Meeting minutes
Minutes
Ege: some typos
Kaz: fixed by now
Organizational
Ege: may not be available on 28 and 29 of Feb, definitely not available March 20-21
… M. Koster could chair
Koster: I am available those days
Bindings
Ege: Discussed yesterday Ben's proposal
… we missed to discuss "Where should the discussion continue"
… maybe we can bring up the topic in main call
Luca: we should discuss it in main call
… if we have consensus
… we can move parts from profile that are not describable in TD at the moment
… we should agree whether we want to close Profile 1.0 first
… continue after with Profile 2.0 work
… first step, come up with plan that everyone in main call can agree
… start work in TD next
Ege: Agree
… agreement needs to come first
… Ben said Profile 1.0 could be a note
… should be part of main call discussion
Kaz: Agree with Luca that we need further discussion in main call
… how to handle profile in general
… the whole WG needs to clarify what the "new" profile should describe
Ege: Agree also
… this task force seems to have already consensus
… let's discuss it further in main call
TD
TM Namespace
<kaz> Issue 1807 - TM namespace not active yet
<kaz> wot-resources PR 20 - TD 1.1 Resource Finalization
Ege: issue about TD namespace not available etc
… see w3c/
<Ege> w3c/
Ege: addressed by: w3c/
… we missed to add it to redirection table
… PR20 fixes it in documentation
Ege: Kaz needs to fix it in redirections settings
Kaz: Wondering when and how to merge PR?
Ege: Suggest to merge it now.. and redirection changes after the call
… or leave PR open til settings are fixed
Kaz: If we'd like to merge the PR 20 now, we should look at details of PRs a bit more
Ege: PR adds option to get text/html with content negotation also
Ege: .htaccess file needs to be updated to provide html if someone asks for HTML
Kaz: The requirement needs to be clear first
… and requirement should be recorded
Ege: requirement: people who ask for TM.html should be able to get it via content negotiation with specifying TM (without .html) and the text/html media type.
Ege: Will merge it now
… gonna close issue once redirection settings are done
Ege: issue 1807
<kaz> (wot-resources PR 20 merged; wot-thing-description Issue 1807 to be closed later)
Binding Templates
Profinet Binding
<kaz> PR 351 - creating a PROFINET binding template file
Ege: Kazeem created draft PR
Kazeem: Within Siemens we are working on PROFINET
… that's why I started to work on binding template for it
Ege: Kazeem did not use pipeline yet
… he will work on it
… we do have already JSON Schema
Ege: new area of WoT
… thanks Kazeem
Kaz: Can you give more description on PROFINET?
Kazeem: Sure
… PROFINET is mainly an ethernet protocol in industrial (real time)
… controller has its own channel
… supervisor has its own channel also
… main problem we try to fix
Kaz: sorry but we should clarify why we want and need to add this in addition to the current target protocols.
… user level information
Kazeem: PROFINET is an industrial protocol
… lower/faster than the OPC UA
… commonly used at shopfloor to control and monitor field devices
Ege: I think this is good enough for an introduction
Kaz: Maybe we can clarify why we need it in addition to OPCUA / BACnet
… does it become more popular?
Ege: It is already very popular
… OPCUA will never replace it because of real time constraints
Kaz: Adding that one-line to PR might be useful as well
Kazeem: Okay, will do
Ege: highlighting relevance is good
… please comment in PR if there are questions/comments
Use Case Discussion
Ege: Looked at labelling work
… finished it
… scripting API issues can be opened now
Cristiano: okay
… thanks!
Ege: from TD side we should make clear that an other task force requires it
Cristiano: wonder what we do if we find already existing issues
Ege: "needed by other TF" label can be used
Kaz: proposal should be discussed in use case call
Ege: for TD it is already decided
Kaz: should be careful how to deal with use-case proposal
Ege: use-cases are not yet submitted
… we just wanted to filter out other stuff first
Kaz: file itself was created in use-case repo
… procedure should be clear
Ege: already part of proposal
Kaz: document as a whole is draft proposal
Ege: correct
… should be careful
Kaz: Yes, we should be careful. Also as part of use-case agenda etc
… be clear what has been done and what should be done in the future
<kaz> Ege's message on Issue Filtering (Member-only)
Ege: Yes, clear
… with the label not having "use-case" label we can look at them
… there are still many
… some other labels are applied like "semantics" etc
… we can work to further categorize them
Koster: Agree
… how many are use-case ?
Ege: 112 are not use-case
… out of 210 ... more than half are not use-case
… ~ 85 are use-case relevant
… in binding templates 46 are not use-case .. 28 were use-case relevant
Kaz: when we say "not use-case" ... do you mean editorial ?
Ege: yes, "editorial", "tooling", "refactoring" ...
… "validation" / "semantics"
… some are still not clear
Kaz: In any case we need to clarify the categories for spec transition, so I asked for clarification.
Expectations of stakeholders from the use case TF and the use case process
Ege: would like to get the last feedback from people about their expectations
… expectations about "what you would like to see from use-cases work"
… or developers
… there are currently comments from Ege and Luca
… after meeting I would like to create issue in use-case repo
Cristiano: Looks good
… look for some "actionable"
… like missing features
Ege: any point about user/implementer ?
Cristiano: for implementer it might be interesting to know "uncharted" territories
… if it already exists they can ping people working on this use case
Kaz: If this is a proposal from TD for use-case ... that is fine
… we as a WG we need to think about which feature will be used
… this is part of use-cases
… we need to have further discussions
Ege: not about feedback from task force
… more about what we are expecting as input from use-case TF
Kaz: based on the discussion so far, it sounds as if we wanted to ask the Use Cases TF to work on use cases based on the TD TF's input
Ege: Really not!
Kaz: maybe we should discuss/clarify better the directions
Ege: <updating text in wiki to make it clearer>
… I will create one issue with what we have for now in use-case repo
Kaz: creating issue is possible
… need to clarify who should do what
Ege: Kaz, you asked us about our expectations some weeks ago
Kaz: If this inline with Mizushima-san that is fine
Ege: we need to wrap up call.. sorry
Kaz: maybe my question was not clear enough 5 mins ago I just suggested to handle the proposal as part of the Use Cases TF's Use Case handling discussion.
Ege: Yes, exactly
… one point missing is Geo-location requirements .. mentioned by M. Lagally
Ege: AOB?
<adjourned>