12:02:34 RRSAgent has joined #wot 12:02:34 logging to https://www.w3.org/2021/03/22-wot-irc 12:03:35 GMLEE has joined #wot 12:04:09 Meeting: WoT-IG/WG vF2F Meeting in March - Day 4 12:04:17 Agenda: https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/F2F_meeting,_March_2021#Monday_March_22 12:04:30 Mizushima has joined #wot 12:04:40 mlagally_ has joined #wot 12:05:00 present+ Kaz_Ashimura, Michael_McCool, Cristiano_Aguzzi, Daniel_Peintner, Gyu_Myoung_Lee, Kunihiko_Toumura, Michael_Laally, Philipp_Blum, Tetsushi_Matsuda 12:05:15 present+ Ege_Korkan 12:05:34 mjk has joined #wot 12:06:31 McCool has joined #wot 12:06:48 present+ Michael_Koster, Tomoaki_Mizushima 12:07:35 https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/F2F_meeting,_March_2021#Architecture_.2B_Profiles_.28Lagally.29_.282h20min.29 12:08:04 (scribe so far: Ege, Kaz, Daniel, Sebastian, McCool) 12:08:42 sebastian has joined #wot 12:08:55 present+ Ryuichi_Matsukura 12:09:10 zakim, who is on the call? 12:09:10 Present: Kaz_Ashimura, Michael_McCool, Cristiano_Aguzzi, Daniel_Peintner, Gyu_Myoung_Lee, Kunihiko_Toumura, Michael_Laally, Philipp_Blum, Tetsushi_Matsuda, Ege_Korkan, 12:09:13 ... Michael_Koster, Tomoaki_Mizushima, Ryuichi_Matsukura 12:10:03 matsuda has joined #wot 12:10:42 topic: Guest 12:10:57 mm: we have a guest from ITU-T, Gyu Myoung Lee 12:10:59 mc: skipping the opening slides, guest are notified with the w3c normatives 12:11:27 -> https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20170801/ W3C Patent Policy 12:11:46 i/skipping/scribenick: cris/ 12:11:59 i/we have a/scribenick: kaz/ 12:12:09 ml: I'm really happy to have participants from ITU-T. Important for our work in wot use cases 12:12:10 topic: Agenda for today 12:12:21 -> https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/F2F_meeting,_March_2021#Monday_March_22 Agenda wiki 12:12:43 topic: Use Cases - ITU-T 12:12:52 ... we should look if there are any gaps in our use case document thanks to the input of ITU-T 12:13:16 ml: please observe the queue 12:13:18 dape has joined #wot 12:13:18 s/... we should/ml: we should/ 12:13:52 s/topic: Use Cases - ITU-T// 12:14:20 s|-> https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/F2F_meeting,_March_2021#Monday_March_22 Agenda wiki|| 12:14:22 ml: open discussion about alignment between w3c WoT and ITU followed by architecture implications of ITU-T hub 12:14:29 s|topic: Agenda for today|| 12:14:31 ... should we add anything to the agenda? 12:14:41 ... ok 12:14:42 i|I'm really|topic: Agenda for today| 12:14:52 i|I'm really|-> https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/F2F_meeting,_March_2021#Monday_March_22 Agenda wiki| 12:14:58 rrsagent, make log public 12:15:09 rrsagent, draft minutes 12:15:09 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/03/22-wot-minutes.html kaz 12:15:15 present+ Christian_Glomb 12:15:20 rrsagent, draft minutes 12:15:20 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/03/22-wot-minutes.html kaz 12:15:56 ml shows a document that contains a review of ITU-T standards. 12:16:21 i/ml shows/topic: Use Cases - ITU-T/ 12:16:45 ryuichi has joined #wot 12:16:48 i|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot-usecases/blob/main/CONTRIBUTIONS/ITU-T-Use-case-summary.md Results of ITU-T SG20 WoT document analysis| 12:16:49 dezell has joined #wot 12:16:54 mm: I focused on framework of the web of things document and the ITU-T WoT service architecture 12:16:59 present+ David_Ezell 12:17:09 ... main question what is an object? 12:17:27 present+ Michael_Koster 12:17:29 ... hub is referred as broker in the document 12:17:35 present- Michael_Laaly 12:17:41 present+ Michael_Lagally 12:17:54 rrsagent, draft minutes 12:17:54 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/03/22-wot-minutes.html kaz 12:18:16 ... we don't emphasize hubs in our documents. I think we should 12:18:35 present+ Ryuichi_Matsukura 12:18:37 rrsagent, draft minutes 12:18:37 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/03/22-wot-minutes.html kaz 12:19:00 Chair: McCool 12:19:00 ... the describes abstract functions that could be mapped to hardware in different ways. 12:20:00 ... services are categorized in WoT, Web, and Mash-ups. We don't underlying this differences. 12:20:40 ml: you mentioned that ITU-T needs a register service 12:20:57 ... currently the WoT discovery is work in progress 12:21:17 ... will we have still this gap when WoT discovery is defined? 12:21:43 mm: well, ITU-T needs the registry at the architectural level. 12:22:13 ... discovery is just finding TDs not register them 12:22:58 ... and surely not how to manage them 12:24:16 ... it is intentionally out of scope in WoT discovery. 12:24:26 s/(scribe so far: Ege, Kaz, Daniel, Sebastian, McCool)/(scribes so far: Ege, Kaz, Daniel, Sebastian and McCool; Cristiano, Philipp, and Kaz for today)/ 12:24:29 rrsagent, draft minutes 12:24:29 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/03/22-wot-minutes.html kaz 12:24:46 Chair: McCool 12:24:48 rrsagent, draft minutes 12:24:48 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/03/22-wot-minutes.html kaz 12:25:14 ml: about he second bullet in your document. is deployement of Scripting API out of scope too? 12:25:26 mm: well similarly to the previous point. 12:25:37 ... it is a gap in the spec really 12:25:57 ... like how to provious security parameters (e.g., keys etc.) 12:27:34 ml: do we plan future specification of ITU-T document 12:28:48 gyu: yes it is possible in two ways. Small clarification or starting a new process. 12:29:17 ml: do you think there is interest to align with WoT specification? 12:29:55 gyu: we did not use Thing Description to describe our services 12:30:19 ml: do you mean to create a mapping document between ITU-T and TD ? 12:31:27 ... what do you need from w3c side? 12:31:31 present+ David_Ezell 12:31:41 present+ Ben_Francis 12:31:47 rrsagent, draft minutes 12:31:47 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/03/22-wot-minutes.html kaz 12:32:20 sebastian_ has joined #wot 12:32:20 gyu: possibly an expert from w3c side and discuss conjunctly an analyses of the two standards. 12:32:34 ml: do you have already someone in mind? 12:33:16 gyu: we contacted individual editors and experts 12:33:19 ml: ok 12:33:36 q+ 12:33:43 ... we'll discuss this topic further in the main call. 12:34:03 q? 12:34:20 mc: from our side there are some missing pieces that we would like to add. possibly at the end of the year we could create a new charter dedicated to them 12:34:50 q+ 12:35:07 kaz: I would start from concrete use-case and idendify the building blocks. Then we could understand which one of them could be mapped to w3c architecture. 12:35:20 ack k 12:35:21 ml: we already have a couple of use cases defined 12:36:18 mm: echonet and ITU-T WoT look more into smart homes use cases 12:36:37 ... having real system is a good place to drive requirements. 12:36:55 ml: we should have a follow up conversation 12:37:48 s/building blocks/building blocks (within the Architecture spec) or entities (within the existing implementations)/ 12:38:16 s/which one of them/which piece within the system or subsystems/ 12:38:46 mm: I suggest also to review the document and check if we have misunderstood something. 12:38:47 s/mapped to w3c architecture/mapped to the building blocks from the W3C Architecture./ 12:38:49 q? 12:38:52 ack m 12:39:11 ml: what about scheduling a call in three weeks from now 12:39:29 ... so that we can have a good plan 12:39:56 s/concrete use-case/concrete scenario based on some concrete use case/ 12:40:04 mm: it could work, maybe defining homework by email would help 12:40:31 ml: let's try to target the week of April 12 12:40:37 mm: it is probably fine 12:41:53 ml: ok let's create a doodle pool to the define the right timing. 12:41:57 sebastian has joined #wot 12:41:58 i/we already have/(my point is not generating yet another use case but clarifying the concrete scenario and data transfer, etc., for the existing use cases related to the external standards :)/ 12:42:42 q+ 12:42:49 ml: ok we completed two points of the agenda. Point three could be moved in the next call 12:43:17 kaz: which entity in the use case detail is the most important? 12:43:29 ... we should state it for each use-case 12:43:54 ack k 12:44:33 topic: Architecture 12:44:37 action: kaz to create a doodle for the next liaison discussion around April 12 12:44:52 s/topic: Architecture/ 12:44:56 topic: Architecture 12:45:30 ml going through the agenda items 12:46:06 ml: Any other input for the agenda? 12:46:37 mm: Can we add Hub vs. P2P? Reason for this is the constrained devices topic. 12:46:46 ml adds it to the agenda 12:47:37 ml starts with the introduction for the newcomers. 12:47:39 i/which entity in the use case detail is the most important?/agree with McCool, and think we should clarify which entity within the use case scenario does what (possibly with some restriction). The entities should include edge devices as Things, gateways as Intermediaries and applications as Consumers/ 12:47:43 q+ 12:47:57 rrsagent, draft minutes 12:47:57 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/03/22-wot-minutes.html kaz 12:48:32 -> https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture WoT Architecture 1.1 - Editor's Draft 12:48:44 ml: We have a couple Todos in the document. So, be aware that we are still working on that. 12:49:01 ml: We have been focusing on profiles in the recent architecture calls. 12:49:19 i/ml starts with/subtopic: Introduction/ 12:49:37 rrsagent, draft minutes 12:49:37 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/03/22-wot-minutes.html kaz 12:50:03 i/ml going through/scribenick: citrullin/ 12:50:09 rrsagent, draft minutes 12:50:09 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/03/22-wot-minutes.html kaz 12:50:22 ml: We have introduced the thing model. 12:50:37 ml: There are also several editor notes. 12:50:45 q? 12:50:48 ack m 12:51:26 mm: It probably makes sense to refer to the other documents, so we don't risk contradicting information. 12:52:23 mm: There is a secion Core profiles, that name should be just profiles. 12:52:50 ml: We will have discussions about it and may change it. 12:53:30 mm: We should introduce another section called architectual pattern or something like that. 12:53:35 https://w3c.github.io/wot-architecture/#core-profile 8.3 Core Profile 12:53:55 m: I tried to change our policy a bit. 12:54:01 s/m/ml 12:54:09 present+ Sebastian_Kaebisch 12:54:15 sebastian has joined #wot 12:54:24 sorry for beeing late 12:54:39 s/Editor's Draft/Working Repository/ 12:55:15 i|We have a couple|-> https://w3c.github.io/wot-architecture/ WoT Architecture 1.1 Editor's draft| 12:55:49 apologies from Dave too, he will join later 12:56:23 q+ 12:58:00 ml: bf, can I add you to this issue? 12:58:04 bf: I prefer not to. I don't agree with the specification. I think it shouldn't exist. 12:59:01 -> https://w3c.github.io/wot-architecture/#sec-deployment-scenario 10 Example WoT Deployments 12:59:26 kaz: I think it should be part of the deployment scenario section. 13:00:13 ml adds a new issue for the architectual pattern topic -> https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/issues/585 13:00:40 i/I think/clarification on network topology, etc., would be useful for liaison discussion, etc., but I think/ 13:00:49 subtopic: Terminology 13:01:23 s/it should be/it doesn't have to be the normative architecture design, but could be/ 13:01:25 ml: All topics have owners and mm already addressed a lot of topics. Thanks for that. 13:01:43 mm: My PR solves 3 or 4 of those issues. 13:01:48 s/, but I think/. However, I think/ 13:02:15 i|All|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3Aterminology Terminology issues| 13:02:22 rrsagent, draft minutes 13:02:22 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/03/22-wot-minutes.html kaz 13:02:24 New terminology for the Binding document? -> https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/issues/575 13:02:44 ml: I would advocate to add it to the terminolgy section. 13:02:59 mm: Also discovery. I think it is a core thing. 13:03:21 mm: One question. Are those terms defined in other documents as well? 13:04:17 mm: Should we redefine them or just refer to TD 1.1? 13:05:18 ek: The idea is to remove the td context extension. 13:05:30 q? 13:05:30 ml: Let's create an issue for it. 13:05:34 ack k 13:05:37 q+ seb 13:05:42 sk: You can also add the thing model description. 13:05:42 ack seb 13:06:25 sk: We should have a single definition. 13:06:52 ml: I think we already spent some time to define the thing model in the architecture. 13:07:10 sk: We should check, if it is the same as in the TD document. 13:07:58 ml creates an issue for it -> https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues/1072 13:08:20 q+ 13:08:28 ml: TD Fragment and partial TD 13:08:45 ml: We discussed this and added it to the document. 13:08:49 q? 13:08:52 ack m 13:08:58 rrsagent, draft minutes 13:08:58 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/03/22-wot-minutes.html kaz 13:09:35 mm: I don't disagree with the definition. To be aligned with the JSON specification we should name it JSON element. 13:09:43 ml: I think we already discussed this topic. 13:10:17 mm: I don't think it is the end of the world, it would just be more align with the JSON specification. 13:10:59 ml: Have you dealt with the system terminology? 13:11:13 mm: I haven't yet. It isn't in my PR yet, but I want to take a look into it. 13:12:09 mm: I want to solve as many terminology issues in my PR as possible. At least the non contriversal ones. 13:13:09 ml: It would be good to not introduce new terms. 13:13:16 mm: You are right, some might be contriversal. 13:13:41 ml: I am not comfortable with TD Fragment to TD Element. 13:14:00 i|I want to|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/pull/582 PR 582 - WIP: Terminology update| 13:14:06 ml: Please take it out and introduce another PR for it. 13:14:09 mm: Okay, will do. 13:15:07 mm: We also need to cleanup the confusion with Thing description and Thing description directory. 13:15:28 ml: We should have an additional call about this. 13:16:51 Digital Twin usually includes modeling of the physical system 13:17:10 -> https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/issues/530 Issue 530 - Incorporate Discovery terminology into terminology section 13:17:32 -> https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/issues/581 Issue 581 - Consolidate usage of gateway, edge and hub 13:18:13 any interest in modeling Digital twins ? 13:18:30 I made some experiments on this 13:18:38 mm: I added a definition for edge device. We probably have to review them. 13:18:40 + hi 13:19:01 Ege has joined #wot 13:19:06 ok 13:19:32 rzr, you were ask to speak up in the webex call. 13:19:43 But you are not in the call, we guess. 13:19:59 is it open to public ? 13:20:25 sorry I don't want to distrub your call, we can chat later about it 13:20:38 That was the consens in the call as well :) 13:21:51 -> https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/pull/582 going back to PR 582 again 13:22:14 ml added a comment to the PR -> https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/pull/582 13:22:46 -> https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/pull/583 PR 583 - fix a typo 13:22:47 ml: It is just a simple typo. I really would like to merge it. 13:23:10 rzr: Using an IRC channel as an IRC channel has confused people ;) On the webex call mlagally_ invited you to join a future architecture call to discuss https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/WG_WoT_Architecture_WebConf 13:23:16 mm: Don't let get into the IPR thing and just change it ourself. 13:24:32 -> https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/pull/583 PR 583 merged after marked as editorial 13:25:07 subtopic: Accessibility 13:25:11 benfrancis (IRC): thx but i am not granted to access this call, I'll read the log on matrix/irc 13:25:15 i/https/kaz: can merge it after marking it "editorial" if it's really editorial/ 13:25:27 ml: This was a topic from the APA meeting. 13:25:32 rrsagent, draft minutes 13:25:32 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/03/22-wot-minutes.html kaz 13:25:39 mm: I think there is a wider review process. 13:26:10 q+ 13:26:20 mm: I think when we get a more solid specification, we should request a review. 13:27:02 bf: Regarding rzr. He is not a member. We should contact him. 13:27:06 ml: Yes, we can do that. 13:27:39 subtopic: other spec contributions 13:28:07 q+ 13:28:27 ack ben 13:28:28 ack mc 13:28:36 mm: As part of IETF, there is a new draft, but I think we might want to take a look into it. 13:29:08 system lifecycle with registration -> https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/issues/555 13:30:47 rrsagent, draft minutes 13:30:47 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/03/22-wot-minutes.html kaz 13:31:07 subtopic: security considerations 13:31:14 ml: Do we need to do anything here? 13:31:36 mm: I created a section for this. Should we put it into the main architecture document? 13:32:08 ml: We have a security and privacy considerations section in the specification. 13:34:19 ml adds issue 587 -> https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/issues/587 13:35:03 the IETF draft on onboarding and boostrapping: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sarikaya-t2trg-sbootstrapping/?include_text=1 13:35:25 [5min break; then Profile discussion] 13:35:29 rrsagent, draft minutes 13:35:29 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/03/22-wot-minutes.html kaz 13:36:33 present+ Dave_Raggett 13:40:15 scribenick: kaz 13:40:21 topic: WoT Profile 13:40:34 sebastian has joined #wot 13:40:43 ml: (shows the agenda slide) 13:40:54 ... Introduction 13:40:58 ... device categories 13:41:02 ... constraints 13:41:07 ... canonicalization 13:41:16 .. discussion on one/multiple profiles 13:41:24 ... review/discussion of FPWD feedback 13:41:37 s/.. dis/... dis/ 13:42:05 q+ 13:43:28 ml: anything else? 13:43:42 mm: should start with the scope of "WoT Profile" 13:43:55 ... wouldn't take too much 13:44:18 ... related to the topic on one profile or multiple profiles 13:44:21 q+ 13:44:46 ml: ok 13:44:57 ack mc 13:45:24 ml: (adds "scope of WoT Profiles" to the agenda for today) 13:45:42 mm: should have discussion on that first 13:45:45 ml: ok 13:45:47 ask s 13:46:03 sk: would see that we have consensus about "Profile" 13:46:29 q+ 13:46:33 ... would like to keep it simple 13:46:38 q? 13:46:42 ack s 13:46:45 s/ask s// 13:47:21 mm: yeah, that's why wanted to put it as the first topic 13:47:44 subtopic: WG Charter 13:47:56 ml: (explains excerpts from the WoT WG Charter) 13:48:18 -> https://www.w3.org/2020/01/wot-wg-charter.html WoT WG Charter 13:48:30 q+ 13:48:39 rrsagent, draft minutes 13:48:39 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/03/22-wot-minutes.html kaz 13:49:07 q+ 13:49:41 mm: want to say "implementations" here means "finite number of implementations" 13:50:11 ... please don't assume it means "vertical" 13:50:17 q? 13:50:21 ack m 13:50:30 q+ 13:50:44 sk: each IoT product also has this 13:51:00 ... not really see if we want to have "Plug-n-Play" 13:51:08 s/assume it/assume context/ 13:52:03 ... what if we have no clue on semantics 13:52:24 s/finite number of implementations/finite implementability - a developer needs to know in advance the set of technologies they need to include in their implementation, and this should be a finite set/ 13:52:38 ... we can also narrow the scope to communication, etc. 13:53:04 s/this should/this must/ 13:53:18 ack s 13:53:50 ml: semantic interoperability and semantic PnP would be nice 13:54:26 mm: actually, the Charter description implies "more than one" profile 13:54:31 ml: ok 13:54:48 ... we have three profile use cases 13:55:11 mm: just want to point out the charter uses "profiles" in the plural and explicitly assumes there may be more than one 13:55:13 -> https://w3c.github.io/wot-usecases/ use case draft 13:55:23 s/explicitly/implicitly/ 13:55:59 ml: Use case: multi-vendor system integration out of the box interoperability 13:56:26 -> https://w3c.github.io/wot-usecases/index.html#multi-vendor 5.2 Multi-Vendor System Integration - Out of the box interoperability 13:56:55 ml: as a device owner, developer, cloud provider, ... 13:57:28 ... the model here is multiple vendors adapt to a standard 13:57:47 ... this should be possible without device-specific customization 13:58:13 ... Use Case: Cross Protocol Interworking 13:58:20 -> https://w3c.github.io/wot-usecases/index.html#X-Protocol-Interworking 5.4 Cross Protocol Interworking 13:58:49 q+ 13:58:49 ml: examples in smart home, smart city, ... 13:58:57 -> Use Case: Digital Twin 13:59:09 q+ 13:59:25 -> https://w3c.github.io/wot-usecases/index.html#digital-twin 5.3 Digital Twin 13:59:45 ml: Conclusion in the Architecture call on 21 Jan. 2021 14:00:11 -> https://www.w3.org/2021/01/21-wot-arch-minutes.html 14:00:34 q? 14:00:36 ack m 14:00:43 mm: we should focus on use cases 14:00:53 ... some of them apply WoT in general 14:01:03 q? 14:01:34 ... within certain use case, some specific protocol would be applied 14:01:55 ... a use case for that purpose is digital twin 14:02:42 ... let's just focus on the context first 14:02:49 ml: ok 14:02:50 q? 14:03:32 sk: have problem with the use cases for profile discussion 14:03:39 ack s 14:04:04 ml: let's do some simulation for TD then 14:04:32 ... we have to make some basic assumption 14:04:43 q+ 14:04:46 sk: don't see the description yet 14:04:47 q+ 14:05:01 mm: digital could apply all the WoT 14:05:19 ... digital twin is one context 14:05:28 q+ 14:05:36 ... we should clarify what context to be used 14:05:57 ... the constraints applied to everywhere should be "Core" 14:05:59 ack m 14:06:37 q- 14:06:59 s/should be "Core"/should be included in the basic specifications, not in a profile that only applies to one context/ 14:08:09 kaz: would repeat my point for liaison discussion here :) @@@ 14:08:25 ml: that's related to device capability 14:08:42 ... would see profile requirements with more than supporter 14:09:36 q+ 14:09:41 ack k 14:09:53 -> https://github.com/w3c/wot-usecases/blob/main/REQUIREMENTS/profile-requirements.md requirements for Profile 14:10:22 ml: interoperability, limit and reduce complexity, ambiguities, ... 14:10:35 mm: some of them might be "nice to have" 14:10:44 ... should clarify our actual requirements 14:11:08 mm: some of these are absolute requirement, some are nice-to-haves, some belong in general goals for WoT (eg. eliminate ambiguity) 14:11:53 mm: would like to describe the issue on the goals and scope 14:12:30 -> https://github.com/w3c/wot-profile/issues/73 wot-profile issue 73 14:12:39 mm: (goes through the issue 73) 14:12:58 ... we need to 14:13:04 s/... we need to// 14:14:04 ... we need to think about the context and narrow the scope 14:14:26 ... we also should pick up one specific profile 14:14:38 ... and would like to propose we start with the hub concept 14:14:47 q+ 14:14:53 ack m 14:15:21 ... we don't worry about P2P interoperability 14:15:43 ... having narrower scope would mean we would have more concrete answers 14:16:34 ... limited to what we have experience 14:16:44 ... let's talk about narrowing the context 14:16:51 ... and let's pick one 14:17:07 q? 14:17:09 ml: tx for creating this issue 73, first 14:18:09 [[ 14:18:11 Assume the hub has a relatively large memory capacity and capability for consuming Thing Descriptions. 14:18:11 Assume endpoints will not, themselves, consume Thing Descriptions. 14:18:13 ]] 14:19:03