Meeting minutes
Previous Minutes
<kaz> Sep-4
McCool: create an issue for the #discovery html id
… we need to be more specific
<McCool_> w3c/
McCool: created the issue above
McCool: we had a lost discussion in the last meeting but the point is not clear
… next time in security we need to review it
… found a problem
… it should be TD server not simply TD
<kaz> ("CoAP for TD" has been fixed as "CoAP for TD server")
McCool: minutes ok, approved to be published
Ontology for DID vocabulary
<kaz> PR 511 - Update discovery-ontology.ttl
<kaz> PR 512 - Create discovery-did
McCool: Andrea, I wanted to discuss about your PR
Andrea: I should have answered your comments
McCool: I don't want to import the whole Discovery ontology to the DID ontology
Andrea: correct
… we have two seperate context files
… the json payload will use only the context of DID
… not all Discovery ontology
Andrea: you don't pulling any ontology file
… you just use the context files
… there is nothing retrieving the ontology doc
McCool: ok, let's review the process
… do we want this info in our discovery ontology or have a standalone document
Andrea: I think it make sense to have in the discovery ontology.
McCool: there is no relationship with other classes
Andrea: WoTDirectory should be aligned with Thing Directory
McCool: ok that was the ontology
… then you created a JSON-LD context
Andrea: I can refactor the PR in two separate ontologies
McCool: I understand the common practice
michael shows the document
Cristiano: WoT Directory and ThingDirectory are not related?
Andrea: they could be related, but it depends on the degree
… they fulfil different functions.
McCool: WotDirectory is different WotThingDirectory
… they are unrelated
Andrea: putting them in different ontology does not solve the issue
McCool: at least I would not mistakenly use one type or the other
Andrea: we can improve the wording
McCool: it is not legal to use the newly introduced terms in the TD
McCool: we need tweak the name in the ontology to avoid confusion
Michael suggested changes on the PR
Andrea: +1
Cristiano: +1
Jan: about the directory service
… I would say that must described the TD Directory
McCool: committing
… any objections?
… ok done
… we have an extra blank line but should not be a problem
Jan: one question about the comment above, is it still correct?
… is it a little bit redundant
McCool: ok I'll change it
… does it look ok?
Kaz: maybe I missed previous discussions, does this ontology refer to other existing ontologies for discovery purposes?
McCool: we are following DID ontology
Kaz: I asked because there was related discussion on TV broadcasting, and usage of mixture of ontologies depends on local standards.
… the suggestion there was to look at those "dialects" of ontologies, meaning locally and separately defined ontolgies, again as best practices.
… the example is coming from the broadcasting industry
McCool: we are using DID but is not used anywhere else
… it is less modular as I liked
… but it is fine
Kaz: this is a good starting point for today
… but when we look into more use cases
… in TD in general we can review it
McCool: this is work ok for now
… now we should test this
… and I want to have our publication to be frozen
… I'm ok to merge PR 511 and 512
Jan: the file in the PR does not have a file extension
McCool: it is ok because it is returned by the URL
… we should configure the website to use the right content-type
McCool: when I fetch a content type it is required to have a content-type?
Andrea: no, in sparql
… it expect to be json
… does it need to have the content-type in the header
Andrea: I think we should
Cristiano: +1
McCool: +1
Cristiano: I would prefer to have the right file extension
McCool: ok, we can have a mapping later between url and files
https://
McCool: I noticed the namespace is github
Andrea: it was temporary
McCool: needs to be fixed
Andrea: +1
Cristiano: +1
McCool: we will discuss the process in the main call
… if you have any issues please propose a PR or create one
McCool: aob?
Kaz: this is related to the discussion on where to put resources
McCool: Yes, and we're organizing things
… to be moved to publications
Kaz: we need more discussions including farshid
McCool: btw, we didn't review the TPAC minutes, so will go over them. Please check them.
[adjourned]