01:02:29 kaz has joined #wot-td 01:34:04 Zakim has left #wot-td 13:04:24 RRSAgent has joined #wot-td 13:04:24 logging to https://www.w3.org/2024/07/25-wot-td-irc 13:05:03 dape has joined #wot-td 13:05:04 luca_barbato has joined #wot-td 13:05:11 Zakim has joined #wot-td 13:05:16 meeting: WoT-WG - TD-TF - Slot 2 13:05:20 chair: Ege 13:05:24 rrsagent, draft minutes 13:05:26 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/07/25-wot-td-minutes.html Ege 13:05:30 present+ Mahda_Noura 13:05:35 present+ Kaz_Ashimura, Ege_Korkan, Luca_Barbato, Daniel_Peintner, Mahda_Noura 13:07:03 q+ 13:07:07 present+ Kunihiko_Toumura, Tomoaki_Mizushima 13:07:14 scribe: Mahda_Noura 13:07:21 topic: agenda 13:07:22 agenda: https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/WG_WoT_Thing_Description_WebConf#July_24_and_25%2C_2024 13:07:34 luca: should we start the discussion about degraded consumption 13:07:47 ege: if there is time I want to talk about the data mapping 13:08:11 ...the idea is to use the Plug Fest for degraded consumption to get more experience 13:08:37 rrsagent, make log public 13:08:41 rrsagent, draft minutes 13:08:43 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/07/25-wot-td-minutes.html kaz 13:08:49 topic: Registry Requirements 13:09:00 ege: For this I have started a little PR for this 13:09:28 https://github.com/w3c/wot-binding-templates/pull/378 13:09:44 ...there was a point about the breakout session 13:10:07 ...there is then DISCUSS for open points in the bindings 13:11:42 ...identification of bindings to be discussed. There were two text written "this alternative seems to have more consensus". I want to ask you how should the identification happen in general. Whether there should be new terms, or subprotocols 13:12:07 ...is there any further remarks from your side? 13:12:12 (none) 13:13:09 ...whether the URI scheme should be regisitered in IANA first, Cristiano mentioned last time that we should do provisional registration. This brings additional work. 13:13:25 q? 13:13:26 ...what do you think, do you think we should mandate the URI scheme? 13:13:33 q+ 13:13:33 q+ 13:15:00 luca: even if it might have overhead, it should be required that anything we put is already IANA registeres, at least provisional registration. Once the whole thing is completed we should have both the schema and the media type present in IANA so we don't have duplication 13:15:18 ege: so you are for having it first registered in IANA? 13:15:23 rrsagent, make log public 13:15:27 rrsagent, draft minutes 13:15:28 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/07/25-wot-td-minutes.html kaz 13:15:42 luca: yes, for people who want to do that it might be additional work but for the people who are involved would be less work 13:15:53 ege: do you say at least provisional? 13:16:02 i/shuld we start/scribenick: mahda/ 13:16:03 rrsagent, draft minutes 13:16:04 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/07/25-wot-td-minutes.html kaz 13:16:20 s|https://github.com/w3c/wot-binding-templates/pull/378|| 13:16:44 ack dape 13:16:53 i|For this I have|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot-binding-templates/pull/378 wot-binding-templates PR 378 - Registry Requirements Update| 13:16:55 rrsagent, draft minutes 13:16:56 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/07/25-wot-td-minutes.html kaz 13:17:03 luca: what happens is that IANA lets you use the x- prefix, if we accept provisional protocols they can use that as the media type. But once we decide to set in stone, the protocol must also be registered in IANA. The downstream can use the information registered in IANA to deal with that. Implementation wise there is already something that can be 13:17:03 leveraged 13:17:22 ege: somebody is going to submit a binding, do we say no if it is not submitted or? 13:18:01 luca: The life cycle of the submission can be: somebody wants to have their own stuff as protocol binding, in order to do that, we will say we will give you feedback. 13:18:18 i/should we start/scribenick: mahda/ 13:18:19 rrsagent, draft minutes 13:18:21 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/07/25-wot-td-minutes.html kaz 13:18:45 q+ 13:18:55 ...but once we decide that this is good to go, the person has to do the process of registering the scheme in IANA. It isn't possible that our registry shows something and IANA shows something else, otherwise we will have a problem 13:19:45 q? 13:19:45 -> https://github.com/w3c/wot-binding-templates/blob/fa7944bc2259442b1b911bbbba70663884192ed0/registry-requirements.md Preview 13:21:10 ack d 13:21:12 ack l 13:21:23 q+ 13:21:40 dape: once we merge it, it should be not only provisoned with a x-, it should be final. But beforehand, once someone wants to contribute a binding, it's not worth it that they submit the media type. We should put a process here. You can propose a media type or a scheme, but we won't merge it until it's not a final definite IANA, and not just a 13:21:40 temporary one. I do not want to get people to work if it is tempoerary 13:22:52 s/temporary/... temporary/ 13:23:06 ege: we don't have to have this rule, but all the other registries do not allow updating an entity, it cannot be a work in progress in a registry, if we follow this rule it should go through a lifecycle that needs to be defined 13:23:40 kaz: why don't we start with the content of registry definition a bit more before diving into how to deal with that 13:23:46 ege: we will also come to that later 13:24:16 kaz: my point is that the order of the discussion point, the content of the registry entry should be the first to discuss 13:24:40 ...we should clarify what kind of URI schema and media type for which binding and ecosystem and so on 13:25:13 ege: so far the URI schema was mandated ... 13:25:59 kaz: I understand the history of WoT itself, we should clarify the need for the template and the items, and then we can follow this kind of detailed the discussion. I'm not objecting to discuss about these topics as well. The order of the discussion is strange for me. 13:26:14 Ege: ok, lets first with the rules of registry first 13:27:27 (Ege does some changes in the registry0requirements file) 13:28:28 kaz: maybe the current expectation can be changed to basic requirements 13:29:36 ege: in the registry we need to define two things, what is submitted and what is in the table, and the text around it. This is called the registry definition 13:29:48 ...Ege shows an example 13:30:43 ...we have to agree on 3 things, what is the registry, what kind of content do we expect, and what are the requirements (this is what we are discussing at the moment) 13:31:06 i|Ege shows|-> https://www.w3.org/TR/webcodecs-codec-registry/ WebCodecs Codec Registry (as an example registry)| 13:31:10 rrsagent, draft minutes 13:31:12 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/07/25-wot-td-minutes.html kaz 13:31:18 ...the basic requirements are what we discuss and the entry requirement is what the submitters see 13:31:34 ...I think there will be a need for reorganization in the document 13:31:54 ...we should start with the properties that we need in that example table 13:33:01 Ege performs some changes in the document 13:33:28 q? 13:33:29 q- 13:34:13 ...if somebody goes in the binding template document, it seems that our tables are not aligned 13:35:11 ...it is a good idea to avoid prefix coliisioN 13:35:30 ...what do you think? 13:36:14 ...what do you imagine seeing in this kind of table? 13:36:19 q+ 13:37:24 ack k 13:37:57 kaz: once we as the WoT TD TF dealt with the basic template registry, we can bring our idea to the strategy lead and W3C registry contact about possible registry document for WoT. In any case we need to get approval . Talking with him beforehand would be good. 13:38:57 ege: if we want to avoid collision on the ontology prefix, we have to also avoid collision on the URI schema and media types, therefore they should also be listed 13:39:38 ...this is sort of overlap with the identification discussion, the way we identify should be sort of in the table 13:39:41 s/once we as the WoT TD TF dealt with the basic template registry/once we as the WoT TD TF have clarified our basic requirements for binding template registry and have got approval by the whole WoT WG/ 13:40:04 s/to the strategy/to PLH as the strategy/ 13:40:27 s/document for WoT/document for WoT Binding Template/ 13:40:44 s/to get approval/to get approval for publication of the registry/ 13:40:58 Ege does some changes in the document, section Entry format 13:41:14 s/if we want/right. if we want/ 13:41:22 ...other opinions on what this table should contain? 13:41:23 q? 13:41:41 (none) 13:43:32 rrsagent, draft minutes 13:43:33 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/07/25-wot-td-minutes.html kaz 13:43:54 ... let me commit this file 13:44:16 -> https://github.com/w3c/wot-binding-templates/blob/egekorkan-patch-4/registry-requirements.md Updated preview 13:44:44 ege: I will work on this document as there needs to be some improvements and enable more discussions 13:44:52 subtopic: Data Mapping 13:45:24 https://github.com/w3c/wot/blob/main/planning/ThingDescription/td-next-work-items/usability-and-design.md#data-schema-mapping 13:45:27 ege: this was a topic that was discussed in multiple places and is actually part of the discussion in the following document 13:45:35 rrsagent, draft minutes 13:45:37 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/07/25-wot-td-minutes.html kaz 13:45:46 ...I will just do an intro and we can have some initial discussion 13:46:28 s/subtopic: Data/topic: Data/ 13:46:31 rrsagent, draft minutes 13:46:32 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/07/25-wot-td-minutes.html kaz 13:46:40 ...what we have as a topic is that we want to have the TD as a schema part and we bind it to the actual request. However, we have some discrepancy, the URI variables. 13:46:51 ...bring dataschema to the specific protocol parameters 13:47:52 ...the second point is that in case of some protocols, we have to find a way to map to their specific content type, they have bits and bytes. We have to find a way to go from json schema, currently this is loosely represented. 13:48:21 ...this was also mentioned by Jan, to have more expressivness in our DataSchema 13:48:37 s|https://github.com/w3c/wot/blob/main/planning/ThingDescription/td-next-work-items/usability-and-design.md#data-schema-mapping|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot/blob/main/planning/ThingDescription/td-next-work-items/usability-and-design.md#data-schema-mapping TD.Next Usability and Design Work Items - Data Schema Mapping 13:48:43 rrsagent, draft minutes 13:48:44 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/07/25-wot-td-minutes.html kaz 13:48:50 ...Luca has provided some ideas on URI variables for BACnet 13:49:09 https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues/1936 13:49:43 ...this is one concrete use case in a modbus device, we will bring it in the plug fest to see the real problem 13:49:52 s|https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues/1936|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues/1936 wot-thing-description Issue 1936 - Supporting complex/structured types in simple protocols| 13:50:45 ...Kazeem from Siemens also provided a discussion, each bit inside the byte have different meanings 13:51:07 rrsagent, draft minutes 13:51:08 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/07/25-wot-td-minutes.html kaz 13:51:50 ...in the next case, we have a property which is an object, that is mapped to the form part in the TD, the implementation behind has to translate the abstract stuff to concrete protocol information. 13:52:01 i|Kazeem from|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues/1936#issuecomment-2165816685 Kazeem's comment including an example TD| 13:52:02 rrsagent, draft minutes 13:52:03 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/07/25-wot-td-minutes.html kaz 13:52:25 ege: do people need more examples on this case? 13:52:28 (none) 13:52:31 q+ 13:53:19 kaz: My question is that this clarification would be useful, but what happens, should it be applied to any kind of ecosystem with a TD? 13:53:25 ege: It can be also applied 13:53:36 kaz: we need more concrete use cases 13:53:54 ege: do you mean categoizing them? 13:54:14 kaz: I am not sure about categorization, but we need more survey and research 13:54:30 ege: I can provide more details 13:54:30 s/categorization/categorization itself at the moment/ 13:54:57 Ege opens up an issue 13:55:03 s/research/research on each ecosystem and protocol one by one for this approach/ 13:56:23 rrsagent, draft minutes 13:56:25 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/07/25-wot-td-minutes.html kaz 13:56:31 ...I think we can deal with this issue in a similar way to the initial discussion topic, anyone who has experience on it can provide examples 13:56:41 https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues/2034 13:57:27 ...looking at the WoT TD project, we wait for Jan and Michael Koster for the binding issues 13:57:52 s/My question is that this clarification would be useful, but what happens, should it be applied to any kind of ecosystem with a TD?/This clarification would be useful, but what would really happen for each ecosystem and protocol? Should this approach applied to any kind of ecosystem with a TD?/ 13:57:54 rrsagent, draft minutes 13:57:55 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/07/25-wot-td-minutes.html kaz 13:58:21 Ege has joined #wot-td 13:58:24 q? 13:58:25 Ege: Any other topics to discuss quickly? 13:58:29 q- 13:58:43 (none) 13:58:56 i|looking at the|topic: Project and Backlog| 13:58:58 rrsagent, draft minutes 13:58:59 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/07/25-wot-td-minutes.html kaz 13:59:08 [adjourned] 13:59:10 rrsagent, draft minutes 13:59:11 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/07/25-wot-td-minutes.html kaz