Meeting minutes
minutes
<kaz> Apr-17
McCool: anything to change?
McCool: minutes are approved
IG Charter
McCool: there were 19/20 approvals
<kaz> AC review results (Member-only)
Kaz: now we have 22 supports, 1 suggestion
Kaz: the suggestion we see is more something for WG, I will contact the person
McCool: It can be a use case
McCool: it is good that nobody objected it
Meetups
Ege: WoT CG has two meetups planned in may. May 16th has public information available
Ege: Also, we have another one on the 7th of May which is about Semantic Digital Twins and will be presented by the University Politecnica Madrid. We will make the calendar information public as soon as possible since we are waiting for the talk description
Mizushima: no specific update on WoT-JP CG
Cancellations
Daniel: note tomorrow is a holiday in Italy
Lagally: regarding Profile, we'll have a call next Tuesday. right?
Luca: yes
Publication schedule
McCool: no changes
TF Discussion
McCool: some of the issues around Security to be handled by the Use Cases TF
… and also I need to step down as the TF lead for Security and Discovery
… would search for a new TF lead
… no pressing issues about Discovery
… though we might want to think about geolocation information
… regarding Security, need for a separate Security TF meeting is also a question
Kaz: maybe we can split the question into 2 pieces: 1. suspension of Discovery and Security, 2. Call for new TF lead
<mm> proposal: Suspend Discovery TF and Security TF for now.
RESOLUTION: Suspend Discovery TF and Security TF for now.
McCool: first part resolved
<mm> proposal: Seek a new TF lead for the Discovery TF immediately; however, the new TF lead will decide when it is appropriate to restart meetings.
Mahda: concerned about the low participation
McCool: we have a document of Security guidelines
… right way to do is selecting a new TF lead
… and then pick a better slot
… or think about combining the Security call with another call possibly
<mm> proposal: Seek a new TF lead for the Discovery TF immediately; however, the new TF lead will decide when it is appropriate to restart meetings.
RESOLUTION: Seek a new TF lead for the Discovery TF immediately; however, the new TF lead will decide when it is appropriate to restart meetings.
<mm> proposal: Seek a new TF lead for the Security TF immediately; however, the new TF lead will decide when it is appropriate to restart meetings.
RESOLUTION: Seek a new TF lead for the Security TF immediately; however, the new TF lead will decide when it is appropriate to restart meetings.
McCool: another resolution about call for new TF lead for Security and Discovery has been also made
JSON Schema
McCool: once we get consensus on the text, we can send it to the Strategy Team
Kaz: we should quickly skim the text before making the resolution
McCool: ok
The WoT WG is a long-time user and supporter of the JSON Schema activities. This message has been conveyed in the past via a joint blog post at the JSON Schema blog (see here), which was also reviewed by the W3C MarComm team. The WoT WG supports the path JSON Schema Project has decided to take in becoming a self-governed entity that maintains the JSON Schema standards. We prefer W3C to consider JSON Schema specifications to be normatively referencable and integratable into W3C specifications.
McCool: one thing missing is mention of the other RDF-based validation tools
Ege: main reason if developer friendly ness
… technically, we can use SHACL, etc. also
McCool: maybe we can add one sentence or two about our need around point 2
Since WoT TDs are usually serialized into JSON-LD, we provide a JSON Schema for validation of TDs. This is published together with the REC at https://www.w3.org/ This is also the core of the tooling used for generating the implementation report, a crucial step in getting to REC stage.2022/ wot/ td-schema/ v1.1.
Luca: most important point is we're handling dialect of JSON Schema
… generating TypeScript is one example
… we can generate different markups using LinkML, etc., too
<Egephone> +1 on what is the most important usage
Luca: by now, it was not completely clear
… we have to be very careful
… very easily to diverge
… we can rely on our JSON Schema ourselves
McCool: the question is we can make mistakes
… also possible compatibility issues
… do you think we need to fix the proposed position text itself?
McCool: (propose some improvement)
<mm> suggest the following text added to the first point under "Problems:" There is the potential to create an accidentally incompatible dialect.
Luca: sounds good
Ege: can better highlight the problems if needed
McCool: point 2 is already clear
Kaz: would suggest we explicitly mention our need for "firm basis for our standardization work"
McCool: (generates concrete sentence for that)
<mm> expanding to a full sentence, put it right after "explained below" - "The WoT WG needs a firm basis for our current and future standardization work." - boldface would be good, also.
David: we do have an example of how people approach the issue of JSON Schema
… approach the keywords
… kind of similar to what McCool mentioned
… avoid unexpected dialects
McCool: yeah
… "The WG had to manually copy over a subset of JSON Schema Draft 7" is the core problem
<Egephone> Open api 3.1 is more strict about the json schema but they did have a discrepancy before
McCool: the point is impact to implementations
Luca: our schema mechanism is strongly bound to some specific version of JSON Schema
… it is something requires more careful treatment
McCool: yeah
… we should consider extension wouldn't break the existing keywords
Luca: would have some addition to the proposed text
… we use JSON Schema as "nice to have"
… the first point is our pain point
The primary use of JSON Schema is modeling and description of the data that an IoT device sends or receives. TD document calls it a Data Schema (see this section). We have even published a JSON Schema ontology at https://www.w3.org/2019/wot/json-schema#
McCool: we should not add too much detail to this position statement
… and think the current text is fine for that purpose
… but disagree we remove point 2 and 3
Kaz: that's OK and important
… but we should fix the style for point 1, 2 and 3?
Ege: can fix that
McCool: given the fix, can we accept the text itself?
<mm> proposal: Accept the proposed text at https://
RESOLUTION: Accept the proposed text at https://
Kaz: let's continue some more tidy-up work offline
... for example, we need to extract the "Submission text"
F2F planning
McCool: need to see people's availability
… maybe organize a doodle pol
Versioning policy
McCool: still draft. right?
Ege: yes
… would like to talk about that next time
TF reports
McCool: no time to talk about this
… but I've marked Security and Discovery as "suspended"
[adjourned]