15:04:56 RRSAgent has joined #wot-td 15:05:01 logging to https://www.w3.org/2023/03/08-wot-td-irc 15:05:08 meeting: WoT-WG - TD-TF 15:05:19 present+ Kaz_Ashimura, Ege_Korkan, Daniel_Peintner, Klaus_Hartke 15:05:23 present+ Michael_Koster 15:05:27 chair: Ege 15:05:37 regrets+ Sebastian, Cristiano, McCool 15:07:17 topic: Minutes 15:07:26 -> https://www.w3.org/2023/03/01-wot-td-minutes.html Mar-1 15:08:54 q+ 15:09:53 ek: the minutes look good 15:10:03 kaz: jan needs to provide his points for one part 15:10:10 s/jan/Jan/ 15:10:50 i/the minutes/scribenick: Ege/ 15:11:09 topic: Charter Related Topics 15:11:20 s/part/part. So let's revisit the review next week after getting clarification from Jan./ 15:11:45 ek: css has an interesting mechanism about feature dependencies 15:11:52 q+ 15:12:15 subtopic: TF Lead 15:12:17 ack k 15:12:26 scribenick: ka 15:12:29 scribenick: kaz 15:12:34 s/scribenick: kaz// 15:13:00 ek: there was discussion about WG Chairs during the Charter discussion 15:13:19 ... and McCool and Sebastian mentioned it would make sense to think about TF leaders as well 15:13:21 q? 15:13:22 q+ 15:13:56 ... are there any opinions 15:14:04 mjk has joined #wot-td 15:14:05 JKRhb has joined #wot-td 15:15:10 q+ 15:15:28 kaz: as mentioned during the Charter meeting, we should separately talk about this 15:15:30 ack k 15:15:48 dape: discussion on Chairs is done during the main call today 15:16:13 ... maybe it would be make sense to have discussion about TF leads in general now 15:16:36 s/about this/about this, because TF leads can be assigned by the TFs themselves./ 15:16:37 ack dape 15:16:44 q+ 15:16:49 +1 kaz 15:17:45 kaz: yes, we can have discussion during this call ourselves 15:18:03 ... but we don't need to and should not bind this topic with Charter discussion 15:18:17 JKRhb has joined #wot-td 15:18:40 q+ 15:18:47 JKRhb has joined #wot-td 15:19:38 ... my only suggestion is you talk with Koster about the Binding part 15:19:38 ack k 15:19:38 rrsagent, make log public 15:19:40 rrsagent, draft minutes 15:19:41 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/03/08-wot-td-minutes.html kaz 15:19:59 q? 15:20:01 s/this call ourselves/this call ourselves as part of the TF agenda :)/ 15:20:04 ack k 15:21:37 mjk: If this call continues as a combined activity, I'm also interested to be a (co) TF leader 15:21:39 ack mjk 15:21:58 ek: if anybody else is also interested, please let us know 15:22:33 topic: Versioning - revisited 15:22:50 -> https://www.w3.org/Style/2011/CSS-process.en.html CSS versioning mechanism 15:23:48 -> https://w3c.github.io/wot-thing-description/ Thing Description 1.1 ED 15:24:29 present+ Tomoaki_MIzushima 15:24:40 rrsagent, draft minutes 15:24:41 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/03/08-wot-td-minutes.html kaz 15:25:10 ek: we'll keep adding features 15:25:38 ... so the question is how to deal with the combination of related specs 15:25:52 ... and looked at CSS versioning policy 15:26:04 i/there was discussion about/scribenick: kaz/ 15:26:50 i/css has an/subtopic: Versioning/ 15:26:50 s/topic: Versioning - revisited/subtopic: Versioning - revisited/ 15:26:50 rrsagent, draft minutes 15:26:51 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/03/08-wot-td-minutes.html kaz 15:27:37 ... (refers to the section of "LEVELS 1, 2, 3 AND ABOVE") 15:27:47 q+ 15:29:40 q+ 15:29:58 kaz: note that this is not an issue on "the WG Charter" but an important issue about the W3C WoT spec family 15:30:03 ek: right 15:30:23 s/family/family. Having discussion during this call itself is fine, though./ 15:30:25 ack k 15:30:26 ack d 15:30:40 dp: we should have our own policy in any case 15:31:20 ... if there is breaking changes from the compatibility viewpoint, we should use major version up for the new version, e.g., 2.0 15:32:03 ek: implies there could be some changes without compatibility for the major version up 15:32:08 dp: right 15:32:16 q+ 15:33:06 ack k 15:33:18 q+ 15:33:21 kaz: note that there are two related but different issues here 15:33:28 ... 1. TD version itself 15:33:54 ... 2. version for compatible WoT specs at some point 15:33:58 ek: right 15:34:15 kaz: we could start with putting those two issues as the starting point 15:34:41 s/itself/itself, e.g., TD 1.0, 1.1, 2.0/ 15:35:07 ack mjk 15:35:33 ek: agree this issue should not be tied with the Charter discussion 15:36:06 q? 15:37:04 mjk: want to verify we would be asking people who registry of binding about major revisions but should not bother about the minor revisions 15:37:19 s/who registry/who refers to the registry/ 15:37:35 q? 15:38:19 ek: ok 15:38:43 kaz: would be good to record those points as "initial viewpoints" 15:38:52 s/ek: ok// 15:38:55 ek: ok 15:39:01 ... (records the points) 15:39:13 https://github.com/w3c/wot/issues/1082 15:39:26 topic: Minutes review - revisited 15:39:44 ek: would like clarification from you for the previous minutes 15:40:14 jr: can send concrete text to fill the "@@@" part 15:40:17 kaz: ok 15:40:28 ... assuming that clarification, we can approved the minutes 15:40:35 (minutes approved) 15:40:58 topic: Binding Templates 15:41:03 subtopic: PR 246 15:41:04 https://github.com/w3c/wot-binding-templates/pull/246 15:41:32 s|https://github.com/w3c/wot-binding-templates/pull/246|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot-binding-templates/pull/246 PR 246 - Generate CoAP vocabulary from RDF| 15:42:20 jr: some progress here 15:42:31 ... JSON-LD context 15:42:38 ... also some semantic updates 15:43:24 ek: Klaus, any opinions? 15:43:50 kh: may I share my screen? 15:43:53 ek: sure 15:44:00 present+ Jan_Romann 15:45:23 ... (shows the Binding Templates ED on the left side; the file changed on the right sidde) 15:45:23 s/sidde/side/ 15:45:39 ... bunch of new files coming in 15:46:56 s/Binding Templates/CoAP Binding/ 15:47:15 -> https://w3c.github.io/wot-binding-templates/bindings/protocols/coap/index.html#form-terms CoAP Binding Template ED - 4.1 Form terms 15:47:32 q+ 15:48:03 -> https://github.com/w3c/wot-binding-templates/pull/246/files#diff-4858bd5446888ac3badb40980c7c233d9ed694070123a92a888875316307b169 coap.ttl within PR 246 15:48:06 ack J 15:48:42 q+ 15:49:23 jr: related to general question on the conversion mechanism 15:50:20 kaz: what's the mechanism you used to generate the HTML from the TTL file? 15:50:32 jr: edited the coap.ttl file by hand 15:50:59 ... then using the template.sparql to map the terms from coap.ttl to index.html 15:51:24 ... followed the mechanism used for MQTT and HTTP 15:51:47 ek: adopted to the mechanism which is used for TD 15:52:22 kaz: similar or exactly same? 15:52:27 ek: not exactly same 15:52:46 ... but added necessary configuration changes 15:53:29 q? 15:53:31 ... btw, it would be better not to define the ontology ourselves 15:53:32 ack k 15:53:35 q+ 15:53:46 ... would like Klaus to look into the detail 15:54:26 kh: this TTL file should include the vocabulary for the binding mechanism itself 15:54:34 ... not bigger than that or less than that 15:55:48 s/not bigger than that or less than that/not bigger or less than that/ 15:55:48 q+ 15:55:48 q+ 15:55:55 jr: can remove extra part 15:56:06 ... for actual binding purposes 15:56:28 ek: once an ontology is published, the developers can understand what is necessary 15:57:14 ack j 15:57:29 kh: let's make it simple 15:57:49 mjk: we have overlapping of two knowledge domains 15:58:01 ... IETF has terminology definition about CoAP 15:58:51 ... we could create a familiar knowledge layer, though 15:59:16 ... binding should simply refer to the CoAP vocabulary 15:59:38 kh: we originally had a vocabulary document for HTTP using RDF 16:00:57 ... we need to describe the expectation on the other side on a device 16:01:14 s/using/in/ 16:01:43 -> https://www.w3.org/TR/2017/NOTE-HTTP-in-RDF10-20170202/ HTTP Vocabulary in RDF 1.0 16:02:29 mjk: would agree with the approach 16:03:54 ... we're creating a best practice on how to refer to the CoAP vocabulary. right? 16:03:57 ... ASHRAE provides BACnet vocabulary. right? 16:03:57 q? 16:03:57 ack mj 16:05:31 ack k 16:05:44 kaz: we should remember our basic policy 16:05:55 ... the question is what if the original SDO is not available any more 16:05:59 mjk: right 16:06:37 kh: (goes through the "Files changed" for coap.html) 16:07:03 -> https://github.com/w3c/wot-binding-templates/pull/246/files#diff-ac6ffb1245923fa5b570cfd5119f0e11fc42e87df45143897321f2f144821a91 coap.html within PR 246 16:07:44 s/policy/policy that we should refer to the existing vocabulary defined by the original SDOs, e.g., IETF and ASHRAE./ 16:08:13 q? 16:09:28 kh: we don't really handle the RDF vocabulary used by the original SDO's standard like BACnet 16:09:50 ek: we just need smaller part of the original vocabulary 16:10:11 ... but we need to define some additional terms too 16:10:32 q+ 16:10:43 kh: maybe we need to look into concrete cases 16:10:47 https://www.w3.org/TR/HTTP-in-RDF10/ 16:11:26 kaz: btw, we're out of time technically 16:13:08 https://deploy-preview-246--wot-binding-templates.netlify.app/bindings/protocols/coap/index.html 16:13:38 kaz: would like to suggest we merge this PR 246 itself for further discussion 16:14:04 kh: would prefer not merging this now 16:16:34 kaz: in that case, I'm OK not merging this PR now 16:17:26 ... but probably it would be better to continue the discussion next week 16:17:37 kh: will not be available next week... 16:17:56 ek: March 22 instead? 16:17:58 kh: ok 16:19:22 ek: would think about the vocabulary creation guide as well 16:19:47 -> https://github.com/w3c/wot-binding-templates/issues/216 Issue 216 - Instructions on how to create a vocabulary and publish should be provided 16:20:01 subtopic: Issue 232 16:20:29 -> https://github.com/w3c/wot-binding-templates/issues/232 Issue 232 - Next WD Path 16:21:03 ek: (goes through the check list) 16:21:28 subtopic: Issue 255 16:21:50 -> https://github.com/w3c/wot-binding-templates/issues/255 Issue 255 - A diagram to help understand what is happening in operation mappings. 16:22:22 ek: would be better to have a diagram on the operations for Binding 16:22:59 ... generated an initial description 16:23:05 ... and got comments from Daniel 16:23:09 q+ 16:23:14 ack k 16:23:22 -> https://github.com/w3c/wot-binding-templates/issues/255#issuecomment-1460223371 Ege's initial description 16:23:35 -> https://github.com/w3c/wot-binding-templates/issues/255#issuecomment-1460286890 Daniel's comments 16:23:49 mjk: would like to look into it 16:24:14 ack mjk 16:24:15 ... can be improved based on this direction 16:24:18 q+ 16:25:24 kaz: agree 16:25:33 ... starting with a TD excerpt is good 16:25:47 ... we could describe the interaction sequence based on this 16:25:59 ... when the Consumer gets what from the Device side 16:26:29 ... and when the Device respond to the Consumer based on the request from the Consumer how, etc. 16:26:33 ek: ok 16:26:41 +1 kaz 16:26:53 subtopic: Issue 238 16:27:20 -> https://github.com/w3c/wot-binding-templates/issues/238 Issue 238 - Clarifying Binding Mechanism 16:27:54 q+ 16:27:55 ek: As Kaz mentioned, it's a bit difficult for readers to understand the whole binding mechanism 16:27:58 ack k 16:28:17 ... so trying to clarify related information within related specs 16:28:31 ... like TD and Architecture 16:29:01 mjk: TD spec describes how to describe the Thing Description (and forms element within it) 16:29:29 ... we could refer back to the existing descriptions 16:29:33 ack m 16:29:38 ek: yeah 16:29:48 ... TD defines kind of detailed mechanism 16:29:58 ... we can refer back to the Architecture as well 16:30:25 mjk: we can say this section from this spec describes this and that 16:31:02 ... TD's Binding Templates section also can refer back to the Architecture document 16:31:13 ... regarding the mechanism around Binding 16:31:25 ackmjk 16:31:27 ack mjk 16:31:30 s/ackmjk// 16:31:43 ek: yeah 16:31:56 q? 16:32:19 ... it would be better to improve the whole document structure so that people can understand the mechanism easily 16:32:29 topic: AOB 16:32:40 ek: any other topic for today? 16:32:42 (none) 16:32:51 [adjourned] 16:32:56 rrsagent, draft minutes 16:32:57 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/03/08-wot-td-minutes.html kaz 18:51:14 Zakim has left #wot-td