Meeting minutes
Agenda Review
Ege: review minutes, then profinet, then registry
Ege: any additions to agenda?
<kaz> (none)
Minutes Review
Ege: names should be changed and one link should be moved below
… any other remarks?
Ege: any remarks on the feb 20 minutes?
Ege: both minutes are approved
Profinet Binding
wot-binding-templates PR 351 - creating a PROFINET binding template file
Ege: this PR open since a while
Kazeem: I am a PhD student in Siemens. OT IT integration is my focus
… I focus on protocols like profinet and io link
… also WoT and AAS on the IT side
… I have created this PR, got feedback from experts
Ege: very present in real time protocol space
… let's look at the last changes
Kazeem: I have added the recommendations from the reviewers
… I have fixed some mentions of modbus that were leftover from modbus binding
… also updated the JSON Schema
Ege: ontology is not there yet
Kazeem: the terms are also available in the data schema level
Ege: I see some small editorial things to change
Ege: the example from a real device right?
Kazeem: yes. it is a power meter from Siemens SI department
Cristiano: can you expand on the mapping concept?
Kazeem: we have buffering parameters
… they are defined as objects in the affordance level
… but they should be mapped to specific parts in the buffer sent on the wire
… so you go through this and map to each buffer part
Cristiano: the content type should be added
… we can be inspired from this to generalize this concept
… are there any other content type?
Kazeem: not as far as I know
Ege: I am noting these feedback in the issue
… once these small things are fixed, the PR can be merged
Ege: there are more examples of this like w3c/
Cristiano: we have some support for this in node-wot, but not using any custom keyword
Cristiano: are there any implementations of profinet?
Kazeem: typically, the protocol drivers are products
Ege: also the protocol spec is not public
Kazeem: also the device needs to be tested to get the profinet logo
Ege: the newer standards from the same SDO are now open. I think more and more will do that
Binding Registry
PR 414
wot-binding-templates PR 414 - Requiring implementation experience for bindings
<kaz> Related Issue 403 - Stable/Current Status Requirements
Ege: (summarizes the PR's context)
Cristiano: I have taken that proposal and added some ideas of mine too
… we can discuss the comments
… there are some gaps in the document. We should work on it more later on
… I have tried to explain each bullet point with more text as well
… we should give proof that the binding is implementable
… we want to have testing events but also track these events. That way we have concrete proof about communication between devices
… the events can be organized in a flexible way
… we have to agree on how the test report should look like and how the events are structured
… the submitter is free to specify where the implementation experience is collected
Ege: the rest of my comments are fine
Ege: so the test report should be public but the resources may not be
Cristiano: ok then we need more structure?
Ege: I think we should define a template for that test report
Cristiano: should we be strict on the test report format?
Ege: maybe. requiring markdown is fine but it may have issues with tables etc.
Cristiano: the gap on the test report is there because the submission starts without it
Cristiano: I have the point about the transition
Ege: I think it is fine that the custodian makes the call about the transition
Kaz: this discussion is important but this can imply that we define something like "Candidate Recommendation"
… technically it is fine but we should be careful about the process
… maybe we can copy some part of the candidate recommendation process
… it can be a lot of work too
Ege: so using some parts of the W3C Process?
Kaz: yes. We can look into it
Ege: we are kind of implying that right
Kaz: do we make a "call for implementation"?
Ege: yes
Ege: any objections to the general direction?
Ege: (adds decisions to the comment)
Ege: AOB?
<kaz> (none)
<kaz> [adjourned]