12:05:39 RRSAgent has joined #wot-profile 12:05:43 logging to https://www.w3.org/2024/04/23-wot-profile-irc 12:05:59 mjk has joined #wot-profile 12:06:15 meeting: WoT Profile 12:07:03 present+ Kaz_Ashimura, Luca_Barbato, Ege_Korkan, Michael_Koster, Toamoaki_Mizushima 12:07:06 chair: Luca 12:07:37 agenda: https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/WG_WoT_Profile_WebConf#Profile_-_Apr_23rd%2C_2024 12:10:20 topic: Minutes 12:10:25 -> https://www.w3.org/2024/04/02-wot-profile-minutes.html Apr-2 12:11:51 scribenick: Ege 12:12:15 lb: Nothing much has changed in the minutes 12:12:40 lb: anything to change in the minutes? 12:12:46 lb: minutes are approved 12:12:55 topic: Housekeeping 12:14:26 lb: we need to agree on whether to keep the async actions in the profile. They are a TD problem 12:15:11 lb: It is underspecified in the TD spec 12:15:28 lb: also we need to agree on how a profile relates to our context? 12:16:36 ... so what happens when a pfoile brings their own ontology 12:17:34 q+ 12:17:51 q+ 12:18:04 q- 12:19:05 q+ 12:19:19 ack e 12:19:21 ek: so the first one is async actions and the other one is profile relationship to ontologies 12:19:21 ack k 12:19:55 q+ 12:20:26 topic: Async Actions 12:20:35 q+ 12:21:44 mjk: I am missing a bit of context 12:22:09 ... is it about one profile or all profiles? 12:22:30 lb: in the TD there is no relationship between invokeaction and query/cancelaction 12:23:27 ... you need to express the payload you expect for querying etc. 12:23:59 ... we can say in a profile that you need that specific payload format for query and cancel 12:24:31 lb: the open question is what happens when a consumer doesn't know the profile? Should it reject the profile or try to do something with that profile 12:25:22 q+ 12:25:55 mjk: do we want to assume that we will have async actions in the TD next version? I would say yes 12:27:49 lb: we can do either X ? (sorry missed that) We can drop the async actions and get a profile 1.0 12:28:45 mjk: ok removing the dependency makes sense 12:29:21 lb: then do we want 1.0 as REC since it achieves some interoperability. Or do we want it as a note 12:29:23 q+ 12:29:34 ack mj 12:29:36 mjk: we can have discussion in a bigger group 12:29:36 ack lu 12:30:15 kaz: async actions should be done in TD. 12:30:29 ... the Profile TF should discuss what should be specified by profile 12:32:36 ack k 12:33:10 ek: I am fine with removing async actions. 12:33:24 ... I do not see anyone wanting to publish as REC, at least it was the case last time 12:33:27 i/the Profile TF should/BTW, in addition to talking about "how to deal with sync/async actions", we as the Profile TF should/ 12:34:05 ... also I have only seen a simple example implementation from michael lagally and one from Ben but that was already profile compliant 12:34:11 lb: there is also mine 12:34:22 lb: I have implemented async actions as well 12:34:49 s/michael lagally/Michael Lagally/ 12:35:29 q? 12:35:34 ack e 12:36:12 lb: Having it as a REC is strong but if we publish as a note, be it. 12:36:32 ... the issue with different implementers require all the complexity of linked data 12:36:42 q+ 12:37:54 lb: we can approach implementers who do not want to adopt WoT because a device can be too complicated 12:38:28 ... handling multiple ontologies and understanding linked data is not something that many want to do 12:39:34 ... if we publish it, we can give it to people and say this is the minimum you need to implement to support WoT 12:40:15 q+ 12:40:46 q+ 12:42:03 mjk has joined #wot-profile 12:42:06 ek: two points. 1 is the example with units is that it is not clear with current profile which SI units one should use. M, meter or metre? How about Units of measure? 12:42:20 ... creating a list of units will be like creating a new ontology 12:42:53 ... from Siemens side, we do not plan to say you have to support these profiles at least to support WoT. 12:43:10 ack e 12:43:54 lb: this is the second part (relationship between profile and ontologies), the SI units requirements would be saying that you should use this ontology that has SI units 12:44:44 lb: you can support WoT without profile but then anything goes, we do not have degraded consumption 12:45:29 ... when it comes to consumption, you need more effort (like an oracled that tells you all the ontologies) or you will have a very degraded consumption 12:46:17 lb: the selling point is implementing a minimum of very useful aspects (correct me if I am wrong here) and still achieve advanced scenarios 12:46:49 lb: so that within that profile you have full interop 12:47:26 kaz: many years ago we had mobile web, I feel that wot profile feels like that 12:47:47 ... in that case profile should be a collection of existing wot specs 12:48:02 ... and not specify additional mechanisms 12:48:39 lb: if mizushima-san doesn't say otherwise, we can move to the other topic 12:49:20 s/feels/sounds/ 12:49:50 tm: we need to clarify what is described in the document because our goal is to publish the document but it is difficult to understand the document 12:50:11 ... so we need to clarify what the profile document is 12:50:14 q+ 12:50:18 ack t 12:50:29 s/additional mechanisms/additional mechanisms. btw, if the current topic is still "Asynchronous Actions out of the profile", we're ok with removing that. right?/ 12:50:31 ack k 12:52:07 s/additional mechanisms./additional mechanisms. That's why I'm suggesting we clarify what to be described by the WoT Profile spec./ 12:52:12 rrsagent, make log public 12:52:15 rrsagent, draft minutes 12:52:17 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/04/23-wot-profile-minutes.html kaz 12:52:24 ek: I just want to second to the fact that people get confused when they read the document 12:53:37 topic: Relationship to Ontologies 12:53:49 lb: a profile can say that you must support these ontologies 12:54:50 ... then we can say that a Consumer can support ontologies without supporting full linked data mechanisms 12:55:25 ... since the terms would be in the profile 12:55:49 q+ 12:56:36 ... do we have consensus on treating profiles as a list of keywords of ontologies that is constrained 12:57:30 mjk: yeah so it is about hardcoding the ontologies. But did we fix this in the TD in the first place? 12:57:53 lb: the core point is fixing the prefixes so that you don't have to fetch ontologies to understand the TD 12:57:56 q+ 12:57:58 ack e 12:57:59 q+ 12:58:41 kaz: we need to clarify what is expected by the developers 12:58:56 ... the word ontology used today might be a bit vague 12:59:28 ack k 12:59:42 ... we need to explain how constrained devices would handle these ontologies 12:59:54 q+ 13:01:03 s/these ontologies/these ontologies (or vocabulary)/ 13:01:09 ek: I am fine with the discussed mechanism but it can be difficult to agree on what specific set of ontologies to take and which subset of them 13:01:18 tm: ontologies are important 13:01:41 ... we should discuss ontologies via case studies. I would like to understsand the case a bit better 13:02:11 q+ 13:02:16 lb: everything should have use cases 13:02:17 ack e 13:02:18 ack t 13:02:24 ack k 13:02:56 lb: next meeting will be solving some of the issues 13:04:01 lb: aob? 13:04:21 [adjourned] 13:04:24 rrsagent, draft minutes 13:04:26 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/04/23-wot-profile-minutes.html kaz 13:06:22 s/ontologies are important/If you think that ontologies are important, you should make simple case study./ 13:07:02 rrsagent, draft minutes 13:07:03 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/04/23-wot-profile-minutes.html kaz 13:09:23 s/... we should discuss ontologies via case studies. I would like to understsand the case a bit better// 13:09:24 rrsagent, draft minutes 13:09:25 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/04/23-wot-profile-minutes.html kaz 15:05:23 Zakim has left #wot-profile