12:02:35 RRSAgent has joined #wot-profile 12:02:39 logging to https://www.w3.org/2024/04/02-wot-profile-irc 12:02:41 meeting: WoT Profile 12:02:51 present+ Kaz_Ashimura, Luca_Barbato 12:02:54 chair: Luca 12:03:56 present+ Ege_Korkan 12:06:39 present+ Tomoaki_Mizushima 12:07:22 agenda: https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/WG_WoT_Profile_WebConf#Profile_-_Apr_2nd%2C_2024 12:12:25 luca_barbato has joined #wot-profile 12:14:22 q+ 12:14:48 ack k 12:16:23 scribenick: Ege 12:16:42 topic: Minutes Review 12:16:47 -> https://www.w3.org/2024/03/19-wot-profile-minutes.html Mar-19 12:17:36 lb: any changes to the minutes? 12:17:45 q+ 12:17:50 q- 12:17:54 lb: are we ok to approve? 12:17:59 lb: minutes are approved 12:18:50 topic: Actions in Profile 12:18:52 q+ 12:19:21 https://github.com/w3c/wot-profile/issues/369 is one 12:20:02 https://github.com/w3c/wot-profile/pull/266 12:20:16 lb: Can you find some issues that are about this 12:20:20 ek: Here are two 12:20:31 lb: it is under specified in the TD as well 12:21:23 kaz: the details of the actions should be specified by the TD first and profile should refer to it 12:21:36 lb: TD doesn't describe anything at the moment 12:22:03 s|https://github.com/w3c/wot-profile/issues/369 is one|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot-profile/issues/369 Issue 369 - Clarifications on async actions| 12:22:11 kaz: We should raise issue in the TD first in that case 12:22:13 q+ 12:23:02 s|https://github.com/w3c/wot-profile/pull/266|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot-profile/pull/266 PR 266 - Refine sync vs. async action protocol binding - closes #259| 12:23:11 q- 12:23:23 rrsagent, make log public 12:23:27 rrsagent, draft minute 12:23:27 I'm logging. I don't understand 'draft minute', kaz. Try /msg RRSAgent help 12:23:27 lb: cannot be done in TD 1.1. Should be in TD 2.0. 12:23:33 ... do we want to patch the profile? 12:23:38 s/rrsagent, draft minute// 12:23:40 rrsagent, draft minutes 12:23:41 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/04/02-wot-profile-minutes.html kaz 12:25:33 lb: TD is underspecified but an async action is already an unknown behavior in the TD consumers 12:26:28 q? 12:26:54 scribe+ 12:27:00 luca_barbato has joined #wot-profile 12:27:29 ek: so the question here is that the description of TD 1.1 is not clear enough. right? 12:27:41 lb: yes, that is the question now 12:29:30 ek: think the output schema for TD can be fixed 12:31:15 q+ 12:31:38 scribe- 12:31:41 luca_barbato has joined #wot-profile 12:32:25 ek: One part is that we do not have examples of TDs for different styles of actions. So we do not have an agreement on how a TD should look like for those and the discussions are not grounded 12:33:04 q+ 12:33:12 ack e 12:33:13 ... Also the profile is not a subset of TD and is breaking implementations like node-wot but any implementation that is strictly TD based will have issues adapting to profile 12:34:07 present+ Ben_Francis 12:34:32 lb: if we cannot have an agreement on how actions should look like, we can just remove it but the spec becomes less useful 12:35:12 q? 12:35:19 qq+ Ben 12:36:14 bf: Theere needs be a WG decision on whether profiles can go beyond what is specified in TD for parts where the TD is not expressive enough 12:36:43 s/Theere/There/ 12:36:44 ... this is the case for actions but also for sse 12:37:09 lb: then we should have a main call resolution 12:37:13 s/ sse/ SSE/ 12:37:30 bf: that is the main blocker 12:37:32 q+ 12:37:34 q? 12:37:36 ack B 12:37:36 Ben, you wanted to react to Ege 12:38:00 kaz: In short I agree with Ben 12:38:34 kaz: If TD is underspecified, it is the issue of TD and that spec should be improved 12:39:15 ... in that case profile TF should decide what the Profile spec should contain 12:39:32 ... also we should decide whether the current draft should become profile 1.0 or not 12:40:38 ... I mentioned in the previous call that I think that current drat is not ready for rec track 12:40:48 ack k 12:41:31 lb: I would like to move to the next topics in the next 20 mins 12:41:35 q? 12:41:42 s/become profile 1.0/become a REC/ 12:43:23 s/for rec track/to become a REC. So we should clarify what to be described by TD 2.0 and what to be described by Profile, and those specs can become RECs for this Charter period. That updated Profile still can be a WoT Profile 1.0./ 12:43:37 q? 12:43:41 ack e 12:45:53 q+ 12:47:19 ek: I do not see implementations of the current profile in the oss projects I am involved in or within Siemens. So I don't see any issues going directly to 2.0 but name it already 1.0 12:47:57 ek: regarding going beyond TD, when we do that (which we do), an implementation like node-wot has to have another codebase per profile or have a lot of if statements 12:48:38 lb: in my implementation experience, profile is just a set of bindings 12:49:23 q+ 12:50:26 lb: (Ege could not take correct minutes for the next points) 12:50:53 lb: we should explain the pain points 12:51:23 q+ 12:51:52 ... if we cannot solve pain points, we can move to 2.0 and make 1.0 a note only 12:52:48 bf: There are complicated details to specify in a TD. Binding Templates needs more defaults as well 12:52:57 ... before we having to do that in the profiles 12:53:03 ack b 12:53:08 rrsagent, draft minutes 12:53:09 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/04/02-wot-profile-minutes.html kaz 12:54:40 ack e 12:54:46 qq+ Luca 12:57:21 ack l 12:57:21 Luca, you wanted to react to Ege 12:58:57 ek: We need to decide whether we want 1.0 as REC or not. From what I see here, you are not wishing that at the moment? 12:59:15 lb: I think it is fine to not have REC but we should close it asap 13:00:23 kaz: the main call tomorrow is quite full 13:00:34 ... but we can have a 5 min discussion starter 13:01:04 s/starter/starter or heads-up/ 13:02:07 [adjourned] 13:02:12 rrsagent, draft minutes 13:02:13 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/04/02-wot-profile-minutes.html kaz