W3C

– DRAFT –
WoT-WG - TD-TF - Slot 1

10 January 2024

Attendees

Present
Cristiano_Aguzzi, Ege_Korkan, Jan_Romann, Kaz_Ashimura, Kunihiko_Toumura, Luca_Barbato, Mahda_Noura, Michael_Koster, Tomoaki_Mizushima
Regrets
-
Chair
Ege, Koster
Scribe
kaz

Meeting minutes

Logistics

Ege: split the agenda into two parts
… you can add topic proposals at "Backlog" section too

Agenda

Ege: (goes through the agenda for today)

today's agenda items

Minutes

Dec-20

Ege: (goes through the previous minutes)

approved

New TD slot

Ege: 1st slot on Wednesday at 10am Eastern
… 2nd slot on Thursday at 9am Eastern

Wiki organization

Ege: cleaned up the TD wiki as mentioned the other day

WoT resources

TM

Ege: Mahda has started to work on the TM resources

Mahda: still ongoing

Versioning

PR 1951 - Versioning of TD resources

Ege: (goes through VERSIONING.md)

rendered version

Ege: some issue on the style of indentation
… "When a use wants", etc., should be part of "Initial thoughts on versioning"

Cristiano: not sure about each resource but useful to have release version
… useful for implementers

Ege: Alpha-version for REC release, and sub version for each release?

Cristiano: yeah

Kaz: detailed version management is fine but we need clear policy and procedure for that
… what kind of changes to be identified for what purpose

Ege: right

Luca: you can tag any kind of releases
… we can decide, e.g., every month by date and time
… that is a time anchor
… would be enough for implementers
… Git describes some number based on hash as well
… if we want to make some specific version periodically, e.g., monthly
… could put a tag to identify each version
… could use either way

Ege: so far we don't add any explicit identifier to each version

Koster: mostly agree
… we do CI tech work flow
… would be better to use explicit versions
… GitHub hash number should be long enough to identify the versions also

<luca_barbato> https://git-scm.com/docs/git-describe in case

Koster: we can use date/time instead too
… not sure about the need for periodic release, though
… we need more discussion

Cristiano: (audio trouble and rejoining...)

Ege: how to deal with TD versions in a semantic way

Cristiano: we're publishing typescript notation
… about a monthly release, some sort of deadline needed
… note that we're handling not only one library
… need to be aware of coding for CD coordination
… thinking about the scripting-api repository

<Ege> json-schema-org/website#197 (comment)

Ege: would consider versioning for JSON Schema as put above
… regarding this PR 1951, I'd merge it

Kaz: fine to merge it
… but please check the indentation, e.g., tab vs whitespace, later

Ege: will check the format first

Static dates

Issue 1940 - Fixing the Ontology HTML files to static versions

PR 1952 - Static Ontology HTMLs

<Ege> https://www.w3.org/2019/wot/security

Ege: the content is correct
… but missing abstract, etc.
… have fixed all the ReSpec errors already
… now we have a sub folder saying "staticFiles"

Kaz: the content is generated based on the TTL files
… and you need to specify the Abstract, etc., manually
… right?

Ege: yes

Kaz: technically, we can use ReSpec to provide the HTML content
… but do you want to avoid potential bugs from ReSpec?

Ege: exactly

TD

TAG reviews

tag-review.html

Ege: not sure how to deal with this...

github.io version

<Ege> https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/commit/ff93ff20ce96428b075b141272e803e9f32640d1

Ege: seems there was no Pullrequest but directly pushed

Kaz: would suggest we keep this kind of obsolete resources as an example for the future wide review for 2.0 spec rather than removing them

Ege: ok
… would add a README.md to describe them too

Kaz: nice

PLANNING.md

wot PR 1163 - Moving Planning.md items

<Ege> wot-thing-description PR 1948 - Delete PLANNING.md

Kaz: so that means simply moving the PLANNING.md content from the wot-thing-description repo to the wot repo. right?

Ege: right

Backtracking some additions in TD 1.1:

Ege: several misleading points
… generic use cases don't really help understand the need and capability of the detail of each feature
… for example, regarding Thing Model
… possible use case: managing a set of instantiations of the same model device
… requirement: one file to represent a model fo the device

Kaz: from my viewpoint, "managing a set of instantiations of the same device" is rather a requirement for a feature
… and we still need to describe the use case based on users' viewpoint

Cristiano: we thought about search for TD as well
… we had some discussion, I think

Ege: maybe "correlate" rather than "search"?

Cristiano: that's fine
… could be broken down into 3 parts

Ege: think we're on the same page
… need more descriptions

Cristiano: "user story" should describe what the users want to do
… "I want to do ABC to achieve XYZ."
… should describe the user's role as well

Ege: "as user X, I want to ABC so I can achieve XYZ"

Koster: sometimes called s "persona"

Jan: reuse existing definition too

Ege: (adds another entry for Thing Model description or that)
… extension/submodel in TM
… requirement: reuse of existing definition

Jan: looks good

Koster: how to redefine the semantic models?
… TM gives as ability to work with IoT Schema, etc.
… application model to be consistent with affordance
… I can write up a user story for that

Kaz: this discussion should be done collaboratively with the Use Cases TF

Ege: ok

Luca: one problem of mine with TM is...
… it is a custom template
… we have a situation which TM could be a tentative solution for semantic interoperability
… you can use it to validate a TD
… we can use the TM mechanism to author another possible template language
… validate and consume in some certain scenario

Ege: think you're basically describing something similar to "managing/representing a set of instantiations of the same model of a device"

Tomorrow

Ege: would like to discuss Binding tomorrow

[adjourned]

Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by scribe.perl version 221 (Fri Jul 21 14:01:30 2023 UTC).