
16:14:01 <McCool> ack m
16:14:17 <cris_> topic: Pull Requests
16:14:20 <kaz> i|apikey|-> https://w3c.github.io/wot-thing-description/testing/report11.html TD Draft Implementation Report|
16:14:25 <cris_> subtopic: PR 1733
16:14:34 <kaz> s/have to add a/had to add a/
16:14:54 <kaz> i|add a label|-> https://github.com/w3c/transitions/issues/474 TD Transition Request|
16:14:57 <kaz> q?
16:14:58 <cris_> ege: the pr provides a crosslink beteween implementations and results
16:15:03 <cris_> ... no problem with it
16:15:06 <cris_> ack c
16:15:28 <cris_> ... the tool il called xref.py and it is in the wot-profile repo
16:16:04 <kaz> i|the pr pro|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/pull/1733 PR 1733 - PR 1733 - Overview - all TD implementations|
16:16:04 <cris_> mc: tool has some limitations
16:16:19 <kaz> s/il called/is called/
16:16:26 <cris_> ege: I think he fixed it
16:16:38 <cris_> ... the line numbers are ok
16:16:58 <cris_> mc: does he take into account child assertions?
16:17:01 <cris_> ege: yes
16:17:16 <cris_> ... is it fine to merge it?
16:17:18 <cris_> mc: ok
16:17:23 <Ege> q?
16:18:00 <Ege> https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues/1751
16:18:19 <cris_> subtopic: PR 1684
16:20:14 <Ege> ca: Thanks Elodie for feedback. I have made improvements but there are issues that I could not fix
16:21:47 <kaz> rrsagent, draft minutes
16:21:47 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/12/07-wot-td-minutes.html kaz
16:22:48 <kaz> i|Thanks|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/pull/1684 PR 1684 - Fix shacl, context and ontology|
16:22:58 <kaz> q+
16:24:58 <cris_> cris: I took some shortcuts and for example the renderer now force strings for some types
16:25:19 <cris_> et: it is difficult to make everything work
16:25:45 <cris_> ... I agree, but be careful that adding the language tag force it to be always english
16:26:00 <cris_> ... not against but it closes the standard.
16:26:19 <kaz> i/I am not asking/scribenick: cris_/
16:26:22 <kaz> rrsagent, draft minutes
16:26:22 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/12/07-wot-td-minutes.html kaz
16:26:35 <cris_> ... also there are things that still does not comply to the ontology
16:26:38 <kaz> i/Thanks Elodie/scribenick: Ege/
16:26:49 <cris_> ... it is also a bug in the jsonld
16:26:50 <kaz> i/I took some/scribenick: cris_/
16:26:52 <kaz> rrsagent, draft minutes
16:26:52 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/12/07-wot-td-minutes.html kaz
16:26:55 <cris_> ... we should push it
16:27:05 <cris_> ... they are trying to solve it
16:27:08 <Ege> q?
16:27:13 <cris_> ... but it is not going to be soon solved
16:28:14 <kaz> s/beteween/between/
16:29:26 <cris_> cris: I agree with the problem of the title
16:30:11 <cris_> et: having lang strings all around is annoying
16:30:31 <cris_> ... most of the problem is when you combine TD context with TD context
16:32:26 <cris_> kaz: I'm confused about talking about this PR. It is a big change... we have submitted our CR request
16:32:52 <cris_> ... you said it is an editoral change
16:32:59 <cris_> ... but it contains too many chages
16:33:11 <cris_> s/chages/changes/
16:33:20 <cris_> ... it is not good
16:33:34 <sebastian> q+
16:33:52 <sebastian> agree with Kaz. Lets wait until CR is published
16:37:36 <cris_> kaz: if we are not getting any changes in the index.html it is fine to merge, but we have to be careful and check if it is really true
16:38:33 <cris_> cris: I agree that the PR is contentious
16:38:52 <sebastian> ack s
16:38:57 <kaz> ack k
16:39:24 <cris_> mc: we should wait for CR
16:39:47 <cris_> ... and who is merging this needs to double check this.
16:40:41 <kaz> s/agree with Kaz/Sebastian: agree with Kaz/
16:42:38 <kaz> s/really true/really true. Also we need to explain that we added these changes without any impact to the spec itself within the CR Transition Request or the PR Transition Request./
16:42:55 <kaz> s/the PR is con/the Pullrequest is con/
16:47:49 <kaz> -> https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/pull/1684#issuecomment-1341261017 Cristiano's comments
16:47:51 <kaz> [adjourned]
16:47:55 <kaz> rrsagent, draft minute
16:47:55 <RRSAgent> I'm logging. I don't understand 'draft minute', kaz.  Try /msg RRSAgent help
16:48:00 <kaz> s/rrsagent, draft minute//
16:48:01 <kaz> rrsagent, draft minutes
16:48:01 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/12/07-wot-td-minutes.html kaz
19:44:47 <kaz> kaz has joined #wot-td
19:56:41 <Zakim> Zakim has left #wot-td