►
From YouTube: ASDF WG Interim Meeting, 2021-04-21
Description
ASDF WG Interim Meeting, 2021-04-21
A
A
And
if
you
forgot
what
they
are,
they
are
here
and
you
can
read
them
at
your
own
lecture
next
slide.
Yes,
this
is
a
meeting.
We
had
all
kinds
of
confusion
ahead
of
this
meeting
so
but
this
should
be
reasonably
okay.
The
plan
is
to
we
have
we
use
kodi,
md
and
the
link.
Is
there
note
that
it's
a
different
link
from
the
one
that
was
shown
on
the
original
agenda,
because
we
got
a
new
one
from
the
secretariat?
A
A
Next
slide
again
start
again
I'll
just
copy
the
other
ones
so
status
update.
We
were
chartered
in
october
last
year,
michael
myself,
for
sharing
progress.
So
far,
we've
survived
two
itfs
with
hackathons
we've
had
two
previous
virtual
interims
and
we
managed
to
produce
one
implementation
draft
which
is
under
that
link,
which
is
the
o5
version
of
the
sdf
specification,
and
so
I
think
we
are
moving
along
at
the
good
pace
and
looking
forward.
I
think
we
we
we
are.
We
talked
about
this
interim
at
the
last
idea.
A
A
A
No,
that's
the
stop
that's
group
with
so
so.
The
sdf
is
part
of
a
new
work
item
proposal
to
this
sc-41,
and
there
was
some
discussions
about
this
new
worker
proposal
with
folks
from
iec
61850,
which
is
the
utilities
company's
specification
work
about
potential,
but
that
was
very
much,
but
the
the
concrete
thing
coming
out
of
that
was
that
they
maybe
felt
that
sdf
is
a
bit
wet
behind
the
ears
when
it
comes
to
buildings,
sort
of
normatively
mandating
in
iso
specifications
right
away.
A
A
C
C
D
C
A
E
It's
easiest,
if,
if
you
do
that,
so
I
I
just
listed
the
issues
and
prs
that
are
out
there
plus
one
thing
that
that
hasn't
generated
an
issue
yet
but
is
being
discussed
in
some
detail
in
one
dm
and
four
of
these
things
actually
have
links
on
them.
So
you
can
click
those
and-
and
we
can
look
at
the
issue
or
pr-
and
I
think
the
other
ones
are
kind
of
boring.
E
E
Sdf
things
we
had
some
discussions
in
one
dm
that
we
really
need
to
be
able
to
have
an
outlet
strip
with
four
outlets
and
the
the
outlets
can
be
described
as
sdf
objects
or
sdf
things.
So
we
essentially
need
a
way
to
say
in
an
sdf
thing
that
there
are
multiple
multiple
instances
of
some
things
in
this
thing,
and
the
discussion
in
1dm
is
pretty
clear
that
we
want
to
make
this
look
almost
like
json
schema,
org
and
the
the
pr
for
that
still
has
to
be
written.
D
D
D
D
E
D
Okay,
so
so
let
then
let
let's
go,
go
through
it
once
more.
So
if
you
don't
put
anything,
you
don't
put
items
and
you
don't
mean
max,
then
it's
well
depending
if
you
have
sdf
required
it's.
If
you
have
sdf
required
link
to
that
and
it's
then
it's
one.
If
you
don't
have
it
it's
zero
or
one
right,
that's
the
basic
case,
and
if
you
put
items
there,
then
it's
undefined
amount
up
to
infinite,
and
if
you
put
min
or
max
items,
then
you
can
define
explicitly
which
are
the
min
and
max
limits.
E
D
E
F
D
F
D
E
Okay,
so
let's
move
to
issue
number
12.,
that's
pretty
old
and
for
a
while,
we
didn't
quite
know
when
we
actually
wanted
to
use
the
the
idea.
So
right
now,
units
in
sdf
are
always
cinnamon,
always
units
from
the
cinema
registry,
and
we
had
a
hunch
that
we
would
need
to
be
able
to
put
in
your
eyes
there
and
can
you
scroll
down
so
in
in
the
1dm
discussion.
E
So
that
would
be
the
use
case.
We
were
looking
for
and,
of
course,
the
the
the
question
really
is,
which
of
the
two
dangers
is
the
the
worst
one.
If
we
don't
have
a
way
to
reference
uis,
then,
essentially,
anyone
who
wants
to
do
anything
in
sdf
and
has
a
unit
that
is
not
yet
in
there
needs
to
register
it
in
there
and
that
would
increase
the
kitchen
sink
factor
of
of
that
registry.
E
E
So
that's
the
one
danger
and
the
other
danger,
of
course,
is:
if
you
just
open
it
up
to
your
eyes,
then
people
will
be
lazy
and
and
not
registering
anything
and
just
using
an
ecosystem,
a
specific
ui
to
to
point
to
things
and
that
that's
certainly
something
that
we
don't
want
to
encourage
the
the
problem
we
have
with
your
eyes.
Is
it's
not
clear
how
to
find
them?
E
So
how
do
I
find
what
let's
say
we
we
have
a
bluetooth
model
or
we
want
to
write
down
the
bluetooth
model
and
bluetooth
has
this
particular
woodruff
model
has
some
unit
that
is
not
in
the
cinema
registry
and
that
we
don't
want
to
register.
How
do
I
find
the
right
uri
to
describe
this
unit,
and
we
essentially
would
need
to
ask
every
ecosystem
to
to
give
us
a
rule
for
specifying
this
uri?
So
this
is
a
bit
of
a
complication
if
we
want
to
reduce
fragmentation
in
this
space.
F
Everyone
wants
to
put
their
thing
in,
and
so
why
not
have
a
registration
that
accepts
your
eyes?
So
it's
not
really
in
this
same
sense
an
iana
process.
It's
just
you!
It's
a
first
come
first
serve
put
your
uri
here
and
you're
done,
and
at
least
you
then
know
how
to
go
through
and
find
something
that
someone's
already
done.
F
But
you
are
going
to
open
it
up
to
your
eyes.
I'm
saying
put
your
eyes
in
the
registry:
oh,
so
you
you
don't
even
give
them
a
name.
You
just
allow
okay,
you're
gonna!
You
were
gonna,
allow
uris
in
the
the
sdl
sdf
right,
so
you
didn't
need
a
registry.
I'm
saying
create
the
registry
and
accept
uris,
which
means
they
don't
have
to
put
them
in
it.
D
So
maybe
something
in
in
between
that,
if
them,
you
could
register
a
uri
that
points
to
some
sort
of
information
that
has
these
unit
identifiers.
You
could
actually
just
register
the
uri
that
points
to
let's
say
for
pull.org
to
decide
their
own
uri
and
put
it
there
and
then
have
a
consistent
way
of
on
that,
let's
say
resulting
page
to
map
to
their
units
and
that
will
become
the
fragment
identifier.
E
C
F
C
E
A
C
Interesting
question
is
sort
of
like
says
they
faced
with
other
so
or
even
a
language,
but
like
schema.org,
do
we
collect
units?
Are
we
are
we
in
the
position
to
sort
of
create
a
collection
of
these
because
that's
kind
of
what
we'd
be
doing
by
not
all,
but
by
not
allowing
just
external
references
we
would
end
up
essentially
collecting
them
all
which
has
good
points
and
bad
points.
C
F
F
Did
I
get
that
right?
Yes,
okay,
so
the
situation
and
and
and
if
it
was
a
common
unit
that
sent
ml
had
somehow
missed
lumens
or
something
was
you
know,
I
don't
know
if
that's
in
cinema
or
not,
but
I
know
I
noticed
it
was
in
the
the
digital
twin
document.
So
what
I
would
imagine
that
that
those
units
would
be
would
be
some
kind
of
uncalibrated
unit.
F
So
some
sensor,
you
know
you
need
to
multiply
it
by
4.73
and
blah
blah
blah,
and
then
you
get
lumens,
but
they
don't
want
to
do
that
in
the
in
the
unit.
They
want
to
return
the
uncalibrated
value
because
they
want
you
know
to
keep.
They
want
to
to
keep
track
of
systematic,
you
know
stuff
or
whatever,
and
so
they
want
their
own
unit.
That
is,
you
know,
uncalibrated,
lumens
or
slugs
or
whatever,
and
I
just
can't
imagine
that
unit
being
terribly
standardizable,
and
so
actually
the
uri
is
just
perfect
to
me.
F
C
Yeah,
that
makes
sense
it
would
seem
like
it
would
be
biased
toward
updating.
As
michael
said,
you
know,
you
really
really
want
to
point
people
to
update
the
senate
registry,
and
that's
really
our
that's
really
what
we
want
to
have
happen
so
just
to
have
like
a
fallback,
maybe
but
not
expected,
to
be
used.
A
lot
makes.
A
D
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
A
F
F
Okay
and
other
works
are
have
various
other
kind
of
restrictions
on
the
derivative
works.
So
I
I
I
think
that
I
think
that
that
all
the
licenses
are
probably
going
to
have
to
be
special
case.
They're
just
going
to
have
a
bit
that
says,
can
be
combined
or
can't
be
combined
and
if
it
says
can't
be
combined,
then
human
will
have
to
figure
out
whether
a
human
lawyer
will
have
to
figure
out
whether
this
is
allowed
and
probably
that'll,
probably
kill
models
that
or
definitions
that
have
non-combining
licenses.
F
F
F
D
F
D
Yeah,
I
can,
I
guess
I
would
do
a
a
simple
thing
that
that
my
combiner
barfs,
if
it
finds
that
those
are
not
equal
the
licenses,
but
for
the
other
fields.
It
could
do
something
something
sensible
so
that
there's
the
description
field,
that
the
version
field
and
the
the
copyright
field
absolutely-
and
I
guess
those
since
there's
no
legal
implications
there
we
can.
We
can
be
more.
A
A
E
C
C
D
D
D
D
D
E
F
E
E
So
we
keep
the
date
in
the
version
field
and
if
you
click
on
the
email
down
there
on
the
mail
archive
link,
there
are
essentially
four
things
that
we
want
to
keep
in
the
version
field
and
that's
the
semantic
version.
The
1.2.3
thing,
maybe
something
like
a
token
holder,
so
who's
actually
incrementing.
That
version
is
that
1dm
or
is
it
a
contributing
organization
date?
E
I
talked
about
and
finally,
there's
probably
a
reason
to
have
feature
tags,
so
we
know
which
features
are
addressed
by
by
a
particular
instance,
a
particular
variant
of
of
the
model
and
yeah.
All
these,
of
course,
need
to
be
defined
in
in
some
more
detail,
but
the
the
message
is
out
there.
So
if
you
have
an
opinion
on
on
this,
please
reply
to
this
message.
B
E
Okay,
that
was
an
issue
that
came
up
when
you
combine
models
you,
you
suddenly
run
into
the
problem
that
one
model
contributes
to
a
different
namespace
than
another
model,
and
how
you
do
you
actually
represent
the
combined
model
so
right
now,
we
cannot
do
this.
Models
currently
contribute
only
to
whatever
they
define
as
the
default
game
space
and
so
far,
the
the
best
idea
we
have
had
is
to
actually
define
a
form,
a
variant
of
sdf,
which
is
an
array
at
the
top
level
and
allows
you
to
simply
have
multiple
models
in
a
single
file.
C
E
C
So
you
could
say
sdf
thing
and
you
could
say
you
know
vcl
colon,
whatever
you're
defining
and
this
one's
going
into
that
namespace
like
specifically
override
the
default
namespace
by
putting
the
prefix
onto
the
the
thing
you're
defining,
but
I
don't
think
the
syntax
we
have
is
or
there's
going
to
be
problems
with
that.
I
think
possibly.
C
E
Well,
on
the
side
where
you
referenced,
you
can
do
lots
of
things,
but
on
the
side
where
you,
where
you
export
jsonpointer,
has
a
very
very
simple
mind,
I
mean
it
just
uses
the
json
file
and
and
goes
through
the
map
members
and
then
through
the
array,
elements
and
that's
it.
It
cannot
do
any
processing
on
that.
D
D
E
The
interesting
thing
about
the
the
hackiness
of
the
result
is
that
the
the
way
our
json
files
are
structured.
The
first
part
of
the
fragment
identifier
is
always
a
keyword.
Sdf
object,
sdf
type
and
something,
and
only
the
second
part,
would
then
be
available
for
putting
in
a
prefix
so
that
that
gets
interesting.