09:17:32 RRSAgent has joined #wot 09:17:36 logging to https://www.w3.org/2024/11/29-wot-irc 09:17:36 rrsagent, make log public 09:17:40 rrsagent, draft minutes 09:17:41 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/11/29-wot-minutes.html kaz 09:17:48 present+ Josh_Thomas, Erich_Barnstedt, Sebastian_Kaebisch, Salvatore_Cataldi, Roman_Binkert, Tomoaki_Mizushima, Cristiano_Aguzzi, Daniel_Peintner, Kaz_Ashimura, Ege_Korkan 09:17:48 present+ Kunihiko_Toumura, David_Ezell, Jan_Romann 09:17:53 rrsagent, draft minutes 09:17:54 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/11/29-wot-minutes.html kaz 09:18:04 chair: Sebastian 09:18:34 agenda: https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/Wiki_for_WoT_Week_2024_planning#Agenda_%28Draft%29 09:18:45 topic: Organization 09:18:49 -> https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/Wiki_for_WoT_Week_2024_planning#Agenda_%28Draft%29 agenda for today 09:19:28 I am on Teams, but someone needs to admit me.... 09:19:31 scribe: dape 09:19:43 TOPIC: Scripting API 09:20:30 ah, maybe the teams channel changed.... 09:21:06 CA: Scripting recently changed timeslot 09:21:19 ... from Monday to Wed 11-12 CET 09:21:36 ... new slot works for most people 09:21:57 ... Problematic for pacific time slot 09:22:07 MMC: Yes, early in the morning 09:22:12 ... Okay for now 09:22:28 q+ 09:22:39 CA: biweekly calls 09:23:02 MMC: Mondays are troublesome .. so Wed is okay 09:23:24 SK: Progress? 09:23:36 CA: Fixing issues ... 09:23:52 ... waiting for fixes from TD 09:24:15 q? 09:25:00 q+ 09:25:04 q? 09:25:06 DP: async actions also 09:25:18 ... waiting for TD progress also 09:25:24 CA: Other aspects as well 09:25:40 q- 09:26:19 dape has joined #wot 09:26:24 Kaz: Taskforce should invite relevant people also 09:26:25 CA: Sure 09:26:48 MMC: Question, do we want to raise the level of abstraction 09:26:51 s/topic: Organization/topic: Opening/ 09:26:55 rrsagent, draft minutes 09:26:57 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/11/29-wot-minutes.html kaz 09:27:03 CA: We also explored that aspect 09:27:12 ... right now we just call the action 09:27:26 meeting: WoT F2F Meeting in Munich - Day 2 09:27:29 rrsagent, draft minutes 09:27:30 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/11/29-wot-minutes.html kaz 09:27:56 MMC: sure, just that we can monitor actions 09:27:57 present+ Michael_McCool 09:28:00 rrsagent, draft minutes 09:28:01 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/11/29-wot-minutes.html kaz 09:28:14 q? 09:28:15 CA: Yes, still some pending issues we need to resolve 09:28:19 ack M 09:28:26 MMC: Supporting disocvery? 09:28:29 s/I am on Teams, but someone needs to admit me....// 09:28:37 ... I might join those meetings 09:28:39 s/ah, maybe the teams channel changed....// 09:28:42 rrsagent, draft minutes 09:28:43 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/11/29-wot-minutes.html kaz 09:28:56 CA: Jan, made some progress already 09:29:17 MMC: Question whether we need alignment / updates to disocvery 09:29:33 s/Taskforce should invite relevant people also/Taskforce should clarify the agenda topics beforehand, and invite relevant people also/ 09:29:36 rrsagent, draft minutes 09:29:37 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/11/29-wot-minutes.html kaz 09:31:16 TOPIC: TD 09:31:31 Ege: Taskforce is not goinmg fast enough 09:31:41 ... we do many other tasks 09:31:52 ... project management etc 09:32:01 ... TD features do not go fast enough 09:32:10 ... fixing also issues with resources 09:32:18 ... new feature is initial connection 09:32:33 ... issue 2058 09:32:33 s/other tasks/tasks other than the spec generation/ 09:33:00 ECHONET Consortium 09:33:00 matsuda has joined #wot 09:33:10 https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/blob/egekorkan-patch-3/planning/work-items/usability-and-design.md#basic-mechanism 09:33:43 Ege: one place 09:33:53 .... for example for security defintitions 09:34:10 s/defintitions/definitions 09:34:19 ... let's go into examples 09:34:33 ... simple case: everything inlined 09:34:33 s/issue 2058/PR 2058/ 09:34:48 q+ 09:35:03 ... group contentType, connection etc 09:35:12 SK: Security ? 09:35:14 i|PR 2058|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/pull/2058 TD PR 2058 - Initial Connection Feature Description| 09:35:28 Ege: it is gone, part of the outer base form 09:35:45 Cris has joined #wot 09:35:49 ... there are more complex examples 09:35:50 +1 for consistency 09:36:12 SK: Wonder why we use the term form? 09:36:29 ... we have forms for interactions? 09:36:36 Ege: I will come to it later 09:36:44 ... the more verbose examples 09:37:15 q+ 09:37:17 ... new term, connectionDefinitions, formDefinitions 09:37:37 MMC: array for security goes away.. we just have one object 09:37:48 s|https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/blob/egekorkan-patch-3/planning/work-items/usability-and-design.md#basic-mechanism|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/blob/egekorkan-patch-3/planning/work-items/usability-and-design.md#basic-mechanism Proposed updates for "TD.Next Usability and Design Work Items"| 09:38:02 rrsagent, draft minutes 09:38:04 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/11/29-wot-minutes.html kaz 09:38:10 Ege: connectionDefinitions are for connection and security 09:38:26 ... at any point you can inline things 09:38:40 ... either string or object 09:38:43 s/ECHONET Consortium// 09:39:18 q+ 09:39:29 ... 09:39:47 MMC: Note: looks complicated but helps us to resolve issues 09:40:01 ... Common case is simple 09:40:08 Ege: correct 09:40:32 ... no need to repeat application/cbor all the time 09:40:34 q+ 09:41:06 ack c 09:41:14 s/helps us resolve issues/goal is to make common cases simple but complicated cases (e.g. multiple protocols in one Thing) possible/ 09:41:17 CA: What if we try to test all TDs we used in the past to explore how they might look like and simplify 09:41:27 Ege: good point 09:41:57 ... There is also the possibility to add it in each form 09:42:04 q+ 09:42:15 q+ 09:42:15 ... for a human it might look complicated 09:42:31 ... maybe we should advise people not doing so 09:42:32 q+ 09:42:33 q+ 09:42:47 MMC: name resolution issues 09:43:30 ack M 09:43:43 Ege: flatten TDs -> canonical TD 09:44:01 s/name resolution issues/this is related to how we do parsing and resolution of names - in particular, do we have a preprocessor to eliminate name references?/ 09:44:05 ack J 09:44:08 Jan: If I want to combine security schema i need to use combo? 09:44:09 i|simple case|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/blob/egekorkan-patch-3/planning/work-items/usability-and-design.md#td-examples TD Examples| 09:44:11 Ege: Yes 09:44:12 rrsagent, draft minutes 09:44:13 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/11/29-wot-minutes.html kaz 09:44:21 SK: base still possible in global level? 09:44:31 Ege: we did not talk about that 09:44:40 q+ 09:44:41 ... I think we want to remove it 09:44:53 SK: was sometimes useful to have a single place 09:45:14 CA: I think we can remove it 09:45:33 MMC: if we remove base on top level .. we should remove security also 09:45:50 s/helps us to resolve issues/goal is to make common cases simple but complicated cases (e.g. multiple protocols in one Thing) possible/ 09:45:53 rrsagent, draft minutes 09:45:54 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/11/29-wot-minutes.html kaz 09:46:00 Ege: then we can have contentType also 09:46:06 CA/Ege: I think this is different 09:46:08 q? 09:46:12 ack sebastian 09:46:17 ack m 09:46:18 ack McCool 09:46:21 ack da 09:46:52 Sal has joined #wot 09:47:23 DP: expanding is useful for machines 09:47:41 Ege: Agree 09:47:56 q+ 09:48:19 q+ 09:48:32 q- 09:48:43 Ege: Would try to avoid changing files .. 09:48:50 ... important for signing 09:49:20 DP: Do we need the counter part for expanding? 09:49:27 Ege: Yes, I think so 09:49:33 TOPIC: Bindings 09:49:35 https://github.com/w3c/wot-binding-templates/blob/egekorkan-patch-4/registry-requirements.md 09:49:56 Ege: important for OPCUA and ASHRAE 09:50:07 ... how do you see that as an outsider? 09:50:17 ... each binding is linked in binding document 09:50:28 ... like a IANA regsitry 09:50:43 i/Would try to avoid/kaz: we should clarify what kind of data model (expanded or not) at what time, e.g., static file on the Thing to be stored vs exported data model on the Consumer./ 09:50:50 rrsagent, draft minutes 09:50:51 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/11/29-wot-minutes.html kaz 09:50:57 ... managed table pointing to the actual content 09:51:14 ... W3C has created mechanism for registry 09:51:15 i|we should clarify|scribenick: kaz| 09:51:27 i|Would try to|scribenick: dape| 09:51:27 ... we can agree on the rules 09:51:29 rrsagent, draft minutes 09:51:30 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/11/29-wot-minutes.html kaz 09:51:41 ... but we cannot easily change them later 09:52:13 Ege: other organization might create binding and take ownership .. which would be even better 09:52:23 s|https://github.com/w3c/wot-binding-templates/blob/egekorkan-patch-4/registry-requirements.md|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot-binding-templates/blob/egekorkan-patch-4/registry-requirements.md Binding Registry Requirements| 09:52:25 rrsagent, draft minutes 09:52:27 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/11/29-wot-minutes.html kaz 09:53:09 ... 09:53:51 Ege: 3 things 09:53:56 ... what is in the table 09:54:02 ... what is the lifecycle 09:54:11 ... what are the requirements 09:54:31 ... we require static fixed link 09:54:52 ... prefix is important ... to avoid collision 09:55:01 q+ 09:55:03 q+ 09:55:08 q? 09:55:10 Sal has joined #wot 09:55:12 ack dape 09:55:25 ack m 09:55:39 MMC: Need to think about subprotocols also 09:55:56 Ege: yes 09:56:11 (example of NGSI-LD - it's HTTP, but uses it in a particular way. Is it a subprotocol or a profile?) 09:56:20 ... we should also mention compatibility with TD version 09:56:36 ... status of the binding 09:56:40 q+ 09:56:51 Mizushima has joined #wot 09:57:07 cris has joined #wot 09:57:22 q+ 09:57:35 (note: we use use htv as the prefix since http won't work - it would look like a URL...) 09:57:37 Josh: you might add the same examples in all sections 09:58:04 EB: Why modv ? instead of modbus 09:58:33 ack jt 09:58:33 Ege: people got consufed with http prefix .. JSON-LD people suggested htv 09:58:56 SK: What about BACnet in the W3C context 09:59:05 ... should it be hosted at ASHRAE ? 09:59:16 q+ 09:59:22 SC: We can talk about that 09:59:38 ... but it is more complicated ... we had other requests as well 09:59:50 ... the problem is maintenance 09:59:57 ... we need to clarify that 10:00:01 ack se 10:00:23 ... Question about multiple binding 10:01:31 ... several networks or different buildings 10:01:58 ... how do you identify? 10:02:11 q+ 10:02:13 ... specify "where" this things is 10:02:38 Ege: location could be added 10:02:56 SK: forms can have multiple connections 10:03:07 ... or for each connection its own TD 10:03:35 ... context see, important here.. like metadata 10:03:48 q? 10:04:00 SC: Do we have a ontology we a use 10:04:03 SK: Yes 10:04:03 ack c 10:04:06 CA: BRICKS? 10:04:15 CA: About table 10:04:25 ... table in document is per version 10:04:40 ... binding can be for several versions 10:04:58 Ege: meant for breaking change versions 10:05:39 CA: Information that binding supports multiple version is where? 10:05:50 ack cris 10:05:57 Ege: In table and binding also 10:06:26 SV: side question: what does full IANA registration mean ? 10:06:43 Ege: provisional state required before submission 10:06:56 ... within IANA there are several states 10:07:51 q? 10:08:20 Kaz: Salvatores comment implies that we need to think about several levels of location 10:08:51 ... should continue to clarify that part 10:09:14 .. smart city might be of interest also 10:09:37 SC: At ASHRAE we created a dedicated ontology for that 10:09:47 ... could be useful in this regard 10:10:11 ack k 10:10:26 rrsagent, draft minutes 10:10:27 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/11/29-wot-minutes.html kaz 10:10:36 MMC: Issue of location should be captured 10:10:52 ... driving use-cases 10:11:09 https://open223.info/ this is the ontology I was talking about. 10:11:36 Ege: next point is "status of binding" 10:11:59 ... we support GitHub issues only for starting the process 10:12:32 ..... initial, current, deprecated are the possible status values 10:12:43 s/Issue of location should be captured/We should follow up on the issues of location and multiple networks as part of our use case and requirements gathering process, which we will discuss in a bit/ 10:13:14 Ege: versioning is also important 10:13:27 ... I think we should not allow updating binding 10:13:33 ... you need to create a new version 10:13:46 ... do we allow 2 versions at the same time? 10:13:47 q+ 10:15:57 MMC: compatible versions is the key here 10:16:33 ... major vs minor version 10:16:46 Ege: example: change to CoAP binding 10:16:58 ... changes URL 10:17:29 q+ 10:17:33 ... table should contain status information 10:17:35 ack m 10:17:47 CA: "deprecated" sounds to stronmg 10:18:01 s/stronmg/strong 10:19:06 Kaz: Who makes the decision that something gets deprecated 10:19:46 s|Who makes|Who/How to make| 10:19:54 Ege: Let's get back to the right name 10:20:50 ... instead of deprecated? 10:21:09 .. old, out-dated? 10:21:24 CA: previous ? 10:22:05 Ege: ownership is the custodian 10:22:21 ... reviewer needs to be an expert 10:22:53 Ege: requirements for binding 10:23:14 ... technical requirements 10:23:32 ... must map one WoT operation 10:23:43 q? 10:24:48 ... we need objective mechanisms for checking the process 10:25:06 ... we also have call for implementation 10:25:17 JKRhb has joined #wot 10:25:25 q+ 10:25:42 ... we should mandate the template .. the content should be fine 10:25:52 q+ 10:25:58 q+ 10:26:07 ... can use W3C spec writing tools 10:26:11 q- 10:26:13 q+ 10:26:45 Jan: What if binding is rejected ? Do we need a status for that? 10:26:55 q+ 10:27:08 Ege: No, in the beginning it is just an issue ... 10:28:02 kaz has joined #wot 10:28:07 CA: Since we don't require a template.. it could be part of a given protocol .. 10:28:14 ack cris 10:28:33 ack J 10:28:50 Ege: Yes, I think so 10:28:59 CA: PDF or link? 10:29:09 Ege: Link is enough 10:29:35 (time check...) 10:30:03 Kaz: Wonder about final mechanism? 10:30:34 q+ 10:30:37 ... relation between GitHub issue and document 10:31:07 Ege: result of issue in form of a PR goes into the actual document 10:31:24 ack k 10:31:38 Kaz: Will check internally about a better mechanism 10:32:02 ack s 10:32:12 SK: Do we link already in provisional state ? 10:32:15 Ege: yes 10:32:16 ack M 10:32:57 s/Will check internally about a better mechanism/Will check internally about a better mechanism. So let's clarify all our questions about our expected mechanism, and I'll talk with Philippe on Monday :)/ 10:33:10 rrsagent, draft minutes 10:33:11 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/11/29-wot-minutes.html kaz 10:33:22 (final step should be a "permanent" record, e.g. a publication) 10:33:27 Ege: next point we discuss from state initial to current 10:33:45 ... open question ... should have some checks to evaluate 10:34:22 SK: Would be happy to be the first candidate from OPC UA side 10:34:35 Ege: thanks! 10:52:12 Mizushima has joined #wot 10:53:14 scribenick: cris 10:53:22 topic: Use case requirements 10:53:45 miz: We defined a requirement document template 10:53:49 ... that we difined 10:53:50 dezell has joined #wot 10:54:01 s/that we difined// 10:54:13 ... mccool is responsible on this topic 10:55:19 mc: we have an use cases document with 15 use cases but it was very hard to do follow ups 10:55:41 ... and connect use cases to actual feature 10:55:58 ... we want a more structured way of handle requirements 10:56:15 ... when we are working on a feature we want connect it to one on more use cases. 10:56:49 ... the connect happens with intermediate requirements. 10:57:33 ... we want to link feature to text in the specification (we don't know the life time of issues) 10:57:37 rrsagent, draft minutes 10:57:38 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/11/29-wot-minutes.html kaz 10:57:48 ... in a wip state we can use issues 10:58:03 s/Use case requirements/Use cases and Requirements/ 10:58:05 rrsagent, draft minutes 10:58:07 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/11/29-wot-minutes.html kaz 10:58:38 ... the format of the Use case and requirements document is based on the concept of user stories 10:59:10 ... we want to have maintain a one direction link from feature to requirements 10:59:25 ... since HTML does not support bi-directional links 10:59:45 ... we should keep it simply and maintain what is easier. 11:00:31 ... I'm reporting the definition of a requirement 11:01:18 ... in summary a requirement is a triple of questions: Who What Why 11:02:34 ... we worked on a template 11:02:46 ... it is a YAML template for github issues 11:03:12 q+ 11:03:26 -> https://github.com/w3c/wot-usecases/issues/308 wot-usecases Issue 308 - Create YAML Template for User Stories Issue 11:03:35 ... the use case and requirements will be publish as a W3C note 11:03:55 ... but the work will be done in issues which is easier 11:04:29 ... we created a test case to verify this approach 11:04:44 q+ to ask about 1) order of creation and 2) provenance of purpose 3) proper level 11:04:53 also see https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues/2059 11:05:14 ... we can have multiple user stories for the same feature 11:05:30 ... we used intial connection as a test case 11:05:37 q+ 11:05:49 ... and we added it in the use case and requirements document 11:05:54 -> https://w3c.github.io/wot-usecases/#sec-user-stories UCR ED - 5.1 User Stories 11:06:35 q+ 11:07:07 ack cris 11:07:09 q? 11:08:38 cris: I like the approach but sometimes is hard to answer 11:08:43 ack dezell 11:08:43 dezell, you wanted to ask about 1) order of creation and 2) provenance of purpose 3) proper level 11:09:02 ... I'd suggest to add a link to a document with some guidance 11:09:12 mc: yes, I'm working on this 11:09:34 dezell: I was wondering was come first 11:09:48 ... where the process start? 11:09:57 ... the purpose is excellent 11:10:28 mc: we have a list of use cases but no connection between them 11:10:39 ... we are using the user stories to connect them 11:11:07 ... for the future we want create all the user stories for all the new features 11:11:27 ... I think we will also create user stories also for past features 11:12:04 ... we can have a flexible process for use cases and user stories 11:12:43 kaz: great discussion and good direction. We need to clarify the procedure and process 11:13:06 mc: to be clear the task force is only maintain the Use case and Requirements document. 11:13:41 ... we are not going to create User stories that's the job of other taskforce 11:13:53 kaz: callaboration with other task forces would be nice 11:14:10 q+ 11:14:14 mc: we want to capture the connection between use cases and features 11:14:25 ... the taskforce is resposible of this connection 11:14:51 ... the Use case and requirements document is really meant for non-technical people (possible managers) 11:14:59 s/possible/possibly/ 11:15:04 q? 11:15:07 ack k 11:15:08 ack kaz 11:15:27 seb: I want to ask about speed 11:15:54 ... now we have the dependency between the Use case requirements and the other specificiations 11:16:05 ... it is ok if we work parallel ? 11:16:10 ack s 11:16:45 mc: yes we are following a parallel process rather than a waterfall (more agile) 11:16:46 q+ 11:17:03 mc: it is not a blocker 11:17:30 ... if you want to do a feature please create a user stories, but go ahead implementing it 11:17:41