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