14:06:23 RRSAgent has joined #wot-td 14:06:27 logging to https://www.w3.org/2024/10/30-wot-td-irc 14:06:31 meeting: WoT-WG - TD-TF - Slot 1 14:09:27 Mizushima has joined #wot-td 14:11:22 present+ Kaz_Ashimura, Ege_Korkan, Kunihiko_Toumura, Luca_Barbato, Michael_Koster, Tomoaki_Mizushima 14:11:50 agenda: https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/WG_WoT_Thing_Description_WebConf#October_30-31%2C_2024 14:12:31 present+ Jan_Romann 14:12:58 rrsagent, make log public 14:13:08 rrsagent, draft minutes 14:13:09 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/10/30-wot-td-minutes.html kaz 14:13:26 chair: Ege 14:13:30 scribenick: mjk 14:13:48 present+ Mahda_Noura 14:14:11 mahda has joined #wot-td 14:14:14 scribenick: mahda 14:14:14 EgeKorkan has joined #wot-td 14:14:28 present+ Mahda_Noura 14:15:06 topic: Minutes 14:15:08 -> https://www.w3.org/2024/10/23-wot-td-minutes.html Oct-23 14:15:22 Ege: any objections on the minutes? 14:15:27 (None) 14:15:43 Topic: Organizational 14:15:44 s/None/None; Approved/ 14:15:51 Ege: tomorrow we will discuss the use case 14:16:12 subtopic: Toolchain 14:16:20 Ege: Not really new information 14:16:55 ...We want to showcase with mahda, compare whether the new way of doing things is easier in comparison to the current way 14:17:10 subtopic: Initial Connection 14:17:40 Ege: we need to agree on the names, we left it open last time intentionally on the PR 14:17:49 dape has joined #wot-td 14:18:15 ...is there any opinions on what the commonDefinitions and connectionDefinitions should be called? This is up to us to invent 14:19:49 ...there should be different names otherwise semantic processing and linkability are broken 14:20:09 ...we should avoid having the same term in two places 14:20:37 q+ 14:21:37 Luca: Naming things are hard, I don't have strong opinion on naming things, as long as it is consistent. One other item that appeared in Github and is worth discussing is, if we are going to use Form as a holder for the connection or we use another vocabulary term to include the connection setup? 14:21:47 Ege: I didn't understand 14:22:52 Luca: I try to explain the problem: my proposal was to keep the two items seperate, we have different forms and last time we decided that since we have defaults for a bunch of stuff we put a container around them so that everything is tidy. But, the part we didn't discuss was that if we want to use the Form as a connection setup or we use another 14:22:52 container? 14:24:40 ...the current situation is that, we have the security definition which are a special case of connection setup, the part we didn't discuss was... 14:24:49 s/container?// 14:24:53 ...one item is that, security goes away and is a connection 14:25:00 s/we use another/we use another connection?/ 14:25:05 rrsagent, draft minutes 14:25:07 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/10/30-wot-td-minutes.html kaz 14:26:06 ...it is nit a deal breaker, since the two ideas are separate, but would be good to see if we have consensus in that regard. 14:26:13 Ege: Would be good to see an example 14:26:39 Luca: one problem is that, we need a transport that needs a setup, currently we don't have a protocol that acts in this way 14:26:54 Ege: what do you mean with transport having a setup 14:27:31 Luca: the transport setup can be very special HTTP, and inside we say HTTP version 3, or QUIC 14:28:05 s/subtopic: Toolchain/topic: Toolchain/ 14:28:29 s/subtopic: Initial Connection/topic: Initial Connection/ 14:28:49 i|we need to agree on the|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/blob/main/planning/work-items/usability-and-design.md TD.Next Usability and Design Work Items| 14:28:52 rrsagent, draft minutes 14:28:53 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/10/30-wot-td-minutes.html kaz 14:29:19 Ege: It would be good if you could make an example 14:29:29 Luca: I can do now 14:30:01 Ege: I realized I didn't reply to Ben Francis, and will have to do this 14:30:44 Ege: Luca please provide the comment and i will have look at it async 14:30:48 Topic: Registry 14:31:16 https://github.com/w3c/wot-binding-templates/pull/378 14:33:18 Ege: There was some refactoring on this document, each section is going to be a section in the registry document. We have the intro section which has already been decided. Then we say in terms of the content of registry definition we provide entry format, lifecycle of entries and what is the requirement for the submitted documents to contain per 14:33:18 lifecycle. For the entry requirements, we have no points to discuss. There is one thing to discuss. 14:33:55 ...We agreed that an entry can contain a name, and a link, we have to document the prefixes to not do RDF processing, we need to document how it can be identified in the TD 14:34:25 ...the reason this is still open is that whether we keep the subprotocol href or we provide other things 14:34:45 ...once there is the entry it should have a status, this is dependent on the lifecycle discusion 14:34:59 ...I would like to get opinions 14:35:55 ...Regarding how things are submitted, label stuff and assign it to people it would make more sense to restrict the issues. Is there opinions on how bindings would be submitted? 14:36:00 q? 14:36:08 ack l 14:36:12 ...If there are no objections, I would remove my name from the mentioned points 14:36:49 rrsagent, draft minutes 14:36:50 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/10/30-wot-td-minutes.html kaz 14:36:56 ...of course the review has to happen and the custodian makes a PR to add a binding 14:37:37 ...there is an overall thing about versioning of an enetry, in the current entries we have analyzed it is not possible, they either allow deprecation or double 14:38:26 ...We do not allow updates of a registry content, should not be updated randomly, but a new version can be submitted. 14:38:36 i|378|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot-binding-templates/blob/main/registry-requirements.md registry-requirements.md| 14:38:37 rrsagent, draft minutes 14:38:39 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/10/30-wot-td-minutes.html kaz 14:38:57 ...would we allow two versions of a binding to stay in a registry? 14:39:27 present+ Daniel_Peintner 14:39:28 rrsagent, draft minutes 14:39:29 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/10/30-wot-td-minutes.html kaz 14:39:44 ...there were previously points from Cristiano and Luca 14:39:53 q? 14:40:01 ...do we have any opinions on this so far? 14:40:15 there is a need for an example, which has to be doone 14:40:43 q? 14:40:45 ...next point is about deletion of an entry, we either move them to another table or deprecate them 14:40:56 luca_barbato has joined #wot-td 14:41:02 ...Do we have opinions on whether entries should be deleted? 14:41:08 q+ 14:41:14 ...any objections? 14:41:32 luca: I agree with that. I also completed an example 14:41:38 +1 14:42:02 Ege: We need to agree on the status and how it gets changed 14:43:17 Luca: if you want to add another option, you can add provisional, draft, and current instead of Final 14:43:22 present+ Cristiano_Aguzzi 14:43:25 rrsagent, draft minutes 14:43:26 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/10/30-wot-td-minutes.html kaz 14:44:00 q+ 14:44:05 ack l 14:44:06 q- 14:44:09 Ege: I would remove Final. I also though of "stable". 14:44:38 Jan: I was wondering if existing implementations can also trigger change. Maybe the stable label could be applied to alternative implementations 14:44:48 ack j 14:44:55 Ege: The discussion of how we change from one label to another, I will come to 14:45:07 ...seems that these three states seem fine 14:45:47 ...the point from transition, this is also part of the discussion on requirements. I will just write my point and what Jan mentioned in the document 14:46:44 ...we need to discuss the ownership part, we say that the working group is the owner 14:47:00 ...there is another point, who is the reviewer? 14:47:28 ...I say this because, IANA registries involve external reviewers, I think called expert reviews 14:48:06 ...I think all the entries should make sense in the context of WoT, but if we get a protocol that is unknown to the working group, we should get an external reviewer 14:48:48 ...do we have an opinion on this? 14:48:57 (none) 14:50:06 ...I would suggest the following: if there is an expert of the binding entry's specification within the custodian entity, they can do the review on their own. If that is not the case, the custodian MUST look for an expert of that specification and a Web of Things expert 14:50:40 q? 14:51:01 cris: is this in the context of WG or in general? 14:51:11 q+ 14:51:29 ...I think we should specify that WG has the power to reject the expert or suggest and expert. 14:51:40 Ege: it's up to the custodian 14:51:59 ...if the WG doesn't exist, the delegated entity becomes the custodian 14:52:13 q+ 14:52:31 ...Ege updates the document 14:52:33 q? 14:52:40 Cris: I think it works now like that 14:53:07 kaz: As I mentioned before, we need at some point to talk about, creating dedicating community groups for maintenance 14:53:20 Ege: you mean now or whether WG doesn't exist? 14:53:24 Kaz: whenever 14:53:49 Ege: I think doing this now would give a bad message, but for future I am fine 14:53:59 kaz: so we can include that possibility as well 14:54:10 s/whenever/whichever is possible/ 14:54:14 Ege: Ege updates the text accordingly to Kaz points 14:54:27 jan: who makes the final decision? 14:55:02 Ege: I think suggesting would not make sense, Ege updates the text accordingly. 14:55:20 q+ 14:55:23 s/we need at some point to talk about, creating dedicating community groups for maintenance/we need to talk with PLH about this at some point, but technically, creating a dedicated CG for maintenance might be a possibility./ 14:55:24 q- 14:55:26 q- 14:55:29 ...maybe one edge case, what if these two people are the same 14:55:35 cris: I think thats fine 14:55:48 q? 14:56:04 rrsagent, draft minutes 14:56:05 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/10/30-wot-td-minutes.html kaz 14:56:45 Topic: Initial Discussion 14:56:54 Ege: We will go back to Luca's example 14:57:49 s/Topic: Initial Discussion/topic: Initial Connection - revisited/ 14:58:41 i|We will|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/pull/2040#pullrequestreview-2405167238 Luca's updated comments on PR 2040 - Initial/Common Connection Container Proposal| 14:58:42 rrsagent, draft minutes 14:58:44 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/10/30-wot-td-minutes.html kaz 14:59:04 luca: assume we have connection definitions which is the main container, inside there is some protocol specific items, transport, and some other information such as tls:cyphers. Then, on our bases, we can refer to our connection Definitions. My form would be only the operations... 14:59:42 Ege: I think overall it makes sense to include these, but how will people differentiate where to put things, like in Modbus. Maybe we shuld have one and merge them. 15:00:03 Luca: As I said, we have these two options 15:00:43 Ege: for example an MQTT broker would go in the frst one? 15:01:32 Luca: All the broker information could be a connection defintion, and usually you do not want to say, in order to connect to an MQTT broker you have to connect to this broker, version, etc., that motivates why having connection definitions is a good idea. It's like security. 15:01:38 ...you don't have to repeat 15:01:51 Ege: This would be really pure default mechanism 15:02:08 cris: default for forms? 15:02:18 ...can't we just name them form definitions? 15:02:33 Luca: That was just the starting point, but form definitions makes alot of sense 15:03:02 Ege: I think I like it 15:03:36 Cris: About the use case we discussed in the last CG meetings, do we sort of understand the protocols that the TD uses or do we still need to go through all the forms? 15:04:04 luca: the partial connection definition could be a set of allowed derived schemes 15:04:23 Ege: this would destroy the connection using other connection 15:04:50 Ege: where would the base go in case of HTTP? 15:05:26 Luca: That would also be open, if we want to put the bases, we can put it in the connectionDefinition or ... 15:06:06 ...so the part is, the base uri could be either something as we put default in the form or we give up using it in the links 15:06:31 :-) 15:07:05 q? 15:07:34 s/:-)/[adjourned]/ 15:07:43 rrsagent, draft minutes 15:07:45 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/10/30-wot-td-minutes.html kaz