Meeting minutes
Agenda
<kaz> Agenda for today
Ege: Does anyone want to discuss something specific that should be added to the agenda?
No additional points are added
Ege: Quite good attendance today
Minutes Review
<kaz> Jan-10
Ege: Had a look before the call, minutes look good to me
… also documented decisions in the wiki and in PRs
… does someone have anything they want to be fixed?
Ege: Oh, just noticed: McCool should be changed to Michael Koster
Kaz: General policy for the review was actually that the minutes should be sent to the group and then review should happen next week
Ege: Then we will review the minutes next week
Cancellations
Ege: There was a discussion regarding the cancellation on February 14 and 15 due to holidays in Germany, but they are not general holidays but only for parents with kids
… there is also Martin-Luther-King day, Michael Koster does that affect you?
Koster: No, don't worry about it
Binding Templates
Merged Editorial PRs
Ege: There have not been any PRs merged
Data Mapping
Ege: This has been discussed before, Luca did a presentation on the topic as well
Luca: I think we discussed it in the context of the BACnet binding
Ege: Important topic we should tackle, also relevant for Modbus, Profinet, LwM2M and Philips Hue
<cris_> +1
Ege: not planning to do technical discussions today, but there are a number of protocols affected
… to give you a quick example
… in TDs we always write the whole payload structure in the TD
… sometimes this is too much, sometimes it is not enough
… therefore, we need a mapping concept from the data that is expected by the programmer to the data that goes through the wire
… we can utilize our new use-case-based approach here
… and then derive the relevant input from there
… (adds text to the Wiki page)
Kaz: In general I am okay with this proposal
… but I would like to give several comments
… first, if the mapping includes binary data we should think about some stardardizes middleware or binary data transfer, for example some kind of packed data
… for example, as used in Python script, having a text representation for binary data
… second, we should think about a use-case-based approach, also related to yesterday's discussion, use case analysis and requirement extraction should be inline with this discussion
… as Michael McCool said yesterday, we could think about functional and technical use cases separately, but we're not sure which is functional use case and which is technical use case yet. So we as the TD TF should work with the Use Cases TF to clarify how to describe "Use Cases" in general.
… thirdly, the WoT WG should also clarify use cases from the users' perspective, to make it clearer which use cases are relevant to them. This should also be taken into account by the use case task force
Luca: First part, should we send PRs to adjust the use cases document?
Ege: Correct
Luca: Second, for binary payloads and protocols, we can simply rely on existing approaches like message pack (?)
… and rely on content type and content coding for describing the data in the TD
… we have that inbetween the serialization and the description of the output data
<cris_> +1
Ege: You could start with a PR with a proposal and then people can add comments and discuss it
… is that fine for you?
Luca: Sure
Koster: Feels like we are still at the use case stage
Koster: don't want to get into the technical discussion yet
… needs the context of use cases, in the hopefully soon to come up use case call
Ege: Just a warm up discussion, need to have the use case definition and write up next
Registry Analysis
Ege: We have three ongoing analyses
… Jan analyzed the custom registries, Cristiano is working on the IANA registries
… Cristiano's PR made progress
<kaz> wot PR 1161 - docs: IANA procedures for registries summary
Cristiano: we could consider to have people provide an IANA registration with their registration entry
… regarding URI schemes
Ege: Good point
<kaz> wot PR 1164 - W3C Registry Analysis
<kaz> rendered Readme.md
Ege: I had a look into the W3C registries myself
… I leave the PR open for now, if people want to have a look into it
… there is an official guideline document by W3C
… besides that, I look into the WebCodecs and AAC Symbol Registry registries
… an important point is that registries can not be referenced in a normative way
… as the content can change over time
… for example, in the WebCodecs registry's case, people are not required to support any codec at all
… the registration process might be interesting for us
… people have to submit via issues on GitHub
… linked specifications must be public
… entries cannot be deleted or deprecated
… this is probably the most relevant for us
Ege: Then there is the AAC Symbol Registry, which is also very interesting
… this is for people with problems reading text, like a separate alphabet
… the entries consist of a number, an english description and an SVG
… the symbols are created by a separate entity
… otherwise, the registration process is mostly standard
… I will leave the PR open until next week, as I finished it before the call
Kaz: We should clarify the process of how to update this wot/registry-analysis/Readme.md document
… we could create small PRs every week and then merge them, in order to not have PRs that are too large
Ege: We can merge the PR now, if nobody has a problem with that
Kaz: You can add "Draft" to the title to indicate that the analysis is still ongoing
Ege: Will do
… (adds "[DRAFT]" to the title of the document)
… (merges the PR)
TD PRs
PR 1935
<kaz> PR 1935 - Empty tm documents
Ege: Mahda has updated the files for the TM ontology here
… (opens a rendered version of the ontology rendered as an HTML document)
… we now have a readable version of it
… as in the other ontologies, we now can see all of the fields defined
… (sees that "versionInfo" is not rendered)
Mahda: If there is no range defined, then a field is not rendered, for versionInfo, this is also the case in the TD ontology
Ege: (shows the PR diff)
… I added group to the source document here
… the TM ontology is now generated by the same pipeline
… is fine to merge for everyone?
Cristiano: Looks good to me
(Luca and Jan also agree to merge)
Ege: (adds a comment and merges the PR)
Ege: I will jump to a more interesting discussion for now and maybe come back to some (more boring) PRs later
Reporting on WebAgents CG on Manageable Affordances
<Ege> https://
Ege: I discussed with the people from this CG at TPAC and they invited me to be one of the chairs
<kaz> webagents PR 19 - Manageable Affordances Task Force description
Ege: there was the idea to form a taskforce on Manageable Affordances
… there was a lot of interest in the topic
… as it is a CG, the work cannot be normative, as is also stated in the taskforce description, is mostly about the analysis of this topic
Kaz: If you are interested in this topic, that's okay, but I am a bit concerned about the road
… as you have a lot of responsibilities, this might be a bit too much, from my viewpoint. Second point, the WoT WG should clarify its relationship with this CG
… and should clarify the process of how ideas of transferred into the WoT WG
… even if the same person is working as a chair in multiple groups or CGs, this needs to be clarified
Ege: I agree, this is a bigger discussion how the procedures should be defined
Kaz: From my viewpoint, they should clarify their process themselves, before inviting you as a chair
Ege: Sure. If anyone is interested in joining the group's work, you are invited to do so
More TD PRs
PR 1949
<kaz> PR 1949 - Delete td.js
Ege: This more like a "boring" PR
… the file deleted here is not used anywhere and also not part of the rendering pipeline
… Mahda also had a look into it
… if there is no objection, then I would proceed with merging it
Merged
PR 1950
<kaz> PR 1950 - Adding publication folder to robots.txt
Ege: This PR adds a robots.txt to prevent search engine crawlers from looking into draft documents
… as before, people were finding draft documents via search engines and thought they were already published
No objections to merging, merged
PR 1953
<kaz> PR 1953 - Delete obsolete tag review and document it in readme
Ege: This PR deletes the unused tag review document and adds documentation about the obsolete document to the README file
… as discussed yesterday. This fine, right Kaz?
Kaz: Yes
PR is merged
Next Meeting
Ege: The other PRs will be discussed next week
… we will also have a look into the data mapping topic and the registry analysis
… we also have this backlog in the wiki, where people can add points they want to discuss
… anything else?
Cristiano: I will finish the work on the IANA registry analysis until next week
<kaz> wot PR 1165 - Initial expansion of the DataMapping work item
Luca: I already opened a PR as a placeholder, you can review it later
Ege: That's it for today then, we can close the session
[adjourned]