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