Meeting minutes
Agenda
<kaz> agenda for today
Ege: we did an agenda review
… anything else?
Kaz: did you include the resource maintenance issue?
Ege: yes
Minutes
<kaz> Dec-6
Ege: minutes are ok
… Koster reviewed them too
… any other issue?
Schedule
Ege: updated the calendar accordingly the latest plans
Kaz: I will create the zoom link
… should I create two links or re-use this one for Wednesday?
Ege: we can keep this one for Wednesday
WoT resources
<kaz> PR 1935 - Empty tm documents
Ege: we need to agree how to maintain our resources.
… it is not part of the rec publication process
… if we just update them we don't need to the usual publication process
… TM html is missing
… Mahda is working on a solution
… once merge it we can move it to resources
Mahda: showing the rendered document
Ege: same terms from the TD rec
… nothing new here
… this is a new file, but the ttl has been updated (there were some missing pieces)
… what should we do with those changes?
… they are not breaking changes for tm users
… from my point of view we can change it right now
Mahda: it still lacks some concepts
Cristiano: are there only additions?
Mahda: just a minor update of two annotation properties
… there were also syntax issues
Ege: other opinions?
… ok
… about the editors
… we have Mahda and Sebastian. I think we are fine
… however we don't have a policy or agreement on who to put in there
… any objection to use Mahda and Sebastian?
Cristiano: fine for me
… just remember that we can use Authors in respect too
Ege: any other comments for the PR?
… thank you we can go ahead
Kaz: there is no impact for implementations
Ege: correct
Ege: showing differences between editors and authors
Cristiano: it is not clear how the different types of contributors are treated
Ege: for w3c is specific
Ege: but none of the rights
<kaz> W3C Guidebook page
<kaz> Editor homepage
<kaz> Role of Spec Editor
Kaz: typically editors are taskforce leaders
Ege: author is more document specific
Daniel: if you click on the link we get the old ontology of the TD
… first we have errors
… also it shows that it is the latest version (it is not clear that is the old one)
… weird text in the status of This document
… first we should not use ReSpec but plain HTML
… it is time to check all the others
Ege: ok we can fix this, no implementation impact
… definitly something to do asap
Binding Templates
Ege: we can use issue filter for checking if some issue was fixed by some PRs during the week
… we have two PRs for modbus
PR 329
<kaz> PR 329 - Modbus introduction improvement
Ege: improved text in the introduction
… better scope
Cristiano: a sentence was not clear but I need time to remember why
… can we merge it later?
Ege: no problem
PR 343
<kaz> PR 343 - [Modbus] Typos and slight rewordings
Ege: simply typos fixing
Cristiano: ok for me
PR 336
<kaz> PR 336 - Modbus Dataproperty terms changed to align with best practices
Ege: is it ready to merge?
Mahda: it should
Cristiano: just remember to update the context file
Ege: ok wait for Sebastian input
Ege: it impacts other ontologies as well
… at least we were consistent
Mahda: my only concern is that syntactly is correct. but in RDF triples are not correct with the meaning.
<Zakim> dape, you wanted to HTML rendered ontology file use ReSpec and have errors/warnings, see https://
Kaz: hasAddress implies a flag where there is an address
… hasAddress feels more like a boolean
Ege: correct
… we should do a bulk update
Kaz: which is our intention here, boolean flag or address value?
Ege: address value here...
Ege: note that is going to be a breaking change
<mahda-noura> +1
Cristiano: bulk update is dangerous but we can do it. It is better to have a guideline somewhere to remind ourselves and future ontology editors.
Daniel: can we do a sort of redirection or renaming?
Cristiano: we could use sameAs relationship or other mechanisms like that but it is not real redirection
Kaz: for 2.0 we should fix the problem, but in any case, we have to see if our intention was really expressing the value instead of the boolean flag by "hasAddress", etc., to make sure before adding changes, and have to clearly record the fact.
Mahda: I checked the TD I noticed the naming there is correct
… only the "minor ontologies" (bindings, hypermedia etc.) need to be fixed
Kaz: we need to check with specification or note need to be fixed and record the fact clearly
TD Next
<Ege> https://
Ege: links changed in the work-items.md file
… the specification refactoring roadmap with some order
… also Ege made sure that they all have descriptions
… the documents have more text, which is mostly not new, and are copied from the charter documents and linked to the charter document to avoid duplication
… the usability design section in the document is now much longer, copied over stuff
… for the TD.Next features we need another document for each of the sub-topics to avoid the main document getting too large
… any opinion on this and going with this direction
Cristiano: +1 from cris side
Ege: will be merged, later we can use the sub-topic from the TD Next as labels for the issues in the future related to these topics
Toolchain description update
w3c/
… PR from Mahda about the toolchain and has updates on the figure text
… Mahda also started to look at different tools to simplify the existing toolchain process
… we will have follow up discussion
Cristiano: did Mahda find another mechanism than the templating, as its super hard to maintain
<kaz> rendered README.md
Ege: based on our discussion, there is no tool that can generate the whole specificaction
Mahda: I am currently looking at the first activity to simplify that
Cristiano: the current problem with the template language is the debugging is difficult
<mahda-noura> +1
Kaz: I still have some difficulty in understanding of the flow of the diagram
… semantic web experts is what kind of expertise should the data generator should have. maybe it would be easier to have the different phases
Ege: I think I didn't understand it
Kaz: The title of the first row says "Semantic Web Expert", but that is not "What to do for this phase" but rather "Expected capability". Probably it would be better to have the title of the phase itself, e.g., "1. Generating the source data".
… it might be better to have the phase name as the title
Mahda: The BPMN diagram for the semantic web denotes the role who has to perform those tasks
Ege: we can extend this to address the points of kaz
Kaz: changing the name to TD Task Force participant
Ege: there are some comments added in the corresponding PR w3c/
Project Management Proposal Draft
w3c/
Ege: merged PR, and now working on the document
Daniel: we shouldn't forget to remove the old content
Ege: I already removed
Old PRs
Ege: there are some old PRs, what is your opinion
Cristiano: I am on for closing those PRs, because closing the issue won't delete it, means we are not currently addressing it
<dape> +1
Ege: I am also on the closing side
<kaz> PR 945 - WIP: Simplified inline security definitions
Ege: my proposal for the inline security issue is to copy it over to the td-next-work-items and closing the issue
Kaz: closing the PR for now is fine, but the WoT working group as a whole need to think about use case, and then later think about security again
<kaz> PR 1341 - schema term in expected response
<kaz> (closed)
PR 1330 - Event consumer: Alternative 2 - event consumer affordance
Cristiano: we can close it and provide comments, the PR also links to the issue so it can be tracked
<mahda-noura> s/tracked/tracked
<kaz> (closed)
Ege: The PR has now some comments added to it
PR 1329 - Event consumer: Alternative 1 - event operation
<kaz> (closed)
Unused folders
<kaz> wot-thing-description/test-bed
Ege: there are sometimes some unused folders like test-bed, the content of the td is even old and misleading, if we want to keep them we should move them a testing repository or so
Daniel: We can simply remove it, it is there for historical reasons, I think it is not worth it to more around
Ege: I am also fine to remove it, it will be tracked in the history anyways
<Ege> wot-thing-description/images
Ege: I would be more towards removing it
Daniel: It is misleading
Ege: I will have a double check on this and check it
Ege: is it fine if I merge the PR, if there is no repository using it?
(none)
Kaz: I personally think we should have used the "images" directory to store the images
… however, (unfortunately :) we have been using the "visualisation" directory for TD images for years, so removing the "images" directory is fine in the end.
… let's just remove the obsolete "images" directory.
<kaz> [adjourned]