12:59:46 RRSAgent has joined #wot-profile 12:59:51 logging to https://www.w3.org/2024/10/09-wot-profile-irc 13:01:30 meeting: WoT Profile 13:01:59 present+ Kaz_Ashimura, Luca_Barbato, Ben_Francis, Jan_Romann, Josh_Thomas, Michael_Koster, Tomoaki_Mizushima 13:02:10 q+ 13:02:12 mjk has joined #wot-profile 13:02:20 q- 13:02:29 luca_barbato has joined #wot-profile 13:03:23 agenda: https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/WG_WoT_Profile_WebConf#Profile_-_Oct_9th%2C_2024 13:03:36 scribenick: JKRhb 13:03:58 topic: Minutes Review 13:04:06 -> https://www.w3.org/2024/09/11-wot-profile-minutes.html Sep-11 13:04:08 lb: They were very brief 13:04:12 ... not much to say 13:04:20 ... does anyone want to add something? 13:04:29 ... also regarding the minutes from TPAC? 13:04:43 https://www.w3.org/2024/09/27-wot-minutes.html#t07 13:04:44 ... Ege, do you have the link to the TPAC minutes? 13:04:49 https://www.w3.org/2024/09/26-wot-minutes.html 13:04:55 https://www.w3.org/2024/09/27-wot-minutes.html 13:04:59 kaz: (links the minutes) 13:05:07 bf: (also adds a link) 13:05:14 lb: Thanks, Kaz and Ben 13:05:19 ... regarding the TPAC minutes 13:05:29 ... who was there and wants to say something? 13:05:38 ... is this the correct one? 13:05:45 kaz: Yes, this one and the day two 13:06:05 q+ 13:06:08 lb: Who was present and wants to add something? Or wants to add to the minutes? 13:06:17 ... otherwise we can just approve them 13:06:27 ... (shows one part of the minutes) 13:06:40 ... this is the part that I want to discuss today 13:06:47 s/this one and the day two/and the Profile discussion was done on the 2nd day/ 13:07:00 ... if we can write a paragraph on the relationship between bindings and profiles and hopefully can agree on that 13:07:12 rrsagent, make log public 13:07:17 rrsagent, draft minutes 13:07:18 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/10/09-wot-profile-minutes.html kaz 13:07:25 ek: In the TPAC, we had more or less the reolution that profiles should not extend the TD 13:07:40 chair: Luca 13:07:46 ... but I guess that should not matter too 13:08:08 lb: For today's topic, I hope everyone has seen what has been written on the mailing list 13:08:09 present+ Ege_Korkan 13:08:11 rrsagent, draft minutes 13:08:12 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/10/09-wot-profile-minutes.html kaz 13:08:18 ... if somebody did not 13:08:50 ... the idea is, we have bindings to extend what to represent in a TD, and the idea is to use profiles as a boundry for what you can describe in a TD 13:08:54 jthomas has joined #wot-profile 13:09:07 ... with that, we can restrict what is part of a TD and also validate the content 13:09:19 q? 13:09:19 q+ 13:09:21 present+ Josh_Thomas 13:09:22 ... if someone wants to take the floor and voice their opinion, this is the right time 13:09:35 ack e 13:09:57 ek: Regarding your question on the mailing list, Sebastian has sent a mail that also includes my opinion 13:10:05 ... maybe you can share it 13:10:07 i|For today|-> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-wot-wg/2024Oct/0000.html Luca's message (Member-only)| 13:10:08 https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-wot-wg/2024Oct/0004.html 13:10:16 [[ 13:10:17 Binding Templates enable a Thing Description to be adapted to a specific 13:10:17 protocol, data payload formats or platforms that combine both in 13:10:17 specific ways. A Profile warrants that only the Binding Templates it 13:10:17 mandates, or a subset of them, will be used to describe all the 13:10:18 lb: I also noticed that Ben has expressed his opinion 13:10:19 Affordances exposed by a conforming Thing. 13:10:21 ]] 13:10:26 [[[ Binding Templates enable a Thing Description to be adapted to a specific protocol, data payload formats or platforms that combine both in specific ways. A Profile document contains only a subset of features of the Thing Descriptions specification and of individual Binding Template documents to describe all the Affordances and metadata exposed 13:10:26 by a profile-conforming Thing. ]]] 13:10:31 kaz: That has been sent to the member's list, will share it one IRC 13:10:49 lb: (also pastes the proposed text) 13:10:55 ... this is the proposed text 13:10:56 q+ 13:11:00 ... I think the spriti is okay 13:11:08 ack k 13:11:09 ... but the use of "document" needs to be specified first 13:11:23 bf: Sorry to interrupt, but what is the proposed text for? 13:11:36 ... is it a resolution? Or something else? 13:11:51 lb: Wanted to use it as an introduction to the document and at least agree on that 13:12:00 ... and build consensus based on that 13:12:17 ... and eventually expand to consensus on how the profiles should behave 13:12:27 ... we will probably have some disagreements along the way 13:12:38 ... but eventually we should end up with a registry 13:12:49 ... my proposal is to start with that introduction 13:13:18 bf: I've responded to the email, but I suppose it went to a private mailing list 13:13:29 lb: Everyone should have received it here 13:13:37 bf: Agree with the basic concept 13:14:05 ... think everyone is agreeing here, disagreements are about the details on how to go there 13:14:21 ... don't think that your text and Siemens' version capture that 13:14:58 lb: Two parts, first how profiles behave and second, why they are useful 13:15:07 ... two essential components: 13:15:15 ... 1. profiles restrict 13:15:28 ... 2. ensure that the Thing it describes complies to the profile 13:15:54 ... to ensure out-of-the-box interoperability, need to ensure that no additional properties are added that break the contract 13:16:13 ... what I did in June was describing why Profiles are useful 13:16:27 ... today I would like to agree on the two fundamental aspects 13:17:04 q? 13:17:05 rrsagent, draft minutes 13:17:07 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/10/09-wot-profile-minutes.html JKRhb 13:17:13 q+ 13:17:13 q- 13:17:27 ek: What was this June meeting? 13:17:34 lb: I think you were there 13:17:39 ... it was a pull request 13:17:44 https://github.com/w3c/wot-profile/pull/412 13:17:47 ek: The introduction pull request? 13:17:51 bf: Yes 13:18:18 lb: It was the PR where I tried to clarify what we mean by "out-of-the-box interoperability" 13:18:30 ... would like to have more opinions on these two points 13:18:41 ... or maybe even have proposals that are more clear 13:18:57 ... the Siemens proposal is fine if we could be more precise on "documents" 13:19:07 luca_barbato: Or did you mean this PR? https://github.com/w3c/wot-profile/pull/415 13:19:13 ... otherwise, we could focus on the relationship between the Thing and its description 13:19:16 ek: Agree on this 13:19:34 ... with "document", we were trying to make sure that we are referring to the Profile spec 13:19:46 ... and not to another document, such as a Binding or the core requirements 13:20:03 s/to the Profile spec/for a Profile/ 13:20:26 ... like for the bindings, we defined it as a binding sub-specification 13:20:38 lb: For profiles, we could call it just profile 13:20:42 ... but that might be ambigious 13:20:52 ... or we could call it profile instance 13:20:58 ... I am open for suggestions 13:21:09 ... "documents" might be too ambigious 13:21:30 ek: If you have a registry, then you could have documents, in my opinion (?) 13:21:45 q+ 13:21:51 lb: We can call it documents, if that is not used by a binding yet 13:21:56 https://www.w3.org/TR/wot-binding-templates/#dfn-subspecification 13:22:23 ek: I shared a link on the terminology 13:22:53 bf: Is it still called a sub specification if it is part of a registry? 13:23:06 ek: We could call them registry entries 13:23:16 q? 13:23:19 q+ 13:23:21 ... so for binding documents, that would be Binding Template Registry Entry 13:23:33 ack e 13:24:01 kaz: We as a TD task force need to think about how to fix the terminology 13:24:05 ack k 13:24:07 ... within the TD taskforce in the end 13:24:08 ack b 13:24:11 ek: Correct, yes 13:24:27 q+ benfrancis 13:24:34 bf: So, I think we are all trying to describe the same things 13:24:51 rrsagent, draft minutes 13:24:52 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/10/09-wot-profile-minutes.html kaz 13:24:58 ... if we make a new attempt, we need to be very precise with our language 13:25:02 ... don't think that the Siemens approach is that 13:25:10 ... gave examples in my email 13:25:23 q+ 13:25:31 ... don't think a TD should, for example, restrict the kind of properties a TD should contain 13:25:46 ... in my opinion, a Profile should constrain the extension points of a TD 13:26:05 ... for example, bindings, payload formats, or even discovery mechanisms 13:26:35 ... so it is not really a restriction of the feature set from the TD specification, but rather a restrction on the extension points 13:27:02 ... the reason is also the out-of-the-box interoperability and not another motivation 13:27:09 ... need to be very careful with the wording 13:27:21 ek: I don't think we are really on the same page then 13:27:59 ... I don't think a profile should not be able to restrict a TD to only use string as a type for properties 13:28:18 ... or that it should not restrict the length of descriptions, for example 13:28:19 q+ 13:29:08 ... at some point, we might want to have a TD that is extendable from a profile-compliant TD(?) 13:29:30 ... maybe we should write down the questions we have and then come up with answers 13:29:56 bf: So, Ege, do you think that profiles should just be a set of assertions, then? 13:30:01 -> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-wot-wg/2024Oct/0000.html Luca's original text 13:30:03 [[ 13:30:03 Binding Templates enable a Thing Description to be adapted to a specific 13:30:03 protocol, data payload formats or platforms that combine both in 13:30:03 specific ways. A Profile warrants that only the Binding Templates it 13:30:05 mandates, or a subset of them, will be used to describe all the 13:30:07 Affordances exposed by a conforming Thing. 13:30:08 ... because that would make profiles more open-ended 13:30:09 ]] 13:30:17 ek: @@@ 13:30:20 -> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-wot-wg/2024Oct/0001.html Siemens' proposed fix 13:30:21 [[ 13:30:28 Binding Templates enable a Thing Description to be adapted to a specific 13:30:28 protocol, data payload formats or platforms that combine both in 13:30:28 specific ways. A Profile document contains only a subset of features of the Thing Descriptions specification and of individual Binding Template documents to describe all the Affordances and metadata exposed by a profile-conforming Thing. 13:30:29 ]] 13:30:45 q+ 13:30:52 ack e 13:31:04 ... but of course, if we would just extend to the properties, then that would already ensure out of the box interoperability, but you would need to rework the data model 13:31:14 ... otherwise you would never reach that goal 13:31:36 kaz: Thank you very much, very good and meaningful discussion so far 13:32:11 ... since the discussion was only on the members list, maybe we could copy over the discussion to a GitHub issue and continue the discussion there 13:32:23 ... also including the comments by Sebastian and the others 13:32:39 lb: We should be able to that very quickly 13:32:45 ... (starts opening an issue) 13:34:13 bf: While you are writing: Where was the discussion that there was a consensus or a resolution? 13:34:32 ek: There actually wasn't one, therefore we should agree on something here 13:34:43 lb: Ege, please add the statement from Siemens 13:35:06 ... it is better if someone from the company itself does that 13:35:28 ek: (adds a comment to the issue) 13:36:03 kaz: Ben, very sorry, but ... 13:36:36 lb: Does anyone else have a different opinion or wants to give a +1 to something anyone said? 13:36:48 ek: Wanted to give a +1 to what Ben said 13:37:05 luca_barbato has joined #wot-profile 13:37:15 q? 13:37:18 ... can reword to it say something like "should constrain the features of the TD specification" (?) 13:37:21 i|Does|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot-profile/issues/418 wot-profile Issue 418 - TPAC summary and Proposed wording to explain the concept of "Bindings extend, Profile restrict" 13:37:24 ack k 13:37:25 ... we need to be careful here 13:37:47 ... we could say something like "it constraints the information model of the core TD specification" 13:38:00 ... to be a bit more specific but still generic 13:38:14 bf: I think we need to go through a couply of concrete examples 13:38:21 i|Issue 418|topic: Starting over the discussion based on Issue 418| 13:38:28 ... of what features and constraints mean, since there is a lot of potential ambiguity here 13:38:49 rrsagent, draft minutes 13:38:51 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/10/09-wot-profile-minutes.html kaz 13:39:28 q+ 13:39:38 bf: Ege, can you explain the second sentence of your proposal? 13:39:46 ... is that supposed to be the motivation? 13:39:57 s/but .../but could you please copy your comment to the GitHub Issue 418?/ 13:40:04 ek: No, out-of-the-box interoperability should be the motivation 13:40:31 ... I think the important aspect is that a Profile should restrict a TD while still being valid 13:40:48 ... the second aspect is that a Profile restricts @@@ 13:41:06 lb: Ege, do you know whether JSON-LD already has the concept of a "negative" context? 13:41:11 ek: I don't know 13:41:15 i|shoes one part|topic: Profiles philosophy| 13:41:32 lb: Since the way a Profile is supposed to work is removing items from the context 13:41:38 ... so it is like a substraction 13:41:47 q? 13:41:52 ... but I don't know whether JSON-LD would allow us to do 13:41:53 i|topic: Profiles philosophy|(minutes themselves have been approved)| 13:41:55 rrsagent, draft minutes 13:41:57 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/10/09-wot-profile-minutes.html kaz 13:42:08 ... since that is what we need and we could feed that into a parser 13:42:20 ... unclear whether we already have the tools for that 13:42:26 i|shows one part|topic: Profiles philosophy| 13:42:36 ... in my opinion, a profile could be seen a diff that could be applied to a TD 13:42:41 i|shows one part|topic: Profiles philosophy| 13:42:46 s/TD/context/ 13:42:47 i|topic: Profiles philosophy|(minutes themselves have been approved)| 13:42:50 rrsagent, draft minutes 13:42:51 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/10/09-wot-profile-minutes.html kaz 13:43:01 bf: Although that would be neat, I don't think that this will enough 13:43:11 ... the discussion is very much focused on TDs 13:43:26 ... should also include the behavior of a Thing 13:43:37 s|topic: Profiles philosophy|| 13:43:39 rrsagent, draft minutes 13:43:41 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/10/09-wot-profile-minutes.html kaz 13:43:47 ... adjusting the context is not enough for that 13:44:08 ... another aspect that should be dealt with in a profile is whether a Thing should stick to the defaults of a protocol binding 13:44:27 ... and that is also something that goes beyond just adjusting a TD itself 13:44:35 lb: I think we have more agreement on that 13:44:54 ... so the first part is to get someone to reword the paragraph that provides that led 13:44:58 s/led/lead/ 13:45:08 ... second aspect is that we agree on the main parts 13:45:35 ... one aspects is removing vocabulary, the other one is restricting behavior of Things and Consumers 13:45:58 ... when it comes to consumers, once they know the protocol binding they should know the intended behavior 13:46:06 q+ 13:46:15 ... we need to see how it fares in a practical example 13:46:28 bf: I think we are focusing too much on bindings at the moment 13:46:46 ... only one of five aspects, others are semantic context or discovery 13:46:54 ... can they also be restricted? 13:46:58 lb: If these aren 13:47:03 protocol bindings, payload bindings, security mechanisms, link relations and semantic contexts, and maybe discovery mechanisms 13:47:15 s/lb: If these aren/lb: If these aren't bindings, then what are these?/ 13:47:32 ... idea remains the same for other aspects as well 13:47:39 q+ 13:47:55 q- 13:47:55 bf: So could a profile say "A Thing must support this semantic context?" 13:48:10 ek: Given that the bindings are also vocabularies, I would say yes 13:48:23 s/Thing must/Consumer must/ 13:48:33 ... I am talking by the way about the broadest sense 13:48:46 q? 13:49:07 ... I would say that a profile can mandate the use of a certain vocabulary 13:49:21 ... funnily enouhgh, even bindings are doing that 13:49:33 ... for example, in the case of the MQTT binding 13:49:47 ... I would assume that there is an MQTT URI scheme used in at least one affordance 13:50:06 bf: I assume also security schemes would be part of bindings eventually, right? 13:50:08 ek: Yes 13:50:27 bf: Then the other things from my list are @@@ and discovery mechanisms 13:50:44 ek: I would say that bindings should also be able to restrict discovery mechanisms 13:50:55 ... should also be able to restrict the data model 13:51:18 ... for example, the data length or how temperature is being described 13:51:31 bf: Data structures are not really an extension point 13:51:50 ... a bit different to the other items I mentioned 13:52:04 ... but the other aspect you mentioned, about units .... 13:52:11 ek: Units are actually another thing 13:52:32 ... more about the data structure, so for example whether it is two numbers 13:52:50 ... but also about the name of affordances, see Matter for example 13:53:05 bf: For WebThings, we are rather using sementic annotations 13:53:23 ... that is then an overlap of semantic context and also Thing Models 13:53:54 ek: To add to that, if someone would use a different property name, they would not be out-of-the-box interoperable 13:53:57 q? 13:54:37 ... if we would enable that, we would be competing with Matter and BACnet and others at the same time 13:54:55 bf: Would be fine with that 13:55:01 ... always competed with Matter 13:55:18 ... what we ended up with is a descriptive and a prescriptive approach 13:55:27 ... I hope that will work 13:55:52 ... if you choose a presecriptive approach you are competing with something like Matter 13:56:19 ... with the descriptive approach, you choose a protocol binding and then just describe what is already there 13:56:24 ek: I am fine with that 13:56:55 ... we should just be aware that if we went all the way too prescriptive, we would not have out-of-the-box-interoperability 13:57:14 bf: That corresponds with what we had before regarding levels of interoperability 13:57:26 ... with WebThings, we are using a capabilities approach 13:57:40 ... kind of an extra layer of interoperability 13:57:58 ... but even without them you would still have interoperability, you would just not have the same richness of what the data means 13:58:11 q? 13:58:25 ek: I will also write to this issue 13:58:40 ... this point regarding vocabulary terms and how they can be restricted 13:58:50 ... will start writing now and finish after the TD call 13:58:56 A Profile document constrains features of the Thing Descriptions specification and of individual Binding Template documents to describe all the Affordances and metadata exposed by a profile-conforming Thing. 13:59:14 bf: I just pasted another version of the Siemens proposal 13:59:29 ... and just added the phrase "constrains" 13:59:33 ... not happy yet 13:59:44 ... as the text leaves open what "features" means 13:59:48 ... but it is closer 13:59:51 rrsagent, draft minutes 13:59:53 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/10/09-wot-profile-minutes.html kaz 13:59:59 ek: Agree with the chnanges you've made 14:00:08 ... also agree that it is not specific enough yet 14:00:25 ... will try to come up with a definition of features 14:00:43 q+ 14:01:02 bf: The motivation is also not clear yet, implication via the "to" is unclear 14:01:14 ek: Will add that to the issue description 14:01:25 bf: We are getting closer 14:01:25 ek: Agree 14:01:47 kaz: Should we continue the discussion on GitHub or at the next meeting? 14:01:56 bf and lb: GitHub is fine for us 14:02:08 lb: Thanks for attending, see you in two weeks 14:02:32 bf: Always unclear whether the call is happening or not, by the way 14:02:43 kaz: McCool made a proposal to make adjustments 14:02:52 [adjourned] 14:02:54 rrsagent, draft minutes 14:02:55 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/10/09-wot-profile-minutes.html kaz 14:04:52 mahda has joined #wot-profile 14:28:29 JKRhb has joined #wot-profile 16:02:16 Zakim has left #wot-profile 16:15:54 EgeKorka_ has joined #wot-profile 16:54:22 JKRhb has joined #wot-profile 17:03:25 JKRhb has joined #wot-profile 17:50:57 JKRhb has joined #wot-profile 17:52:28 JKRhb_ has joined #wot-profile 18:00:30 JKRhb has joined #wot-profile 18:09:53 JKRhb has joined #wot-profile 18:35:39 JKRhb has joined #wot-profile 18:41:12 JKRhb has joined #wot-profile 19:47:27 JKRhb has joined #wot-profile 19:55:14 JKRhb has joined #wot-profile 19:56:01 JKRhb has joined #wot-profile 20:14:43 EgeKorkan has joined #wot-profile 20:18:37 JKRhb has joined #wot-profile 20:18:56 EgeKorkan has joined #wot-profile 20:53:22 JKRhb has joined #wot-profile 21:10:44 JKRhb has joined #wot-profile 21:20:35 EgeKorkan has joined #wot-profile 21:28:18 JKRhb has joined #wot-profile 21:47:40 EgeKorkan has joined #wot-profile 22:20:41 JKRhb has joined #wot-profile 22:26:41 EgeKorkan has joined #wot-profile 22:38:37 JKRhb has joined #wot-profile 23:13:50 JKRhb has joined #wot-profile 23:34:34 JKRhb has joined #wot-profile 23:52:15 JKRhb has joined #wot-profile 23:54:36 kaz has joined #wot-profile