14:01:39 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #wot-td
14:01:39 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2021/07/28-wot-td-irc
14:01:46 <kaz> meeting: WoT-WG - TD-TF
14:02:01 <kaz> present+ Kaz_Ashimura, Michael_McCool, Cristiano_Aguzzi
14:02:13 <cris_> cris_ has joined #wot-td
14:03:27 <mjk> mjk has joined #wot-td
14:04:24 <kaz> present+ Daniel_Peintner, Michael_Koster
14:05:48 <sebastian> sebastian has joined #wot-td
14:06:02 <kaz> present+ Sebastian_Kaebisch
14:06:15 <kaz> present+ Ege_Kokan
14:06:51 <cris_> topic: Agenda
14:07:02 <cris_> seb: welcome
14:07:16 <cris_> ... we have a couple of PRs to review
14:07:27 <cris_> ... then a list of issues
14:07:50 <cris_> ... in particular we have an issue about initial connection that we need to tackle
14:07:56 <cris_> ... something else to add?
14:07:59 <kaz> i/welcome/scribenick: cris_/
14:08:15 <cris_> topic: previous minutes
14:08:36 <kaz> -> https://www.w3.org/2021/07/14-wot-td-minutes.html July-14
14:08:37 <cris_> ege: please add to the review also previous minutes, last time we couldn't review them
14:08:51 <cris_> seb: we'll review after this
14:08:56 <kaz> i|please|-> https://www.w3.org/2021/07/21-wot-td-minutes.html July-21|
14:09:14 <kaz> present+ Tomoaki_Mizushima
14:09:20 <kaz> rrsagent, make log public
14:09:25 <kaz> rrsagent, draft minutes
14:09:25 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/07/28-wot-td-minutes.html kaz
14:09:57 <cris_> seb: so you talked about precesion
14:10:24 <kaz> present+ Ben_Francis
14:10:25 <cris_> ege: yes if you talk about resolution you should use multiple of
14:10:31 <kaz> rrsagent, draft minutes
14:10:31 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/07/28-wot-td-minutes.html kaz
14:10:56 <kaz> chair: Sebastian
14:11:04 <cris_> seb: ok, then you discussed about how to handle security with links
14:11:38 <cris_> mccool: yes the default for links would be no_sec but now you can add a security term to specify which securityDefinition should be applied
14:12:10 <cris_> seb: then we have the proxy-to
14:12:32 <cris_> mccool: yes proxy-to is a reverse proxy statment
14:12:45 <cris_> ... so it is different from what we currently have
14:12:51 <cris_> ... we need an explanatory text
14:13:33 <cris_> seb: you added new badges
14:13:50 <cris_> mccool: we need to debug badge randering problems
14:14:37 <cris_> seb: it seems that you closed some issues
14:15:04 <cris_> ... some were very old
14:16:42 <cris_> ... why was 1138 closed?
14:16:55 <kaz> q+
14:17:24 <cris_> ege: sometimes some notes are not easy to see, why ed notes are not included in the final version
14:17:52 <kaz> q-
14:17:57 <cris_> kaz: if needed we can include editor's note but we have to define a good policy when publishing
14:19:12 <benfrancis> Ege: FYI there are two types of notes in ReSpec. ednote (https://respec.org/docs/#ednote) and note (https://respec.org/docs/#note). Maybe the latter is OK?
14:20:21 <cris_> seb: minutes approved
14:20:39 <cris_> ... now 14 July minutes
14:21:17 <cris_> ... we discussed about the modbus binding
14:21:29 <cris_> ... the outcome was that we merged the PR
14:21:59 <cris_> ... then we merged subscribeallevents and unsubscribeall
14:22:11 <cris_> ... it seems there's a problem with title section
14:22:30 <cris_> ... is it intended ?
14:22:47 <cris_> kaz: double check the link for the title
14:23:23 <cris_> ... I see, it is a miss usage of the subtitle feature
14:23:29 <cris_> seb: it's ok to keep as it is
14:24:54 <cris_> ... we discussed also about initial connection. we'll review it later
14:25:24 <cris_> mccool: we should look carefully for URL template for MQTT
14:25:49 <cris_> ... I proposed one solution that it might not be "standard practice"
14:25:54 <kaz> s/I see, it is a miss usage of the subtitle feature/maybe there is mis-usage of topic vs subtopic for RRSAgent there. if you want I can fix the style based on your preference./
14:26:03 <cris_> seb: is it related to initial connection?
14:26:10 <cris_> mccool: sort of
14:26:41 <cris_> ... we also discussed about different terms
14:26:57 <cris_> seb: ok, any objections to publish the minutes?
14:27:00 <cris_> ... ok approved
14:27:06 <cris_> topic: Pull Requests
14:27:42 <kaz> rrsagent, draft minutes
14:27:42 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/07/28-wot-td-minutes.html kaz
14:27:55 <cris_> subtopic: PR 1155
14:28:19 <cris_> mccool: it is realted to testing repo. it updates the implementation report
14:30:46 <cris_> seb: if we update the file we'll lose the link in the 1.0 spec
14:31:04 <cris_> mccool: yeah we should have a dedicated link
14:31:07 <kaz> q+
14:31:42 <kaz> present+ Ryuichi_Matsukura
14:32:01 <cris_> mccool: pointing to github is problematic cause it is a moving target
14:32:12 <cris_> ... we can use a different name
14:32:21 <cris_> ... with the version appended
14:32:37 <cris_> kaz: yes, I would suggest doing so
14:33:10 <kaz> s/doing so/creating a subdirectoy for v1.1 or something like that./
14:33:12 <cris_> mccool: I'll leave the old report in place and use this new notation
14:33:57 <kaz> s/like that./like that. We've been doing so to handle the static HTML for publication./
14:35:35 <cris_> subtopic: 1167
14:35:52 <cris_> seb: status not clear, we need Victor's guidance
14:36:23 <cris_> mccool: it also relates to canonicalization and preserving names
14:37:05 <cris_> ... for directories we decided to return raw RDF not TDs
14:37:37 <sebastian> q?
14:37:44 <kaz> q-
14:38:26 <cris_> ... by relaxing that requirement we'll make our life easier
14:39:09 <cris_> subtopic: PR 1175
14:39:18 <cris_> seb: a simple typo fix
14:39:47 <cris_> ... but the problem is that the author is not a w3c wot member
14:40:05 <cris_> ... we can decide to merge it anyway
14:40:22 <cris_> mccool: is he a invited expert candidate?
14:40:38 <cris_> seb: he was a student but it also work under industry
14:41:15 <cris_> mccool: if we merge the PR we need verbal commitment of IPR
14:41:45 <cris_> kaz: is it an editoral change?
14:41:49 <cris_> seb: yes
14:42:02 <cris_> mccool: ah ok than we can accept this PR
14:42:08 <cris_> s/than/then/
14:42:38 <cris_> mccool: by the way this issue remind me to create another one about metadata in id
14:43:02 <cris_> ... it might be a security problem
14:43:10 <cris_> ... so we need to add a note
14:43:32 <kaz> i|a simple typo|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/pull/1175 PR 1175 - fix: replace "name" with "title" in TM example|
14:43:42 <cris_> ege: ok be careful that we have an RFC describing how id should be
14:44:08 <kaz> i|status not clear|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/pull/1167 PR 1167 - fix: fix RDF triples example from Thing description json-ld 1.1|
14:44:09 <cris_> mccool: it would be better to encode opaque numbers
14:44:36 <cris_> seb: ok back to the PR, is it ok to merge?
14:45:24 <cris_> subtopic: PR 1197
14:45:47 <cris_> seb: basic term was missing
14:46:07 <cris_> ... any comments?
14:46:42 <cris_> ... merged
14:46:57 <cris_> subtopic: Opaque ids
14:46:59 <McCool> https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues/1203
14:47:34 <cris_> subtopic:  Pr 1198
14:47:44 <cris_> seb: it addresses two issues
14:48:40 <kaz> i|addresses|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/pull/1198 PR 1198 - Defaults fix|
14:48:44 <cris_> ... we used to have only default values for read/write properties
14:49:01 <cris_> ... the pr tackles also observeproperty
14:49:33 <cris_> seb: then it resolves the issue with the content-type in additional responses
14:49:56 <cris_> ege: yes I added a sentence
14:50:20 <cris_> ... if content-type is missing its value it is the same of the form element
14:50:25 <cris_> seb:ok
14:50:33 <cris_> ... any other comments?
14:50:54 <cris_> ... merged
14:51:02 <cris_> subtopic: 1201
14:51:38 <kaz> i|basic term|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/pull/1197 PR 1197 - fix example 37 and its canonical form|
14:52:06 <kaz> -> https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/pull/1201 PR 1201 - Security reorder
14:52:17 <cris_> ege: the main problem was the secuirity example was miss ordered. Now the new order is from "easy" to "hard"
14:52:39 <cris_> ... I used small paragraph
14:52:52 <cris_> seb: are they visible inside the Table of Content
14:52:54 <cris_> ege: no
14:53:00 <cris_> seb: ok but they are nice
14:53:40 <cris_> ege: I also added a paragraph is it ok ?
14:53:55 <cris_> mccool: yeah it is fine, but I'd like to review the whole paragraph
14:54:04 <cris_> ... maybe I can do fix ups later
14:55:55 <cris_> ... let's keep open and add me as a reviewer
14:56:23 <cris_> ... if you don't hear from me just merge it next week
14:56:52 <cris_> topic: issues
14:57:08 <cris_> subtopic: Issue 1200
14:57:42 <cris_> ben: in webthing gateway we have top level links (forms) for actions events and properties
14:57:56 <cris_> ... currently we can describe events and properties
14:58:21 <cris_> ... we are now just lacking operation types for actions
14:58:57 <cris_> ... they are not really used to much especially  queryanyaction
14:59:07 <dape> dape has joined #wot-td
14:59:15 <dape> q+
14:59:15 <cris_> ... if we don't add this we'll removed top level endpoint
14:59:32 <cris_> seb: it makes sense to have queryallactions
14:59:47 <cris_> ... but what do you mean with invokeanyaction
15:00:29 <cris_> ben: in webthings gateway you can send a GET request to get a list of pending actions
15:00:43 <cris_> ... and POST to the same endpoint to invoke any of the action
15:00:45 <cris_> q?
15:00:45 <sebastian> q?
15:00:47 <Ege> q+
15:00:57 <kaz> q+
15:00:57 <McCool> q+
15:01:22 <cris_> dape: which the difference between invokeanyaction or invokeallactions?
15:01:46 <cris_> ben: in the gateway you don't invoke all the action with one request
15:02:06 <cris_> ege: it is similar to multiplewriteproperties
15:02:18 <cris_> ben: it is not that either cause you can just invoke one
15:02:41 <cris_> ege: we have also to define a payload format
15:02:49 <cris_> s/also/also need/
15:02:51 <dape> ack dape
15:03:21 <cris_> mccool: when you say queryallactions you are quering all the status of the action list?
15:03:28 <cris_> ben: yes
15:03:36 <cris_> mccool: so it is just convience
15:04:09 <cris_> ... but it might be important to have queryallaction for resilience
15:05:06 <kaz> https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues/1200#issuecomment-886554225
15:05:23 <cris_> ben: you can get induvial instance of an action
15:06:11 <cris_> ... but you can also get the status of all the pending request on a particular action endpoint
15:06:25 <kaz> ack Ege
15:06:29 <cris_> seb: should be all of them mandatory?
15:06:38 <cris_> ben: just the first
15:07:02 <cris_> ege: they might be critical for applications coordination
15:08:13 <benfrancis> https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues/302
15:08:25 <cris_> cris: this issue is really related to having also a definition for queryaction
15:08:35 <cris_> ben: see link above
15:09:23 <kaz> s|https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues/1200#issuecomment-886554225|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues/1200#issuecomment-886554225 Ben's description on 3 possible use cases for querying an action|
15:09:35 <cris_> cris: yeah exactly I see that issue as a blocker
15:09:39 <cris_> ben: I agree
15:10:20 <cris_> ... so if we are going to add this new operations should we also add queryallaction operation?
15:10:22 <cris_> ege: yes
15:10:27 <cris_> cris: +1
15:10:43 <cris_> seb: is there any security concerns?
15:11:00 <cris_> mccool: yeah it shoulb be access control
15:11:09 <cris_> s/shoulb/should
15:11:13 <kaz> s/shoulb/should/
15:11:17 <kaz> q?
15:11:18 <cris_> ... we need to express this
15:11:31 <McCool> ack m
15:11:48 <McCool> q+
15:12:02 <cris_> kaz: Am ok with this new feature, but I'd be happy to see more use cases or scenarios
15:12:28 <kaz> ack k
15:12:35 <McCool> ack m
15:12:55 <McCool> q+
15:13:07 <cris_> seb: do we want this query all action operation type?
15:13:19 <cris_> ... still have doubts about invokeanyaction
15:13:30 <cris_> mccool: any feel like a rando action
15:13:37 <cris_> s/rando/random/
15:14:16 <kaz> s/kaz: Am ok with this new feature, but I'd be happy to see more use cases or scenarios/I'm OK with adding two new features if we really need. So I'd like to see some more description about the three proposed use cases, e.g., with concrete TDs and use case scenarios./
15:14:26 <kaz> s/I'm OK/kaz: I'm OK/
15:14:32 <kaz> rrsagent, draft minutes
15:14:32 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/07/28-wot-td-minutes.html kaz
15:14:38 <McCool> q+
15:15:32 <cris_> cris: it seems that it a construct to map a protocol level construct
15:15:37 <cris_> ben: correct
15:16:14 <cris_> mccool: maybe we can model that with other td features
15:16:37 <cris_> mk: is it really just invoke action by name?
15:16:47 <cris_> seb: multiple actions?
15:16:56 <cris_> mk: no one of the time?
15:17:03 <cris_> s/?//
15:17:15 <cris_> seb: what about the payload structure?
15:17:33 <cris_> ... does it solve the grouping problem in the echonet?
15:17:41 <benfrancis> invokeaction - POST /actions/fade {"level": 100, "duration": 10}
15:17:42 <benfrancis> invokeanyaction - POST /actions {"fade": {{"level": 100, "duration": 10}}
15:18:05 <kaz> q+
15:18:54 <benfrancis> invokemultipleactions - POST /actions {"fade": {{"level": 100, "duration": 10}, "reboot": {}}
15:18:58 <cris_> kaz: regarding the group of actions, we are discussing about it with them. They can work on this feature for the tpac
15:19:03 <McCool> ack m
15:19:06 <benfrancis> q+
15:19:45 <kaz> ack k
15:19:45 <McCool> (ps I like the "invokemultipleactions" idea, covers one, as well.  But it does seem a little specialized.)
15:20:05 <cris_> ben: I posted different examples above
15:20:29 <kaz> @@@ three lines of example code here
15:21:02 <kaz> q+
15:21:07 <kaz> ack b
15:21:56 <cris_> seb: ok better but still can't really get the anyaction case
15:22:19 <cris_> ... I am open to support those operation types
15:22:20 <kaz> q-
15:22:31 <cris_> q+
15:22:59 <McCool> q+
15:23:04 <cris_> ege: not super sure about invokeanyaction
15:23:24 <cris_> mccool: how do I describe the payload?
15:24:09 <cris_> cris: the same problem with writemultiple
15:24:24 <cris_> mccool: maybe it is a profile issue
15:25:08 <cris_> cris: it could be, but I support having this in the TD
15:25:46 <cris_> mccool: we already put data schema in additionalResponses
15:25:59 <cris_> ... so maybe we can do the same in root level forms
15:26:17 <McCool> q+
15:26:23 <cris_> ack c
15:26:53 <cris_> mk: having tags in the dataschemas could help
15:27:17 <cris_> mccool: we need a wrapper schema that refers to each schemas
15:27:24 <cris_> ... it is tricky
15:27:59 <cris_> ege: don't we agreed to having it always as an object
15:28:27 <cris_> mccool: it is convenient to describe alternative formats
15:28:29 <cris_> mk: agree
15:29:25 <cris_> seb: what happen with ordering in invokemultipleactions? which one should be executed first
15:29:30 <cris_> ... ?
15:29:41 <kaz> s/don't we agreed/didn't we agree/
15:29:52 <kaz> s/having it/have it/
15:30:18 <cris_> seb: it seems that we agree on the the direction
15:30:24 <kaz> q+
15:30:38 <cris_> ... we still have a couple of issues to resolve.
15:30:51 <kaz> s/the the/the/
15:30:53 <cris_> ben: I think we should first resolve queryaction first
15:32:52 <cris_> seb: introducing invokeanyaction is reduntant if we add invokemultipleactions
15:33:00 <cris_> cris: true
15:33:18 <cris_> kaz: I think examples would be beneficial
15:34:04 <cris_> ege: going back to echonet problem, I don't think this would solve it
15:34:28 <cris_> kaz: yes we need to think that as a separated problem
15:34:50 <cris_> mccool: for now we can define the op and defer the payload description to protocol binding topic
15:35:06 <dape> q+
15:35:13 <kaz> q-
15:35:26 <cris_> ben: do we have time for queryaction?
15:35:51 <cris_> seb: maybe can you provide a PR about it
15:35:55 <cris_> ... ?
15:36:14 <kaz> s/yes we need to think that as a separated problem./right. we need to handle ECHONET's action grouping capability as a separate problem.
15:36:17 <benfrancis> https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues/302#issuecomment-884867648
15:36:23 <cris_> ben: I provided a TD describing an action queue, it would be better to have a feedback on that first
15:36:34 <cris_> mccool: I agree
15:36:49 <cris_> ... I support in general having queryaction operation
15:37:42 <McCool> ... it's not whether we need it (we do, for recovery of crashed consumers, for example) but how we do it
15:37:46 <kaz> s/I think examples would be beneficial/As I already mentioned, I'm OK with adding these features, but still would like to have more detailed description on the use cases with concrete example codes, e.g., some LED(s) invoked and queried how./
15:38:16 <cris_> dape: invokeanyaction is a shortcut to call a dedicated action, but invokemultiple open a totally different scenario
15:38:23 <cris_> ... how we handle multiple results?
15:38:30 <cris_> s/we/do we/
15:38:53 <cris_> mccool: how the response will look like
15:39:16 <cris_> ben: yeah this again goes on the support the fact that we need tackle first how to query an action status
15:40:12 <cris_> seb: ok let's follow up in the issue
15:40:44 <cris_> ... daniel is correct in regards to multipleinvoke
15:41:27 <cris_> subtopic: issue 878
15:41:41 <cris_> seb: also here we discussed about a new operation type the open
15:42:15 <dape> ack dape
15:42:29 <cris_> ... ben provided an example on top-level connection forms
15:43:18 <cris_> ben: yes I tried to described two scenarios, one of which it more verbose
15:43:45 <cris_> ... this problem is similar to mqtt, but I want to understand how much
15:44:05 <kaz> i|also here|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues/878 Issue 878 - Describing initial connection|
15:44:07 <cris_> seb: in mqtt it is more important to have a base and then a specific topic in the different affordances
15:44:56 <cris_> ege: for me the main difference is operational
15:45:25 <cris_> ... with normal enpoints I just look after operations inside the forms array
15:45:58 <cris_> ... with this top-level endpoint it breaks a little bit the desing
15:46:28 <cris_> ben: so far we don't really specified how to use forms in interactions
15:46:46 <cris_> ege: I support top-level form
15:46:55 <cris_> q+
15:47:27 <McCool> q?
15:47:31 <McCool> ack m
15:49:35 <benfrancis> q+
15:50:39 <McCool> (never mind, should defer to ben here)
15:51:05 <McCool> (but I do think we need a place to put the initial "connect" URL for websockets, MQTT brokers, etc)
15:51:15 <McCool> (and I also think this should be a form)
15:51:40 <benfrancis> q-
15:51:49 <cris_> ack c
15:52:03 <McCool> +
15:52:22 <cris_> mccool: connect is an affordance
15:52:26 <kaz> q?
15:52:31 <kaz> s/+//
15:52:32 <cris_> ege: is not a capability of a device
15:52:39 <kaz> q+ McCool
15:53:01 <cris_> mccool: links are more about relations
15:53:09 <cris_> ... so I support having connection as a form
15:53:49 <cris_> seb: how about define exception for forms when websocket is used
15:53:52 <cris_> ... ?
15:55:01 <cris_> ben: it seems a reasonable workaround for 1.1
15:55:42 <cris_> ege: how does it look like when used with other subprotocols?
15:55:58 <cris_> ben: the consumer has to support the subpotrocol
15:56:22 <cris_> seb: it is open to the user
15:56:55 <cris_> ben: there's going to have just a single ws enpoint too
15:57:17 <cris_> mccool: we can define exceptions for every protocol with any websocket
15:57:45 <cris_> ... I'd like to have an url as subprotocol
15:58:36 <cris_> cris: can you clarify this new rule?
15:59:18 <cris_> mccool: interactions will not have forms if websocket top-level form is present
15:59:59 <McCool> (btw: time check.  Now at the end point)
16:00:04 <cris_> ege: readonly, writeonly and observable is a hint
16:01:04 <kaz> s/is a hint/are just hints within the current spec./
16:01:27 <cris_> ... but now if we don't have forms they became operational relavant
16:01:55 <cris_> cris: btw the new rule is also about breaking backward compatibility just for web sockets
16:02:10 <cris_> ben: I think it is fine cause we don't really have implementations about it
16:02:14 <cris_> ege: true
16:02:17 <cris_> cris: agree
16:03:43 <cris_> mk: using the idea of wrapper schemas at the top-level would help maybe here
16:04:35 <cris_> ege: how to handle mixed information in forms and in the root level
16:04:45 <cris_> ben: you can treat them as another form
16:05:19 <cris_> adjurned
16:05:31 <kaz> rrsagent, draft minutes
16:05:31 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/07/28-wot-td-minutes.html kaz
18:21:55 <Zakim> Zakim has left #wot-td