W3C

– DRAFT –
WoT-WG - TD-TF

26 May 2021

Attendees

Present
Andrea_Cimmino, Cristiano_Aguzzi, Daniel_Peintner, Ege_Korkan, Kaz_Ashimura, Michael_McCool, Sebastian_Kaebisch, Tomoaki_Mizushima, Victor_Charpenay
Regrets
Michael_Koster
Chair
Sebastian
Scribe
Ege

Meeting minutes

Minutes Review

<kaz-brb> May-19

Sebastian: (adds roundtripping to agenda)

Publication

Sebastian: 1st of June is still on track for WD publication
… probably july for the CR

<mjk> (koster regrets, I have a conflicting meeting this morning)

McCool: testing will be focused on the WD version

<sebastian> https://github.com/w3c/json-ld-api/issues/514

Sebastian: an issue was found in the jsonld specification

McCool: we need to workaround this in directories

Andrea: the only technology agnostic way of doing it would be by defining frames
… so it is hard to do it in a generic way
… kehio, another library of us, parses java models into rdf
… rdf is a graph and json is tree, so when you have cycles in json, you cannot tell where in rdf
… so it took me a couple of months but the Java library is open source

McCool: how do we validate extensions?

Daniel: victor has validation SHACL generated from ttl

McCool: that is for the core document

McCool: we need a way to get more information on the extension just by using its context

McCool: we should ask this the JSON-LD guys

<dape> s/dp: victor has validation shacl generated from ttl/dp: victor uses shacl shabe for generating the others

<cris> +1

Sebastian: so you want to put it in the context?

McCool: yes, maybe some context negotiation?

Andrea: so you want shacl in the context?

McCool: that or computing another url for finding the shacl

Sebastian: we can invite someone from json-ld group to a call?

McCool: an issue would be good

Sebastian: (writing issue in json-ld-api repository)

Cristiano: it is clear if there is a way to state or if there is a repository with the validation file

<sebastian> https://github.com/w3c/json-ld-api/issues/530

JSON-LD and roundtrip

Sebastian: (created issue is https://github.com/w3c/json-ld-api/issues/530)

Sebastian: something more about this topic?

Modbus Binding

<kaz> wot-binding-templates PR 109 - Refining Modbus protocol binding

Cristiano: we discussed about how to map sub types of integers in json schema

<McCool> s/shabe/shapes/

Andrea: you can use xsd: (something) to allow that

https://github.com/ajv-validator/ajv-formats

cris look at this link :)

Andrea: @type is not the right place for this

Ege: json schema min/max or the new vocabulary extensions can be used

Cristiano: I see, that makes sense

<victor> ack

Victor: I agree with ege

Cristiano: I will check

Cristiano: I have a question about the ontology
… we are defining these ontology for mapping but we are not experts. How to be prefix independent

McCool: prefixes are sometimes cached

Andrea: for schema.org people find it too long and use other prefixes
… it is not a good idea to rely on the prefix

Cristiano: so also we have the idea to have an ontology for the protocol and another document for how to use it in wot

Cristiano: also another ontology about binding would be nice

Victor: but that is already in the TD ?

<victor> SHACL

Sebastian: another annoying point is the byte sequence

Cristiano: yes I have seen that for the first time

Sebastian: Now I want to move the work to work on some PRs

McCool: it is difficult to refer to data schema for properties
… it complicates canonicalizationn

<kaz> wot-thing-description PR 1130 - Update AdditionalExpectedResponses with named data schemas

Victor: canonical form should be direct serialization of the information model?

McCool: yes
… I have to update my PR

Victor: this should be moved to section 6?

Ege: why not use $ref and then allow referring to schemaDefinitions

McCool: why not creating an example about it?

Sebastian: then let's merge this and vc and ege will work on the proposal

PR 1129

<kaz> PR 1129 - More fixes to canonicalization

Daniel: but you should not care about such details in canonicalization

PR 1151

McCool: now I want to talk about signatures

<kaz> PR 1151 - WIP: TD Signatures

McCool: I think we should use xml signatures

McCool: this signature is based on .XML Signature

McCool: this is not done yet

McCool: I don´t have all the keys yet

Cristiano: why is sparql there, you are working with JSON?

McCool: sure, I can get rid of sparql

Sebastian: is the signature part also signed?

McCool: it is added only at the end

Sebastian: thank you very much for your work mm

Sebastian: adjourned

Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by scribe.perl version 131 (Sat Apr 24 15:23:43 2021 UTC).