10:58:21 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #wot-profile
10:58:21 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2022/09/07-wot-profile-irc
11:00:29 <mlagally> mlagally has joined #wot-profile
11:03:23 <Ege> Ege has joined #wot-profile
11:03:49 <kaz> meeting: WoT Profile
11:04:06 <kaz> present+ Kaz_Ashimura, Ege_Korkan, Michael_Lagally, Michael_McCool
11:06:01 <Mizushima> Mizushima has joined #wot-profile
11:06:02 <McCool> McCool has joined #wot-profile
11:06:56 <kaz> present+ Ben_Francis, Tomoaki_Mizushima
11:07:19 <Ege> yes it would be fine
11:10:21 <benfrancis> topic: Review of 2022-08-31 Meeting Minutes
11:11:05 <benfrancis> resolution: Meeting notes aproved.
11:11:22 <benfrancis> topic: Schedule
11:11:41 <kaz> i|resolu|-> https://www.w3.org/2022/08/31-wot-profile-minutes.html Aug-31|
11:11:48 <kaz> present+ Daniel_Peintner
11:12:16 <benfrancis> mlagally: Ideally decide profile 1.0 spec scope next week
11:12:17 <dape> dape has joined #wot-profile
11:12:41 <benfrancis> mlagally: We should prepare for PlugFest testing
11:13:04 <benfrancis> McCool: Testing calls are cancelled, so when should we organise testing?
11:13:10 <benfrancis> mlagally: How about the profile call next week?
11:13:19 <benfrancis> McCool: Yes let's discuss then. Times, repo etc.
11:13:33 <benfrancis> mlagally: Testing call immediately after main call?
11:14:21 <benfrancis> McCool: Haven't actually cancelled the main call next week. Four hours later than usual. Post-TPAC is Eastern time (earlier), but still overlapping testing call. Let's discuss in the next Profile call, which i don't think we have a conflict for
11:14:25 <benfrancis> mlagally: There is a conflict
11:14:36 <benfrancis> PlugFest the week after TPAC
11:15:03 <dape> q+
11:15:41 <benfrancis> McCool: Two week review end of September, CR & review end of October, looking at January for transition...
11:15:46 <benfrancis> McCool: Have to hit the deadlines
11:16:07 <benfrancis> dape: The decision was made to still go for CR?
11:16:31 <benfrancis> McCool: We will try to, only do the normative parts we have consensus on, if not ready then defer it
11:16:54 <benfrancis> mlagally: Let's see what we have at the end of September, will give us an idea of stability
11:17:33 <kaz> i/Review of 2/scribenick: benfrancis/
11:17:41 <benfrancis> topic: Profile 1.0 Scope
11:18:49 <benfrancis> mlagally: Shows a presentation with a proposal
11:19:03 <benfrancis> mlagally: Make only common constraints and HTTP Baseline profile normative
11:19:03 <mlagally> https://github.com/w3c/wot-profile/blob/main/contributions/2022-08-10-Wot-Profile-Next-Steps.pptx
11:19:22 <mlagally> https://github.com/w3c/wot-profile/pull/272
11:20:28 <benfrancis> Looking at changes in draft PR https://github.com/w3c/wot-profile/pull/272
11:20:53 <benfrancis> mlagally: Some wordsmithing in the introduction which should hopefully not be contentious
11:22:36 <benfrancis> McCool: Not sure about wording
11:22:40 <benfrancis> mlagally: We can fix that
11:22:59 <benfrancis> mlagally: I removed the information model chapter
11:24:07 <benfrancis> mlagally: We had a discussion about scope of new profile work before
11:24:32 <kaz> q+
11:24:51 <Ege> q+
11:25:07 <kaz> rrsagent, make log public
11:25:08 <kaz> rrsagent, draft minutes
11:25:08 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/09/07-wot-profile-minutes.html kaz
11:25:12 <benfrancis> McCool: Could say profile for "other protocols" instead of digital twins
11:25:20 <benfrancis> benfrancis: Yes that would be fine
11:25:28 <benfrancis> mlagally: I don't mind, just thought it might trigger more interest
11:25:52 <Ege> q-
11:25:54 <benfrancis> McCool: E.g. profiles for other protocols and a profile for resource constrained devices
11:26:40 <dape> ack dape
11:26:52 <benfrancis> mlagally: Took out JSON Schema section since it doesn't seem realistic for 1.0
11:27:16 <benfrancis> kaz: OK with adding that kind of note, but clarifying the purpose/motivation for profiles should be precisely discussed here
11:27:57 <benfrancis> kaz: The specification should maybe not be called profiles or directory implementation guidelines. If we want to publish a specification named profile we should discuss the motivation more clearly here.
11:28:48 <benfrancis> kaz: The current conclusion of protocol-based profiles and protocol extensions is fine, but should clarify the intention of profiles. Not for specific use cases.
11:28:57 <benfrancis> mlagally: Please constrain the discussion to the review of this PR.
11:29:24 <benfrancis> mlagally: We did extensive work on goals and requirements, would rather not re-open this discussion.
11:29:57 <benfrancis> mlagally: Revisiting motiviation and goals should be done during TPAC for future profile work
11:30:15 <benfrancis> kaz: My concern is we sometimes talk about use case based profiles and we should not go in that direction
11:30:22 <benfrancis> benfrancis: (+1 from me)
11:30:44 <McCool> q+
11:31:10 <kaz> ack k
11:31:14 <benfrancis> kaz: Would prefer to focus on HTTP/CoAP, not talk about extension at all
11:31:23 <benfrancis> mlagally: I'm happy to remove that paragraph with the extensions
11:32:13 <benfrancis> McCool: Future statements not good, may not want to keep them. However, in general this is "profiles" not "profile", so profiles should be for narrower use cases.
11:32:17 <kaz> ack m
11:32:19 <kaz> q?
11:33:03 <benfrancis> mlagally: Terminology being removed
11:33:28 <benfrancis> mlagally: Removed some commented out requirements from previous discussions. I think they can now be closed.
11:33:39 <benfrancis> mlagally: Made one heading shorter
11:33:55 <benfrancis> McCool: That's fine, good catch
11:34:05 <benfrancis> mlagally: Placeholder for identifiers
11:34:26 <benfrancis> mlagally: A guideline for units
11:35:11 <benfrancis> mlagally: Date format recommendations
11:35:49 <benfrancis> McCool: One more issue with relative values like brightness, people are confused about finite vs. percent based. Would be good to recommend using percentage for relative values.
11:35:57 <benfrancis> mlagally: Please create a new issue for that
11:36:29 <benfrancis> q+
11:37:34 <benfrancis> benfrancis: If you reference RFC3339 then you don't need the additional clarifying requirements
11:37:55 <benfrancis> mlagally: Useful for people who don't read the reference
11:38:23 <benfrancis> q+
11:38:46 <benfrancis> mlagally: The next change is making the two event sections non-normative
11:39:24 <benfrancis> mlagally: Resolve editor's notes
11:39:31 <benfrancis> mlagally: Entire section about JSON Schema removed
11:39:40 <benfrancis> mlagally: That's the simplified Profile 1.0 specification
11:39:48 <kaz> q?
11:39:50 <kaz> ack b
11:40:39 <Ege> bf: this is a step in good direction
11:40:57 <Ege> bf: however, this is not experience-driven
11:41:21 <kaz> i/this is/scribenick: Ege/
11:41:56 <kaz> bf: would like to see who is implementing WoT Profile
11:42:04 <kaz> i/would/scribenick: kaz/
11:42:36 <kaz> ... note Consumers would be more difficult
11:42:40 <benfrancis> mlagally: I have done one implementation of HTTP Baseline + Webhook
11:42:47 <dape> q+
11:42:57 <kaz> i/have done/scribenick: benfrancis/
11:43:13 <benfrancis> mlagally: In terms of what we have to validate, we have to verify all of the normative statements
11:43:20 <kaz> ack dape
11:44:20 <Ege> q+
11:44:36 <benfrancis> dape: What you said about the consumer simply picking them from the plugfest, I don't think that's always the case. We have a Consumer which is TD compliant, but it's not fully baseline compliant because we can't fully handle async actions. There's a pending PR from Ben which at least makes the synchronous actions from Baseline Profile compatible,
11:44:36 <benfrancis> but not the async actions. Consumer is not implemented.
11:44:52 <benfrancis> mlagally: don't understand
11:45:18 <benfrancis> dape: Existing consumers can invoke an action, but not necessarily query them. You need a special implementation because the profile extends the TD.
11:45:28 <benfrancis> mlagally: Extends the TD
11:46:03 <benfrancis> dape: Doesn't just extend, it breaks compatibility. Currently the response to the invokeaction request may not match the output data schema. Not that easy.
11:46:25 <kaz> q
11:46:27 <benfrancis> mlagally: I understand that the TD may currently have some limitations when describing brownfield devices
11:46:33 <kaz> q?
11:46:38 <kaz> ack ege
11:46:39 <dape> ack dape
11:46:51 <benfrancis> Ege: Complex interactions with hypermedia is an ongoing discussion since 1.0, still no generic proposal that works
11:47:21 <benfrancis> I still haven't seen a Webhook consumer implementation. Is the consumer mlagally mentioned a generic consumer, or can it only consume one TD?
11:47:39 <benfrancis> mlagally: Not generic. Actually, just logging what it says in the Webook. It just lists the notifications.
11:48:19 <benfrancis> mlagally: I would like to come back to Ben's comment about implementation. The indication of who is implementing this is important and we have a good way to seeing that at the upcoming plugfest. Available implementations and TDs may only need to be updated with profile ID
11:48:21 <benfrancis> q+
11:48:48 <benfrancis> mlagally: Could wait for two more weeks. If only have one implementation of async actions then may have to move it out.
11:49:58 <kaz> bf: agree we wait a few more weeks to see the implementation status
11:50:03 <benfrancis> McCool: Can mark it as at risk.
11:50:11 <kaz> s/bf: agree we wait a few more weeks to see the implementation status//
11:50:47 <dape> q+
11:50:54 <benfrancis> mlagally: We have one more potential implementation. The PlugFest will help understand if there are implementation issues with the specification.
11:51:14 <kaz> ack d
11:51:15 <McCool> q+
11:51:27 <kaz> ack b
11:51:47 <benfrancis> dape: The profile deviates from the TD spec, which may break existing TD consumers.
11:52:11 <benfrancis> dape: This isn't something that I like, but I do understand the concern/verbosity if done differently. Still trying to find a better solution.
11:52:35 <benfrancis> McCool: My understanding of the TD spec is that it has input and output data schemas. DOn't see why node-wot would have a problem with that.
11:52:36 <benfrancis> q+
11:53:06 <benfrancis> dape: The profile uses output data schema, but the response has a wrapper around that.
11:53:12 <dape> ack dape
11:53:27 <benfrancis> McCool: The profile has to be compliant with the TD spec, can't do something different, but can't specify additional constraints
11:53:54 <benfrancis> mlagally: Getting back to the review of this PR
11:54:11 <benfrancis> mlagally: Could we merge this as it is?
11:54:52 <benfrancis> McCool: Agree with merging this if issues we discussed are cleaned up, can file issues e.g. for the actions issue
11:54:57 <benfrancis> mlagally: This PR doesn't change that
11:55:07 <benfrancis> McCool: Yes can have resolution to merge then make sure actions ready for other issues
11:56:16 <McCool> q+
11:56:59 <McCool> (need to drop soon... pre-TPAC call)
11:57:29 <McCool> (however, I still think we should merge this for now, carry on the point ben has raised next time)
11:57:48 <kaz> q+
11:57:53 <kaz> ack mc
11:57:54 <kaz> ack b
11:57:56 <McCool> ack m
11:58:05 <McCool> (sorry, have to go...)
12:00:32 <Ege> bf: I think that there is no evidence of any profile being more implementable than the others
12:01:06 <Ege> bf: we can also make the whole document informative
12:01:42 <Ege> kaz: we can merge this now and discuss later in the pre-TPAC meeting
12:01:53 <mlagally> resolution: merge this PR and continue discussion in the pre-TPAC meeting
12:01:55 <benfrancis> mlagally: Can me make this a resolution?
12:02:29 <kaz> [adjourned]
12:02:33 <kaz> rrsagent, make log pulic
12:02:38 <kaz> s/rrsagent, make log pulic//
12:02:40 <kaz> rrsagent, make log public
12:02:44 <kaz> rrsagent, draft minutes
12:02:44 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/09/07-wot-profile-minutes.html kaz
12:07:46 <Mizushima> Mizushima has left #wot-profile
13:59:21 <Zakim> Zakim has left #wot-profile