W3C

– DRAFT –
WoT-WG - TD-TF - Slot 2

12 December 2024

Attendees

Present
Cristiano_Aguzzi, Daniel_Peintner, Ege_Korkan, Jan_Romann, Kaz_Ashimura, Michael_Koster, Tomoaki_Mizushima
Regrets
-
Chair
Ege
Scribe
mjk, kaz

Meeting minutes

Cancellations

Slot 2 call on Dec 19 will be canceled while Slot 1 call on Dec 18 will be held.

minutes review

<EgeKorkan> Nov-21

Ege: any comments or corrections?
… no comments, minutes approved

cancellations - revisited

Daniel: we need to cancel more than the Dec. 19th call
… also January 6th

Ege: propose to cancel 25+26 December and 1+2 January
… any objections?
… no objections, so we will cancel these dates
… (cancelled in WoT calendar)

TD - Initial Connection

<EgeKorkan> PR 2058 - Initial Connection Feature Description

Ege: Review PR #2058
… ek: the changes include feature descriptions and schema updates making validation more difficult
… There is more to TD validation than JSON Schema validation

Daniel: maybe there can be if-conditions in JSON Schema
… If the expanded TD works, we could requirer expanded TDs in the workflow

Ege: we will need to refine the definition of expanded
… for example, does connectiondefinitions need to be expanded?

<cris> +1 for the second one

<dape> +1 as well

Ege: all the common definitions will need to be expanded

Kaz: The whole WG needs to think about how to test this, whether it is too complicated for implementation

Ege: I have a similar concern
… some examples do get complicated
… we need more experience and see if we can write the schema

Kaz: we need more test cases
… maybe we can do the expansion in thingmodel

Ege: agree

Cristiano: how will this impact typescript typing?
… it may break the autogeneration
… we need more concrete experience

Ege: in the worst case, the schema constraints will need to be relaxed

Ege: if someone wants to work on this, please let me know and go ahead

Daniel: maybe the more flexible format is for human readability, the full expansion is more machine friendly and will allow rigorous validation

Ege: expansion should then be required for machine consumption

Ege: any other comments?

Binding - Registry

PR #378

<kaz> wot-binding-templates PR 378 - Registry Requirements Update

Ege: this was discussed in the F2F
… there are only a few TODOs left, let's start with the simple ones
… will the submission document be required to follow W3C submission rules, e.g. use respec
… also copyright requirements
… there seems to be preliminary consensus that this is not a strict requirement

Ege: any opinions?

Jan: should the binding document be required to be freely available under a permissive license?

Ege: specifically not requiring payment

Jan: yes

Cristiano: second Jan's point, and OK with a URL that points to the document
… and to the specific section

Ege: this wouldn't work for PDF

Cristiano: we could recommend HTML if a subsection reference is needed

Daniel: we also need to require the documents be stable

Ege: link and date of the link, both link and content can not change

Ege: regarding permissive license,we may not be able to mandate free availability, for example ISO charges for documents
… at least we could require a copy provided to the W3C WoT WG

Ege: other opinions?
… what are requirements for IANA?

Cristiano: don't remember any constraints on availability, but will double check
… restricted document access is not aligned with the open web principles
… but we may need to be more industry friendly

Ege: The Profinet binding is openly aavailable but the Profinet protocol itself is a restricted document

Koster: we want to be inclusive, maybe this is more important than W3C policy alignment

Ege: what are the restrictions on the matter protocol?

Koster: device manufacture may require IP agreement and joining CSA for IP access, but web APIs are not covered

Cristiano: there are restrictions on protocol deployment in many specs, e.g. LoRA and Sigfox
… we should require that at least web clients are not restricted, and servers also preferred

Ege: we should look at commercial licensing restrictions vs. restrictions on the information
… there may be some basic requirements

Kaz: there might be some practical industry knowledge about how to interoperate with Matter
… In addition, we could use VC as a security/permissions layer if needed
… if complicated data access control is needed

Ege: any other opinions?
… the only think it seems we can mandate is the binding document itself
… and make strong recommendations about protocol

Cristiano: there will not be general interoperability if we only mandate the document availability

Ege: it's already a win if there is a binding document available

Cristiano: this is a big decision and should be taken up in the main call with the larger group

Ege: thank you all for the good comments and good discussion
… is there AOB?

Ege: adjourned

Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by scribe.perl version 240 (Tue Dec 10 03:59:59 2024 UTC).