IRC log of wot-td on 2024-01-31
Timestamps are in UTC.
- 15:04:20 [RRSAgent]
- RRSAgent has joined #wot-td
- 15:04:24 [RRSAgent]
- logging to https://www.w3.org/2024/01/31-wot-td-irc
- 15:05:56 [dape]
- dape has joined #wot-td
- 15:11:27 [ktoumura]
- ktoumura has joined #wot-td
- 15:13:53 [JKRhb]
- JKRhb has joined #wot-td
- 15:13:58 [JKRhb]
- scribenick: JKRhb
- 15:14:09 [luca_barbato]
- luca_barbato has joined #wot-td
- 15:14:21 [JKRhb]
- topic: Logistics
- 15:14:24 [JKRhb]
- subtopic: Wiki
- 15:14:45 [JKRhb]
- ek: Wiki has been updated, you need to check "remember me" to stay logged in
- 15:14:52 [JKRhb]
- subtopic: Schedule
- 15:15:20 [kaz]
- agenda: https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/WG_WoT_Thing_Description_WebConf#January_31_and_February_1%2C_2024
- 15:15:36 [kaz]
- chair: Ege, Koster
- 15:15:41 [JKRhb]
- ek: We could cancel the call next week if a sufficient number of people would not be joining, but this seems not the case
- 15:15:48 [JKRhb]
- topic: Minutes Review
- 15:15:59 [JKRhb]
- ek: (shows the minutes from last week)
- 15:16:05 [Ege]
- https://www.w3.org/2024/01/24-wot-td-minutes.html
- 15:16:10 [dape]
- s/the call next week/the call after next week
- 15:16:11 [JKRhb]
- ... already had a look on them with Michael Koster
- 15:16:20 [JKRhb]
- ... looked good to me
- 15:16:22 [kaz]
- s|https://www.w3.org/2024/01/24-wot-td-minutes.html||
- 15:16:29 [JKRhb]
- ... if there are no remarks, we can approve them
- 15:16:32 [kaz]
- i|shows the|-> https://www.w3.org/2024/01/24-wot-td-minutes.html Jan-24|
- 15:16:38 [kaz]
- rrsagent, make log public
- 15:16:42 [kaz]
- rrsagent, draft minutes
- 15:16:43 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/01/31-wot-td-minutes.html kaz
- 15:16:51 [JKRhb]
- ... hearing not remarks, minutes are approved
- 15:16:56 [JKRhb]
- topic: TD topics
- 15:17:08 [JKRhb]
- subtopic: Toolchain automation
- 15:17:34 [JKRhb]
- ek: Mahda worked out a table with things that can be improved
- 15:17:45 [kaz]
- q+
- 15:17:48 [JKRhb]
- mn: (shares her screen with a presentation)
- 15:18:01 [JKRhb]
- kaz: Are the slides available online?
- 15:18:12 [JKRhb]
- mn: Not yet, but I can make them available later
- 15:18:14 [kaz]
- ack k
- 15:18:27 [kaz]
- -> Slides tbd@@@
- 15:18:29 [JKRhb]
- mn: This is just a quick motivation why we need such a toolchain
- 15:18:35 [JKRhb]
- ... currently we are facing two problems
- 15:19:01 [JKRhb]
- ... one concerns the number of artifacts we have to update once a document changes
- 15:19:09 [JKRhb]
- ... this can cause a lot of inconsistencies
- 15:19:40 [JKRhb]
- ... once we have a model for generating the artifacts, we can start simplifying
- 15:20:02 [JKRhb]
- ... I prepared a table as an analysis of different semantic web tools
- 15:20:23 [JKRhb]
- ... we derived a number of requirements based on the features we currently have in the TD information model
- 15:21:23 [JKRhb]
- ... such as Array support, one of, inheritance of interaction affordances, unknown object keys with unknown behavior, or pattern matching
- 15:21:41 [JKRhb]
- ... the other table rows refer to specific features of the tools that I analyzed
- 15:21:59 [JKRhb]
- ... these are additional features such as OpenAPI Spec conversion or the generation of diagrams
- 15:22:35 [JKRhb]
- ... I prepared a meta model
- 15:22:59 [JKRhb]
- ... this is for example a meta model for TD
- 15:23:37 [JKRhb]
- ... has features like slots and enables the definition of ranges for example, arrays are supported via a "multi value" concept
- 15:23:46 [JKRhb]
- ... there is also an example for pattern matching
- 15:24:02 [JKRhb]
- ... once have such a meta model, it also generates the SHACL shapes
- 15:24:17 [JKRhb]
- ... the main difference of these shapes to our currently defined shapes is the naming
- 15:24:34 [JKRhb]
- ... we can do some post-processing to do these minor changes, though
- 15:24:42 [kaz]
- present+ Kaz_Ashimura, Mahda_Noura, Cristiano_Aguzzi, Daniel_Peintner, Ege_Korkan, Jan_Romann, Kunihiko_Toumura, Luca_Barbato, Tomoaki_Mizushima
- 15:24:43 [JKRhb]
- ... other than that, it does what we want
- 15:24:49 [kaz]
- rrsagent, make log public
- 15:24:53 [kaz]
- rrsagent, draft minutes
- 15:24:55 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/01/31-wot-td-minutes.html kaz
- 15:25:01 [JKRhb]
- ... it can also auto-generate a JSON Schema
- 15:25:11 [JKRhb]
- ... I haven't compared it to our current version, though
- 15:25:16 [cris_]
- cris_ has joined #wot-td
- 15:25:21 [cris_]
- q?
- 15:25:23 [cris_]
- q+
- 15:25:23 [JKRhb]
- ... it can also generate diagrams
- 15:25:44 [JKRhb]
- ... you can also pass additional arguments
- 15:25:47 [kaz]
- q+
- 15:25:55 [JKRhb]
- ek: Note: The diagrams are based on Mermaid
- 15:26:13 [JKRhb]
- ca: Definitely promising, already good result and good start
- 15:26:25 [JKRhb]
- ... I was wondering about the type, does it supports types?
- 15:26:44 [JKRhb]
- ... in the comparison table you mentioned that TinyML does not support types?
- 15:27:20 [JKRhb]
- mn: This is referred to the cases where a TD field can be, for example, a string or an array of strings
- 15:27:35 [JKRhb]
- ... this could potentially be modeled via an oneOf
- 15:27:45 [JKRhb]
- s/an/a/
- 15:28:41 [JKRhb]
- ... however, we might need to look into different alternatives here
- 15:29:17 [JKRhb]
- ca: Can you show the JSON Schema again? I think you showed the context before
- 15:29:19 [JKRhb]
- mn: Yes (shows the other file), it can also generate the context by the way
- 15:29:44 [Ege]
- qq+
- 15:29:59 [luca_barbato]
- q+
- 15:30:05 [cris_]
- ack cris
- 15:30:12 [JKRhb]
- ca: I have the feeling that it could potentially also handle the conversion to Typescript types as we are doing it in the Scripting API taskforce, although this might be even more complicated
- 15:30:30 [JKRhb]
- ek: @@@
- 15:31:08 [JKRhb]
- kaz: Thank you very much for trying to improve the toolchain itself
- 15:31:39 [JKRhb]
- ... however, I am still kind of confused, whether this is a proposal for a new mechanism or just the mechanism from the diagram
- 15:32:09 [JKRhb]
- mn: We don't want to change anything about the documents themselves, but we want to improve the mechanism of generating them
- 15:32:53 [JKRhb]
- kaz: In that case, it might be nicer to clarify this point first and also the input files as well as the results such as the diagrams and tables within the HTML files as a starting point
- 15:33:12 [JKRhb]
- ... clarifying, which part of the document is generated using which tool
- 15:33:29 [Ege]
- @cris_ sorry it only mentions python dataclasses https://linkml.io/#generate . I am sure that I have seen protobuf somewhere...
- 15:33:50 [JKRhb]
- mn: This is just a first proposal, but we can use it to improve the documentation about the process as a whole
- 15:34:00 [JKRhb]
- kaz: @@@
- 15:34:06 [JKRhb]
- mn: Sure, we can add this
- 15:34:19 [Ege]
- q?
- 15:34:20 [JKRhb]
- ek: There will be detailed markdown document later, this is just a sneakpeak
- 15:34:51 [Ege]
- @cris_ ah yes here https://linkml.io/linkml/generators/typescript.html
- 15:35:13 [JKRhb]
- lb: The main idea is we are using some kind of additional formalism to generate all of the other formalisms that we already use
- 15:35:21 [JKRhb]
- mn: Yes, exactly
- 15:35:25 [kaz]
- s/kaz: @@@/It would be appreciated if you could start with high-level description about the toolchain as a whole handles this input to generate that output, then describe which part of the toolchain handles what input to generate what output./
- 15:35:28 [kaz]
- ack k
- 15:35:36 [kaz]
- q- Ege
- 15:35:52 [kaz]
- rrsagent, draft minutes
- 15:35:54 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/01/31-wot-td-minutes.html kaz
- 15:36:14 [JKRhb]
- lb: So the idea is to check out all of the tools to check which work for us and which one can produce the nicest output
- 15:36:38 [JKRhb]
- ... so then I think we should have a more detailed into the individual tools
- 15:37:04 [JKRhb]
- ... I already noticed that @@@ looks like a very promising tool
- 15:37:51 [JKRhb]
- ... hope that we can utilize for the generating our documents, thank you for your effort
- 15:38:46 [JKRhb]
- subtopic: Issues raised by Scripting API with a TD dependency
- 15:38:59 [JKRhb]
- ek: This was raised by the Scripting API TF
- 15:39:03 [kaz]
- present+ Michael_Koster
- 15:39:06 [cris_]
- q+
- 15:39:13 [JKRhb]
- ... should go through them to check the implications for the TD spec
- 15:39:19 [Ege]
- ack l
- 15:39:45 [JKRhb]
- ca: We can start with the issues labeled "high priority"
- 15:39:58 [mjk_]
- mjk_ has joined #wot-td
- 15:40:03 [JKRhb]
- ... we labeled them according to their relevance to implementations
- 15:40:18 [JKRhb]
- ... most of them are related to meta operations such as readmultipleproperties
- 15:40:35 [JKRhb]
- ... there is the question how to model them in the Scripting API
- 15:40:58 [JKRhb]
- ... we wanted to raise awareness for this aspect in the TD spec
- 15:41:33 [JKRhb]
- ek: Thank you for raising these issues, the meta operations can almost considered a bug at the moment, should be improved in the TD specifications
- 15:41:40 [kaz]
- i|We can start|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3A%22priority%3A+high%22 wot-scripting-api Issues with "priority: high" label|
- 15:41:44 [kaz]
- rrsagent, draft minutes
- 15:41:46 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/01/31-wot-td-minutes.html kaz
- 15:41:52 [JKRhb]
- ... however, they are not only relevant for the Scripting API
- 15:42:04 [JKRhb]
- ... the data types for the meta operations are unclear, for example
- 15:42:11 [JKRhb]
- ... and this is relevant for all consumers
- 15:42:27 [JKRhb]
- ca: We share the same view on this issue then
- 15:42:42 [JKRhb]
- ... do we have an issue in the TD repo for that yet?
- 15:43:05 [JKRhb]
- ek: I think we should open issues if we don't have them already
- 15:43:25 [JKRhb]
- ... should be exempt from the use case process, as they can be considered "bugs"
- 15:43:47 [JKRhb]
- ... (adds this topic to the Wiki)
- 15:43:53 [kaz]
- rrsagent, draft minutes
- 15:43:54 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/01/31-wot-td-minutes.html kaz
- 15:45:22 [JKRhb]
- ca: In the old TD, operations were more like "documentations" or backward justifications of what we've done. As you mentioned, if we haven't been able to use them then others will probably not be able to so as well
- 15:46:00 [JKRhb]
- ek: There are cases where it should be straightforward, such as MQTT with subscribing to wildcards, but this is not the case in general
- 15:46:42 [JKRhb]
- ek: Issue ??? is depending on the security definitions overhaul
- 15:47:25 [JKRhb]
- dp: There are priorities other than low and high as well, by the way
- 15:47:46 [JKRhb]
- ek: Issue 214 could also be related to a use case
- 15:49:23 [JKRhb]
- ek: Issue 532 is related to the canonicalitation and signing work item
- 15:49:32 [kaz]
- i|532|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/issues/214 wot-scripting-api Issue 214 - Requirements from oAuth 2.0 code flow|
- 15:50:06 [kaz]
- -> https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/issues/532 wot-scripting-api Issue 532 - TD canonicalization and signing
- 15:50:07 [JKRhb]
- ... issue 488 is depending on the versioning discussion
- 15:50:34 [JKRhb]
- dp: Correct, not only related to intermediate or snapshot versions, but more general how to align with different TD versions
- 15:51:07 [JKRhb]
- ek: Issue 351 got lost a bit
- 15:51:22 [JKRhb]
- ... we can prioritize this a bit, since it will be relevant no matter what we will do
- 15:51:40 [kaz]
- i|Correct|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/issues/488 wot-scripting-api Issue 488 - Use a different tag for unstable npm packages|
- 15:52:18 [kaz]
- i|we can prioritize|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/issues/351 wot-scripting-api Issue 351 - Finding correct unsubscribe form|
- 15:52:18 [JKRhb]
- ca: About the versioning issue: It is that we use the same version as in the JSON Schema, so if we want to change the pattern here we are waiting for you
- 15:52:31 [JKRhb]
- ek: For now I will just to a documentation of this
- 15:52:40 [JKRhb]
- ... and then we can start sorting them into the correct workflow
- 15:52:51 [JKRhb]
- topic: Use Case Discussion
- 15:53:28 [JKRhb]
- ek: Last week, we agreed that we can do labelling of the issues, such as that the ones that need a use description can be labeled
- 15:53:37 [JKRhb]
- ... that means that we also split the work
- 15:53:47 [JKRhb]
- ... I think all of you should have gotten an email
- 15:53:53 [JKRhb]
- ... I already have seen some work
- 15:54:00 [kaz]
- q+
- 15:54:09 [cris_]
- ack c
- 15:54:13 [JKRhb]
- ... so first, are there any questions regarding the process or does someone want to see an example?
- 15:54:20 [JKRhb]
- mn: Yeah, an example would be great
- 15:54:37 [JKRhb]
- kaz: As you know, Mizushima-San has started reorganizing the workflow
- 15:54:46 [JKRhb]
- ... I think the current approach is nice
- 15:55:09 [JKRhb]
- ... the Thing Description TF should also think about how to join this discussion based on our discussions here
- 15:55:21 [JKRhb]
- ek: I invite everyone to join the use case discussion
- 15:55:39 [Mizushima]
- q+
- 15:55:45 [JKRhb]
- ... I think many of us are already joining the use case call, but I invite everyone to join the call
- 15:55:46 [Ege]
- ack k
- 15:55:47 [kaz]
- ack k
- 15:56:07 [kaz]
- rrsagent, draft minutes
- 15:56:08 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/01/31-wot-td-minutes.html kaz
- 15:56:24 [JKRhb]
- ms: I think, regarding Kaz's comment, I would like to discuss the use cases of TD members at the use case calls
- 15:56:35 [JKRhb]
- ek: Do you mean to pick one of these issues as an example?
- 15:56:44 [JKRhb]
- ms: @@@
- 15:57:06 [JKRhb]
- ek: Since it is the same topic and also Mahda asked regarding an example, I will go to one
- 15:57:17 [JKRhb]
- ... (shows the issue list in the TD repo)
- 15:57:21 [kaz]
- q?
- 15:57:24 [Mizushima]
- q+
- 15:57:29 [JKRhb]
- ... each of you got a page assigned
- 15:57:35 [JKRhb]
- ... for example, I went to page 8
- 15:57:49 [kaz]
- s/@@@/yeah/
- 15:57:57 [luca_barbato]
- q+
- 15:58:02 [JKRhb]
- ... and I looked at all of the issues to see if there is a use case relevant to the charter
- 15:58:10 [Ege]
- https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues/878
- 15:58:18 [JKRhb]
- ... so, for example, looking at issue 878
- 15:58:26 [kaz]
- q?
- 15:58:31 [JKRhb]
- ... this is related to "describing the initial connection"
- 15:58:40 [JKRhb]
- ... for example, regarding WebSocket endpoints
- 15:58:52 [JKRhb]
- ... this is already in our charter
- 15:59:03 [JKRhb]
- ms: I would like to add my opinion on the use cases
- 15:59:30 [JKRhb]
- ... I think it is important to clarify the expectations for stackholders and users regarding the use cases
- 16:00:05 [kaz]
- s/for/of/
- 16:00:14 [kaz]
- s/stack/stake/
- 16:00:29 [JKRhb]
- ... and the members of our taskforce should be prioritized
- 16:00:49 [JKRhb]
- lb: I went through the issues that were assigned to me
- 16:00:49 [kaz]
- s/our/our TD/
- 16:01:08 [JKRhb]
- ... it would probably be nice to have a set of topics we could assign our issues to
- 16:01:32 [JKRhb]
- ... so far, I just added a note my issues, but it would be nice to have a label
- 16:01:34 [kaz]
- ack mizu
- 16:01:54 [JKRhb]
- ek: There are already labels like "initial connection", do you mean something like this?
- 16:01:57 [JKRhb]
- lb: Yes
- 16:02:06 [JKRhb]
- ek: Okay, will create labels for them
- 16:02:21 [Ege]
- q?
- 16:02:23 [Ege]
- ack l
- 16:02:40 [JKRhb]
- lb: Using the labels, we can also compile a list in GitHub projects eventually
- 16:03:52 [kaz]
- rrsagent, draft minutes
- 16:03:53 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/01/31-wot-td-minutes.html kaz
- 16:03:59 [JKRhb]
- ek: Continuing the example, I took issue 878 and labeled it as "Has Use Case Potential", which is quite easy I think, I also added the "Selected Use Case" label as it is part of our charter
- 16:04:25 [JKRhb]
- ... having a look into our charter, there is for example "Support WoT Interoperability", which is applicable to a lot of issues
- 16:04:46 [JKRhb]
- ... something similar is true for "Improving TD descriptiveness"
- 16:05:22 [JKRhb]
- ... my basic advice is adding the "Has Use Case Potential", based on that we can also have a discussion in the call
- 16:05:28 [kaz]
- -> https://www.w3.org/2023/10/wot-wg-2023.html WoT WG Charter
- 16:05:33 [JKRhb]
- ek: Another example would be issue 885
- 16:05:36 [kaz]
- q+
- 16:06:05 [JKRhb]
- ... which is about more compact formats for TDs and has use case potential, but it is not directly related to our charter, in my opinion
- 16:06:15 [JKRhb]
- ... is that fine, Mahda?
- 16:06:21 [JKRhb]
- mn: Yeah, thanks
- 16:06:27 [kaz]
- ack k
- 16:06:37 [JKRhb]
- ek: If anything is unclear, feel free to ask and bring an example into the call
- 16:06:52 [JKRhb]
- [adjourned]
- 16:06:54 [kaz]
- ack k
- 16:07:15 [kaz]
- i/adj/scribenick: kaz/
- 16:07:31 [kaz]
- i/adj/kaz: We're out of time, so let's continue the discussion next time./
- 16:07:39 [kaz]
- i/adj/scribenick: JKRhb/
- 16:07:49 [kaz]
- meeting: WoT-WG - TD-TF - Slot 1
- 16:07:54 [kaz]
- rrsagent, draft minutes
- 16:07:56 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/01/31-wot-td-minutes.html kaz
- 16:08:52 [kaz]
- s/overhaul/overall/
- 16:11:27 [kaz]
- i|This was raised by|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+label%3Await-for-td wot-scripting-api Issues with "wait-for-td" label|
- 16:11:29 [kaz]
- rrsagent, draft minutes
- 16:11:31 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/01/31-wot-td-minutes.html kaz
- 18:29:27 [Zakim]
- Zakim has left #wot-td