IRC log of wot-td on 2024-02-29
Timestamps are in UTC.
- 13:55:43 [RRSAgent]
- RRSAgent has joined #wot-td
- 13:55:47 [RRSAgent]
- logging to https://www.w3.org/2024/02/29-wot-td-irc
- 13:55:57 [kaz]
- meeting: WoT-WG - TD-TF - Slot 2
- 14:04:22 [Mizushima]
- Mizushima has joined #wot-td
- 14:04:29 [dape]
- dape has joined #wot-td
- 14:04:29 [mjk]
- mjk has joined #wot-td
- 14:04:48 [kaz]
- present+ Kaz_Ashimura, Michael_Koster, Daniel_Peintner, Jan_Romann, Luca_Barbato
- 14:05:00 [kaz]
- chair: Koster
- 14:05:26 [kaz]
- present+ Ege_Korkan, Tomoaki_Mizushima
- 14:05:44 [Ege]
- Ege has joined #wot-td
- 14:06:31 [kaz]
- present+ Cristiano_Aguzzi
- 14:08:03 [kaz]
- q+
- 14:09:16 [JKRhb]
- JKRhb has joined #wot-td
- 14:09:51 [kaz]
- regrets+ Mahda
- 14:09:59 [JKRhb]
- scribenick: JKRhb
- 14:10:34 [JKRhb]
- topic: Minutes Review
- 14:11:13 [JKRhb]
- s/Minutes/Agenda/
- 14:11:35 [kaz]
- kaz: as you mentioned, we didn't have an official call yesterday, but had brief chat and got important opinions there
- 14:11:49 [kaz]
- ... so would suggest we record those points here on the minutes
- 14:12:01 [JKRhb]
- mjk: Agree
- 14:12:11 [kaz]
- i/Agree/... then we should review both the minutes from last week, Feb 21 and 22/
- 14:12:16 [JKRhb]
- ... Today, we are going to focus on the registry and toolchain (?)
- 14:12:21 [kaz]
- i/as you/scribenick: kaz/
- 14:12:27 [JKRhb]
- topic: Minutes Review
- 14:12:40 [kaz]
- i/Agree/scribenick: JKRhb/
- 14:12:47 [JKRhb]
- mjk: Just skimming over the minutes from last week
- 14:12:56 [JKRhb]
- ... does anyone think anything is missing there?
- 14:13:13 [JKRhb]
- ... think we had a more detailed discussion related to the toolchain yesterday
- 14:13:19 [kaz]
- i|Just|-> https://www.w3.org/2024/02/21-wot-td-minutes.html Feb-21|
- 14:13:28 [JKRhb]
- ... I think we can then approve the minutes, does anyone object?
- 14:13:39 [JKRhb]
- No objections
- 14:13:47 [dape]
- q+
- 14:13:54 [JKRhb]
- ... then we can consider the minutes from February 21 approved
- 14:13:55 [kaz]
- ack k
- 14:14:07 [JKRhb]
- ... then to the minutes from February 22
- 14:14:12 [kaz]
- ack d
- 14:14:29 [JKRhb]
- dp: Just noticed that some of the commands from the script did not work
- 14:14:39 [JKRhb]
- ... some insertions by Kaz have not been processed
- 14:14:50 [JKRhb]
- mjk: Oh, yeah, that is then only editorial, right?
- 14:14:58 [JKRhb]
- dp: Maybe Kaz can fix that
- 14:15:05 [JKRhb]
- mjk: Yeah, is that easy to clean up?
- 14:15:19 [dape]
- ack dape
- 14:15:34 [kaz]
- i|then to the|-> https://www.w3.org/2024/02/22-wot-td-minutes.html Feb-22|
- 14:15:34 [JKRhb]
- kaz: Technically, we have already approved the minutes from the 21st, right? And we are now talking about the minutes of the 22nd?
- 14:15:38 [JKRhb]
- mjk: Correct
- 14:16:07 [JKRhb]
- kaz: (checks the minutes of the 22nd)
- 14:16:38 [JKRhb]
- mjk: There are also two comments that are out of place that are related to the CoAP topic
- 14:17:29 [JKRhb]
- kaz: Please reload the file
- 14:17:37 [JKRhb]
- mjk: (reloads)
- 14:17:50 [JKRhb]
- ... Yeah, that looks good, these issues have now been corrected, thank you
- 14:18:05 [JKRhb]
- ... there is a misspelling of IANA ("IAMA")
- 14:18:50 [JKRhb]
- ... there is a comment by Jan that has not been formatted, but that is probably a chat message by him
- 14:18:52 [JKRhb]
- kaz: Correct
- 14:19:14 [JKRhb]
- mjk: There is also an empty comment associated with Ege
- 14:19:21 [JKRhb]
- kaz: We can remove that
- 14:19:57 [JKRhb]
- mjk: Any other additions or objections to the minutes from the 22nd?
- 14:20:12 [JKRhb]
- ... then I would propose approving the minutes
- 14:20:13 [kaz]
- rrsagent, make log public
- 14:20:17 [kaz]
- rrsagent, draft minutes
- 14:20:18 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/02/29-wot-td-minutes.html kaz
- 14:20:25 [JKRhb]
- No objections, minutes are approved
- 14:20:32 [kaz]
- q+
- 14:21:08 [JKRhb]
- subtopic: Yesterday's Meeting
- 14:21:28 [kaz]
- i/Feb-21/subtopic: Feb-21/
- 14:21:38 [kaz]
- i/Feb-22/subtopic: Feb 22/
- 14:21:41 [kaz]
- rrsagent, draft minutes
- 14:21:42 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/02/29-wot-td-minutes.html kaz
- 14:21:48 [JKRhb]
- kaz: Maybe we can quickly record the discussion from yesterday's meeting
- 14:22:05 [JKRhb]
- mjk: So, to recap
- 14:22:36 [JKRhb]
- ... yesterday we had an informal discussion to brainstorm how to make progress on some of the areas we have been circling aroung
- 14:22:53 [JKRhb]
- s/aroung/around/
- 14:23:02 [JKRhb]
- ... the discussion focussed on three main areas
- 14:23:19 [JKRhb]
- ... one being the toolchain, as we already discussed in the meeting of the 21st
- 14:23:25 [JKRhb]
- ... then the ontology
- 14:23:33 [JKRhb]
- ... which is mostly about resources and versioning
- 14:23:55 [JKRhb]
- ... we should probably be specific that the main issue here is versioning
- 14:24:06 [JKRhb]
- ... and the third one was the registries
- 14:24:36 [JKRhb]
- ... a minor issue was also project management, but as that is going pretty well, we decided to focus on the first three topics
- 14:25:03 [JKRhb]
- mjk: With the toolchain, the summary is that we better need to clarify what problem we want to solve
- 14:25:09 [kaz]
- rrsagent, draft minutes
- 14:25:11 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/02/29-wot-td-minutes.html kaz
- 14:25:48 [JKRhb]
- ... we already know how to do it, but we want to solve the problem of complexity
- 14:25:48 [JKRhb]
- ... which built up over several years
- 14:25:59 [JKRhb]
- ... Mahda did a great job of documenting most of the process as a diagram
- 14:26:27 [JKRhb]
- ... but what we agreed upon was that we want to sort of put that aside for now and try to generate a simpler diagram focussing on the inputs and outputs
- 14:26:43 [JKRhb]
- ... we already know what the inputs are
- 14:26:55 [JKRhb]
- ... and we know what we want to produce
- 14:27:16 [JKRhb]
- ... and in the middle, we can consider that part as a blackbox which we can gradually improve
- 14:27:41 [JKRhb]
- ... we wanted to have a separate meeting for the toolchain rather than integrating it into the regular call
- 14:27:48 [kaz]
- q?
- 14:27:51 [kaz]
- ack k
- 14:27:52 [JKRhb]
- ... which would allow us to do some deep-diving here
- 14:28:28 [JKRhb]
- ... we recognize that what we are doing is software engineering
- 14:28:37 [JKRhb]
- ... and should start with a new diagram
- 14:28:50 [JKRhb]
- mjk: Regarding versioning, we had a contribution by @@@
- 14:28:58 [JKRhb]
- ... which we can use as a model
- 14:28:59 [Ege]
- q+
- 14:29:22 [kaz]
- s/@@@/David Ezell from Conexxus/
- 14:29:36 [JKRhb]
- ... for semantic versioning, we need to clarify what constitutes a minor or major changes
- 14:29:44 [JKRhb]
- mjk: Regarding the registries
- 14:30:01 [JKRhb]
- ... we kind of realized that we did not have all of the requirements
- 14:30:13 [JKRhb]
- ... and that the discussion might have gone a bit off track
- 14:30:23 [Ege]
- ok I have to leave but can someone send me via email the versioning document from David Ezell?
- 14:30:24 [Ege]
- q-
- 14:30:33 [kaz]
- i|Regarding|-> https://gitlab.openretailing.org/public-standards/api-design-guidelines/-/blob/main/Open%20Retailing%20API%20Design%20Rules%20for%20JSON.pdf Information about Semantic Versioning from David|
- 14:30:42 [JKRhb]
- ... maybe we need to think about the requirements a bit more
- 14:30:43 [kaz]
- q+
- 14:30:51 [JKRhb]
- ... is there anything I got?
- 14:30:59 [JKRhb]
- kaz: I think that was a great summary
- 14:31:06 [JKRhb]
- ... it was a casual, but a great discussion
- 14:31:21 [JKRhb]
- ... if everyone is okay with that direction, we can follow up on that discussion
- 14:32:35 [JKRhb]
- mjk: Going forward, I think we need to be a little bit more careful. I think one thing to take away is that we can use the registry discussion as a template for other topics as well
- 14:32:40 [JKRhb]
- topic: Binding Templates
- 14:32:58 [JKRhb]
- subtopic: PR 352
- 14:33:03 [JKRhb]
- mjk: This one is still open
- 14:33:31 [kaz]
- i|This is|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot-binding-templates/pull/352 PR 352 - Min Polling Interval in CoAP|
- 14:33:33 [JKRhb]
- jr: Ege wanted to make some improvement regarding the generation of the document
- 14:33:38 [JKRhb]
- ... still pending
- 14:33:49 [JKRhb]
- subtopic: Registry Analysis
- 14:34:08 [JKRhb]
- mjk: There is still some uncertainty regarding the requirements
- 14:34:20 [kaz]
- i|There is|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot/blob/main/registry-analysis/Readme.md wot/registry-analysis/Readme.md|
- 14:34:28 [JKRhb]
- ... let's see if we have some requirements in the readme file
- 14:34:28 [kaz]
- rrsagent, draft minutes
- 14:34:30 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/02/29-wot-td-minutes.html kaz
- 14:34:36 [kaz]
- q?
- 14:34:36 [kaz]
- ack k
- 14:34:40 [JKRhb]
- ... (skims through the document)
- 14:35:08 [JKRhb]
- ... we have W3C registry analysis and the IANA registry analysis by Cristiano
- 14:35:34 [JKRhb]
- ... the whole point of IANA, from my point of view, is that there should be no conflict in the assigned names and numbers
- 14:35:45 [JKRhb]
- ... and that there are no duplicate registries
- 14:36:27 [JKRhb]
- ... the third thing is that they will check the work, but that might be the least important point, as there are differences in the thoroughness of the reviewers/experts
- 14:36:50 [JKRhb]
- mjk: The requirements we have in the document are mainly about interoperability
- 14:37:08 [JKRhb]
- ... one main thing is also that we make the process transparent to experts
- 14:37:33 [JKRhb]
- ... it always been that way, but we can also decouple the process from the W3C a bit
- 14:37:55 [JKRhb]
- ... all while the binding documents themselves are actually non-normative
- 14:38:23 [JKRhb]
- ... in the W3C sense, with the main normative content coming from other SDOs like Ashrae or OASIS
- 14:38:40 [kaz]
- rrsagent, draft minutes
- 14:38:41 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/02/29-wot-td-minutes.html kaz
- 14:39:02 [JKRhb]
- ... still an open question whether the review is part of the TD taskforce or whether there should be another group that reviews submissions
- 14:39:44 [JKRhb]
- ... bindings should be "webby", question what kind of document a binding should be
- 14:40:20 [JKRhb]
- ... in terms of requirements for the specification, we mainly need to think about documentation requirements, so the format of the submitted document
- 14:40:37 [kaz]
- q+
- 14:40:59 [JKRhb]
- ... versioning, deletion and deprecation are also requirements listed here
- 14:41:22 [JKRhb]
- mjk: I think we had discussions already, so we are ready to start the work here
- 14:41:53 [JKRhb]
- ... I think we also talked about where to publish the registry, whether it should be a W3C or an IANA registry, for example
- 14:42:12 [JKRhb]
- ... so, for me, it is obvious that the registry should be a W3C one
- 14:42:24 [JKRhb]
- ... don't think we need to worry about that too much
- 14:42:42 [JKRhb]
- ... other aspects related to the internet and names and numbers would go to IANA
- 14:43:17 [JKRhb]
- ... we may need some more discussion regarding W3C registries and with the people involved
- 14:43:49 [JKRhb]
- ... then there are questions regarding the registration of URI schemes, whether they need to be registered with IANA or can be temporary
- 14:43:58 [mjk]
- q?
- 14:44:14 [JKRhb]
- ... so I would propose using a W3C registry and then using IANA when required
- 14:44:30 [JKRhb]
- kaz: Thank you for the summary, Michael, I completely agree
- 14:44:42 [JKRhb]
- ... my understanding is that we should generate a document like DID
- 14:44:59 [JKRhb]
- ... generating a registry track document
- 14:45:27 [JKRhb]
- s/generating a registry track document/using the registry track mechanism/
- 14:46:12 [mjk]
- q
- 14:46:12 [JKRhb]
- ... so we would create a document for registering binding template documents, although DID is still using a note document
- 14:46:45 [kaz]
- -> https://www.w3.org/TR/did-spec-registries/ DID Specification Registries
- 14:46:49 [JKRhb]
- ... and look into our existing bindings and how they would fit into the new mechanism
- 14:47:14 [JKRhb]
- mjk: We need a new document, a spec describing how the registry works
- 14:47:28 [kaz]
- i|and look|-> https://www.w3.org/TR/webcodecs-codec-registry/ WebCodecs Codec Registry as an example of W3C Draft Registry|
- 14:47:43 [JKRhb]
- ... is there an existing document (e.g., by DID) that describes how the process works
- 14:47:56 [JKRhb]
- s/works/works?/
- 14:48:17 [JKRhb]
- kaz: I posted two examples above
- 14:48:59 [JKRhb]
- ... the content of the two specifications is quite similar, although the DID is currently on the Note track, only the style is a bit different
- 14:49:04 [kaz]
- s/DID Specification Registries/DID Specification Registries as an example of Group Note/
- 14:49:19 [JKRhb]
- mjk: Even the style is not that different as both are from the W3C
- 14:49:23 [kaz]
- q+
- 14:49:41 [JKRhb]
- ... but styling according to W3C processes is another requirement
- 14:50:04 [JKRhb]
- kaz: Yeah, and we need how to manage the process according to Cristiano's analysis
- 14:50:31 [JKRhb]
- ... regarding the design of the individual entries
- 14:51:17 [JKRhb]
- ... so, for us the question is, what kind of information from the binding documents we want the entry tables to be managed
- 14:51:37 [JKRhb]
- ... I think our preference should be to use the registry track
- 14:52:03 [JKRhb]
- mjk: Ah, so the DID specification is not using the registry track, but the note track
- 14:52:31 [JKRhb]
- kaz: Exactly, the registry track was not available then, but they are considering switching to the registry track
- 14:53:08 [JKRhb]
- mjk: Is there any advantage of not starting as a registry track? I think we can just start as a registry track document, right?
- 14:53:20 [JKRhb]
- kaz: Exactly, that would also be less confusing
- 14:53:47 [JKRhb]
- mjk: So I think we can simply start with the registry track, unless we find any issues with it
- 14:54:10 [JKRhb]
- ... and create a draft registry similar to the Web Codec Registry
- 14:54:29 [JKRhb]
- ... so I think we can make the decision to use this kind of registry process
- 14:54:48 [JKRhb]
- ... and then make a small number of IANA registrations if need
- 14:54:54 [JKRhb]
- s/need/needed/
- 14:55:09 [JKRhb]
- mjk: By the way, does this document manage any external registries?
- 14:55:34 [JKRhb]
- ... so for example, does it register something like a URI scheme?
- 14:55:53 [JKRhb]
- ... something like that would probably also go into the registry document
- 14:56:22 [JKRhb]
- kaz: So if you look into the document, you have an "Audio Codec Registry" section linking to the individual specifications
- 14:56:36 [JKRhb]
- ... these is quite similar to our main Binding Template document
- 14:57:05 [JKRhb]
- mjk: So, the Procotol Binding document will be a new document which is going to be a registry document
- 14:57:27 [JKRhb]
- ... as this is the way it is done in W3C, unless we find a reason to do it differently
- 14:57:39 [JKRhb]
- ... we should start generating this document
- 14:57:56 [JKRhb]
- kaz: I also think that what we are doing is quite similar to what this document does
- 14:58:24 [JKRhb]
- ... so we could basically change the title to "WoT Binding Template Registry" (laughs)
- 14:58:49 [JKRhb]
- mjk: Yeah, we can basically reuse their structure
- 14:58:57 [JKRhb]
- ... and use their document as a template for our own
- 14:59:17 [JKRhb]
- ... if we fill out this template, then we can answer all of our open questions
- 14:59:51 [JKRhb]
- ... if we write up the "Registry Entry Requirements", we will be able to answer how this process should look for us
- 14:59:54 [mjk]
- q?
- 14:59:58 [kaz]
- ack k
- 15:00:21 [JKRhb]
- mjk: I think we made some progress
- 15:00:21 [JKRhb]
- ... we can go from here
- 15:00:30 [JKRhb]
- ... next step will be using our project management approach and create the document
- 15:00:36 [JKRhb]
- ... and also review with Ege
- 15:00:42 [JKRhb]
- ... any other business?
- 15:00:55 [JKRhb]
- [adjourned]
- 15:01:28 [kaz]
- rrsagent, draft minutes
- 15:01:29 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/02/29-wot-td-minutes.html kaz
- 17:23:13 [Zakim]
- Zakim has left #wot-td