12:02:29 RRSAgent has joined #wot 12:02:29 logging to https://www.w3.org/2021/10/07-wot-irc 12:02:41 meeting: WoT vF2F in October - Day 2 12:03:11 cris has joined #wot 12:03:52 present+ Kaz_Ashimura, Sebastian_Kaebisch, Cristiano_Aguzzi, Daniel_Peintner, Ege_Korkan, Fady_Salama, Michael_McCool 12:04:19 Ege has joined #wot 12:04:25 https://forms.gle/cc8qkHcxBhSbMtHc6 12:04:33 dape has joined #wot 12:05:36 Mizushima has joined #wot 12:05:46 present+ Tomoaki_Mizushima 12:06:24 chair: Sebastian 12:07:40 topic: Agenda 12:07:46 -> https://github.com/w3c/wot/blob/main/PRESENTATIONS/2021-10-online-f2f/2021-10-07-WoT-F2F-Opening-Kaebisch.pdf Sebastian's slides 12:08:35 topic: Scribe 12:09:21 Cristiano and Daniel 12:09:36 seb: agenda is available on the wiki page 12:10:05 ... all materials can be found in wot repository under the PRESENTATION folder 12:10:09 i/Agenda/scribenick: kaz/ 12:10:14 topic: What's new 12:10:20 i/agenda is/scribenick: cris/ 12:10:26 seb: not major changes 12:10:39 ... a lot of minor editorial changes 12:11:24 ... about really new features: new operations types 12:12:01 ... these types are used to query actions 12:12:15 ... they were required by advancements in the profile spec 12:12:52 ... new operation types: queryaction, cancelaction, and queryallactions 12:13:28 ... alongside this direction we also have a new proposal for handling query actions without this new operation 12:13:39 ... need further discussion 12:14:22 ... TD signature will not be include in the TD spec but we are going to publish a W3C note 12:14:50 mc: the signature solution is an alternative of JSON-LD signature 12:15:12 seb: can you give us the latest about TD signature? 12:15:18 ryuichi has joined #wot 12:15:20 subtopic: TD signature 12:15:54 mc: we need a signature algorithm but the right place to discuss this is in the IETF 12:16:42 ... it fills a gap between jws and ejs 12:16:57 ... reference community JOSE community 12:17:20 ... we can discuss further on October 28 12:17:40 ... canonicalization should be finalized before tackling signatures. 12:19:27 ktoumura has joined #wot 12:19:33 rrsagent, make log public 12:19:46 present+ Kunihiko_Toumura, Ryuichi_Matsukura 12:19:53 present+ Michael_Koster 12:20:00 zakim, who is on the call? 12:20:00 Present: Kaz_Ashimura, Sebastian_Kaebisch, Cristiano_Aguzzi, Daniel_Peintner, Ege_Korkan, Fady_Salama, Michael_McCool, Tomoaki_Mizushima, Kunihiko_Toumura, Ryuichi_Matsukura, 12:20:03 ... Michael_Koster 12:20:25 seb: any questions? 12:20:30 ... ok let's move on 12:20:40 topic: TD 1.1 vs 2.0 12:21:15 seb: the original intention was to be backward compatibile with TD 1.0 12:21:45 ... TD processor based on TD 1.0 shall also work with TD 1.1 versions 12:21:57 ... i.e. it can use the TD to interact with the WebThing 12:22:12 ... many of the new features are actually backward compatibile 12:22:49 ... however some very useful new features would break backward compatibility. Example: forms optional for affordances 12:24:05 q+ 12:24:29 ... the issue was spawn from issue #878 12:25:20 ... in #878 we have an example 12:25:35 ack k 12:27:21 sebastian shows the example where websocket information is duplicated in each affordance 12:27:36 seb: base element is not sufficient 12:28:32 q- 12:28:42 rrsagent, draft minutes 12:28:42 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/10/07-wot-minutes.html kaz 12:28:49 ... modbus has similar requirements 12:29:32 q+ 12:30:07 ... global definition of protocol parameters make sense if these information is always the same 12:30:40 ... that led to the decision of making forms optional 12:31:16 ack k 12:31:40 q+ 12:31:44 kaz: maybe we can ask to Takenaka representative on the open day about his feedback on designing TDs for modbus and other protocols. 12:32:37 ege: I am not sure about making forms optional 12:32:45 i|sebastian shows|subtopic: Issue 878| 12:33:05 ... validation becomes hard 12:33:09 ... almost impossible 12:33:13 i|sebastian shows|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues/878 Describing initial connection #878| 12:33:32 ... what happen with the op keyword? 12:33:57 q+ 12:34:36 q+ 12:34:47 ack e 12:34:50 ege: does it mean that the top level connection should be supported by all the affordances? 12:35:10 s/ask to/ask/ 12:35:32 ... keep in mind that we have the danger of using subprotocol definition as a shortcut 12:35:40 s/for modbus/for integrating modbus/ 12:35:42 ... to not have interoperable definitions 12:36:09 mc: however if is well-known subprotocol is fine 12:36:27 ... we not allow subprotocol that are not defined in our documents 12:36:40 ... we just need a criteria for what is a reasonable subprotocol 12:38:18 seb: ws is dangerous, there's even coap over websocket 12:38:38 mc: we need to review a reasonable set of subprotocol 12:38:48 q+ 12:39:20 ege: in webthings has it's own payload format 12:40:57 ... there's a link between affordance and payload data 12:41:32 seb: complicated, what if is compressed? 12:41:49 ege: you need to decode anyways 12:44:52 cris: we don't care about the payload structure 12:44:53 q? 12:45:15 ack c 12:45:40 McCool has joined #wot 12:46:23 cris: form definitions? like we have done with security? 12:46:33 ege: I would say it is safer 12:47:15 seb: new terms? or re-use form? 12:47:26 mc: good to follow the same pattern 12:47:50 ... we had some issues with round tripping 12:48:01 ... but we solved for securityDefinitions 12:48:34 seb: a new term? 12:48:44 mc: no, just extend form 12:49:21 ...we can define a simple pre-processor that can convert TD 2.0 and TD 1.0 12:49:49 seb: what about operation type? 12:50:04 ... initialize connection there's no operation type 12:50:36 mc: defaults does not really help here 12:50:50 q? 12:50:57 ack d 12:51:31 dape: we need to skip 1.1 and go directly to 2.0 because we can't solve 878 12:51:50 ... but this is not an argument to skip 1.1 12:51:54 ... this is minor 12:52:13 q? 12:52:13 q= 12:52:16 q+ 12:52:16 q+ 12:53:29 cris: I agree, if we can solve this in a backward compatible manner 12:54:07 s/q=// 12:54:24 q? 12:54:49 mc: what if publishing two documents? 12:54:53 present+ Mikkel_H_Brynildsen 12:55:03 ... it is allowed by our charter 12:55:07 ... I know it is work 12:55:25 ... can we just list differences with 1.1? 12:55:27 s/work/tough work/ 12:55:44 ack m 12:56:12 seb: I like the idea 12:56:22 ... but do we have the man power? 12:56:43 mc: we can do it as a note and handle in the next charter 12:57:25 seb: addressing things in 2.0 mean 2 years 12:57:35 mc: not completely we can go CR immediatly 12:57:52 ... three years if we start from scratch 12:58:49 seb: if both documents are really close to each other could lower the adoption of 1.1 12:59:50 mc: do we need 1.1? i.e. do we need to be backward compatible? 12:59:52 q? 13:01:46 kaz: Given we just have two months till the end of the charter. Even if we can extend it I really concerned that we can't reach the Recommendation stage in time 13:02:27 q+ 13:03:13 ack k 13:03:17 ... I'd like to skip features if those keep us out of schedule. Issue 878 contains many sub-issues like how to deal with websockets 13:03:29 ... what should we close during this charter period? 13:03:44 ... we can't do too much because of the time 13:04:49 ... we can always skip and tackle them next year 13:05:05 ack k 13:05:09 zkis has joined #wot 13:05:13 ack e 13:05:28 qq+ 13:05:40 seb: thank you for your points, I think yes we have the option to skip those 13:06:19 ... in Siemens we have no problem regarding backward compatibility we need new features and we would not support 1.0 13:06:30 ... who has the problem to break backwards compatibility 13:07:08 mjk_ has joined #wot 13:07:09 kaz: What about Takenaka? maybe they have already software agents using 1.0 13:07:27 q/ 13:07:30 q? 13:08:10 ... we need to keep their opinion in consideration 13:08:33 seb: yes first we have to ask if their going to implement WoT next version 13:08:45 ack k 13:08:45 kaz, you wanted to react to Ege 13:09:01 mc: the real question is be or not be backward compatible 13:09:09 qq+ 13:09:14 q- 13:09:15 q+ 13:09:15 q+ 13:09:46 kaz: we should care about backward compatibility as more as possible. 13:10:19 s/as more/as much/ 13:10:57 mk: I advocate for semantic versioning: 1.1 should be backward compatible and 2.0 no 13:11:05 cris: true 13:11:40 q? 13:11:48 ack k 13:11:57 ack mc 13:11:59 ack mj 13:12:04 cris: what about cover webthings.io in this charter? 13:12:04 q+ 13:12:28 mc: what we have now is useful since other people are using it 13:12:37 ... webthings.io is a 2.0 application 13:13:30 q? 13:13:47 mc: I propose to rollback and stick with 1.1 13:14:43 seb: it seems that we have the consensus to keep 1.1 and publish it as soon as possible 13:15:31 ... in 1.1 there's the TM concept which is a new achievement 13:15:38 q+ 13:15:50 ack k 13:16:25 ack e 13:16:36 ege: about the issue discussion I have a couple of slides, should I post them there? or spawn a new issue? 13:17:38 The slides I mentioned are here: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1CYaB0j6ltKH_m0O9LkBpGEgMvyFKgXoy7AMPe-c3k3A/edit?usp=sharing 13:17:42 q+ 13:17:55 q? 13:18:03 i/about/kaz: ok/ 13:18:07 q+ 13:18:31 q+ 13:20:06 kaz: we should really mark the issues to be deferred and the ones related to this charter 13:20:11 ack k 13:20:20 ack c 13:21:57 mk: some new features may go under TMs 13:22:06 ack mjk 13:22:30 mikkelb has joined #wot 13:23:17 q? 13:23:55 proposal: the group decided that the TD 1.1 should be backwards compatible and should be realeased as REC asap. A first version of TD 2.0 can be published just after the TD 1.1 was released. 13:24:55 https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues/1242 is the issue linked to the top level connection 13:29:48 resolution: the group decided that the TD 1.1 should be backwards compatible and should be released as REC asap. A first draft of TD 2.0 should be released asap (begin of next year?) just after the TD 1.1 was released. 13:33:15 Hi All. Mikkel from Grundfos here... Thank for inviting me. I work with IoT Data Models, IoT strategy, Enterprise data architecture and AI at Grundfos, a big pump manufacturer and water systems developer. I will have to run off at around 15:45, unfortunately, but I am talking to Ege about how we can use and contribute to WoT. 13:34:03 i/Hi/[10-min break] 13:37:49 yes, in 10 minutes ca 13:38:15 I did not know about the meeting until a few days ago, so I could not clear my schedule 13:38:43 That sounds like a great idea :) 13:39:39 Hi Mikkel, you can use https://forms.gle/cc8qkHcxBhSbMtHc6 for registration 13:40:15 I did it yesterday but forgot to send it to you as well 13:40:51 scribe: dape 13:41:44 sebastian_ has joined #wot 13:43:00 TOPIC: Mikkel 13:43:13 s/Mikkel/Guest/ 13:43:14 MK: Working for Grundfos 13:43:45 ...worked a lot with semantics 13:44:01 q+ 13:45:01 -> https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20170801/ W3C Patent Policy 13:45:13 s/Working/Mikkel Haggren Brynildsen working/ 13:45:28 ... Grundfos has factories in 52 countries 13:46:14 Kaz: Suggest Mikkel to join meetings the next weeks 13:46:22 MHB: Will try 13:46:34 TOPIC: Collections for TMs 13:46:38 s/weeks/week given he needs to leave now./ 13:47:03 SK: We have a PR almost ready to be merged 13:47:12 ... #1207 13:47:45 -> https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/pull/1207 13:48:03 ... allows to define composition of TMs 13:48:13 .. using links container 13:48:14 ack k 13:49:11 ... instanceName used to distinguish 13:49:27 rrsagent, draft minutes 13:49:27 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/10/07-wot-minutes.html kaz 13:49:34 ... instanceName is optional 13:50:00 ... some updates on "how to generate TDs based on TMs" 13:50:37 q+ 13:51:31 ... another way to generate TDs based on top-level TM is also possible 13:51:39 ... all interactions are taken 13:52:06 ... to avoid name collision renaming is applied using instanceName that was provided 13:52:49 SK: I would appreciate to get feedback on this PR#1207 13:53:15 ... we also explored it in the PlugFest 13:53:47 q+ McCool 13:53:54 ack m 13:54:07 rrsagent, draft minutes 13:54:07 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/10/07-wot-minutes.html kaz 13:54:32 q+ 13:54:38 MMC: w.r.t. examples, using href ./ 13:54:48 ... not sure if this legal 13:54:53 s/topic: Guest// 13:55:01 ... fully qualified url might be better 13:55:05 i/Hi All/topic: Guest/ 13:55:07 rrsagent, draft minutes 13:55:07 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/10/07-wot-minutes.html kaz 13:55:14 qq+ Ege 13:55:36 Ege: relative urls mean under this TD 13:55:45 MMC: defined somewhere? 13:55:53 Ege: don't think so 13:56:03 ack e 13:56:03 Ege, you wanted to react to McCool 13:56:03 SK: Good point, will address the comment 13:56:15 q? 13:56:30 ack c 13:56:37 CA: Some concern as Michael 13:56:53 ... moreover, 2 different methods with generating TDs 13:57:01 ... which method to choose 13:57:18 s/TOPIC: Guest// 13:57:22 rrsagent, draft minutes 13:57:22 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/10/07-wot-minutes.html kaz 13:57:23 SK: Recommended method each TM the TD 13:57:49 ... however, in case of low power devices 13:58:04 ... no need to download additional TMs 13:58:16 ... everything is in one place 13:58:57 (btw, mag 6.1 earthquake near Tokyo today...) 13:58:59 CA: TD implements only *bigger* TM 13:59:36 ... what about recursions? 13:59:50 SK: Recursion is allowed 14:00:00 ... can have more re-directions 14:00:01 s|href ./|"href": ./ventilation.tm.jsonld"| 14:00:04 q? 14:00:09 rrsagent, draft minutes 14:00:09 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/10/07-wot-minutes.html kaz 14:01:38 TOPIC: Reduce TD redundant information 14:01:53 14:02:13 s|"href": ./ventilation.tm.jsonld"|"href": "./"| 14:02:14 CA: WebThings may be complex software agents 14:02:18 rrsagent, draft minutes 14:02:18 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/10/07-wot-minutes.html kaz 14:02:32 ... description hard to read and to maintain 14:02:40 ... this can become a problem 14:02:56 ... shorted TDs are quicker to load, parse, read.. 14:03:11 ... Why do TDs get larger? 14:03:24 ... - security definitions 14:03:32 ... - different protocols 14:03:39 s/shows slides/shows slides@@@/ 14:03:48 ... - different flavors of API endpoint 14:04:03 ... - protocol redundancy (e.g., WebSocket) 14:04:15 ... - complex data schema 14:04:38 ... w.r.t. security definitions 14:05:33 ... one security for the entire TD 14:05:44 q? 14:05:49 qq+ McCool 14:06:00 MMC: Pr#945 has implications for signing 14:06:10 ... compatibility issue 14:06:30 CA: Yes, may be future work 14:06:54 MMC: we should have named forms, security etc .. in a consistent way 14:07:03 i|Yes|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/pull/945 WIP: Simplified inline security definitions #945| 14:07:07 ... comboSchema might be also beneficial 14:07:22 CA: w.r.t different protocols 14:07:55 ... every form is multiplied for all protocols 14:08:29 q+ 14:08:30 ... not sure if we can do anything about it 14:08:34 ack M 14:08:34 McCool, you wanted to react to cris 14:09:19 CA: w.r.t different flavors of same endpoint 14:09:50 ...e.g., node-wot creates TD with each network interface 14:10:14 ... "simple" counter example creates 798 lines of TD 14:10:31 CA: w.r.t protocol redundancy 14:10:46 rrsagent, draft minutes 14:10:46 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/10/07-wot-minutes.html kaz 14:10:48 .. e.g., Modbus using endianes 14:11:00 ... no need to be repeated on every form 14:11:08 CA: w.r.t complex data schema 14:11:47 s/shorted/shortened/ 14:11:50 ... TD schema has 1280 lines 14:11:58 qq+ McCool 14:12:01 ack m 14:12:01 McCool, you wanted to react to McCool 14:12:29 MMC: contentType could indicate schema 14:12:40 CA: cases were this does not work 14:12:52 MMC: omission of schema is an exception 14:13:11 CA: was thinking about pointing to external data schema 14:13:24 q+ 14:13:35 q? 14:13:54 MMC: maybe something for 2.0 14:14:07 q+ 14:14:21 CA: new keyword usable in 1.1 14:15:03 Kaz: Proposals make sense to improve maintainability 14:15:15 ... anyhow, should think "who" generates TDs 14:15:28 ... manual TD generation? 14:16:32 ... shortened version.. may create issues for implementations/validations 14:16:36 CA: Agree 14:16:58 ... TMs can help to generate TDs 14:17:03 ack k 14:17:18 ... in the context of WebThings .. I encountered issues 14:17:32 ... any yes,. shortened version may cause issues w.r.t. validation 14:17:33 q? 14:17:37 ack e 14:17:50 Ege: w.r.t. reference external schemas 14:17:57 ... JSON schema is working on it 14:18:07 ... openAPI allows it 14:18:29 ... linking to URL on the web causes issues with $ref 14:18:56 ... not like fetching 14:19:53 ... otherwise we need to define fetching mechanism our-self 14:20:01 qq+ McCoo 14:20:03 ack m 14:20:03 McCoo, you wanted to react to Ege 14:20:10 MMC: using JSON schema mechanism? 14:20:25 CA: Not sure why the chose not to do it 14:20:49 Ege: problems with incompatibilities .. I think 14:21:07 CA: Yes, not easy to resolve 14:21:17 s/to resolve/to solve 14:21:36 q? 14:21:53 SK: comment about schema definitions 14:22:09 .. limited to additional responses 14:22:26 q? 14:22:35 ... should make schema definitions usable by other terms also 14:22:38 CA: Agree 14:22:39 ack 14:22:43 q? 14:22:45 ack s 14:22:46 ack sebastian_ 14:23:23 SK: Cristiano, suggest to create dedicated issues 14:23:26 CA: Will do 14:23:59 TOPIC: Binding Templates 14:24:38 Ege: I will talk about restructuring work 14:24:48 ... not fully complete yet 14:25:23 i/will/[Ege's slides@@@]/ 14:25:35 .. prev. draft contained big chapters 14:26:00 ... payload was partly about platform standards, mediaTypes 14:26:13 ... we also had redundant information from TD 14:26:26 ... all this information in different places 14:26:57 ... if I am interested in CoAP only I need to pick parts out of different chapters 14:27:23 ... idea was to categorize bindings and externalize the content 14:27:38 ... externalize means separate document 14:27:51 q? 14:27:52 ... each binding in its own document 14:28:23 ... "now" we have a short intro in main binding templates document 14:28:57 ... in section "Protocols" each protocol points to own document 14:29:12 q+ 14:29:23 ... this was a big change.. and I ask for feedback 14:29:51 https://github.com/w3c/wot-binding-templates/pull/130 14:30:10 q? 14:30:44 Kaz: This big change at once is not very beneficial for review 14:30:57 ... however we agreed to merge 14:31:10 ... might want to ask external reviewers also 14:31:25 ... also "changes" section might help 14:31:33 Ege: Yes, I am working on it 14:32:16 Kaz: Naive question to M. Koster. Did you review all changes? 14:32:37 MK: Yes, think so. Might go over the document again. 14:32:43 ... to me it is ready to go 14:32:47 q+ 14:32:54 ... we just need to be used to new structure 14:33:03