►
From YouTube: ASDF WG Interim meeting, 2020-11-02
Description
ASDF WG Interim meeting, 2020-11-02
A
A
C
A
D
E
A
No,
no,
no,
no,
of
course
not,
but
just
need
to
take
a
note
taker
good.
Then
we
move
on
with
this
agenda
status
update
good
stuff.
We
have
been
chartered
as
a
working
group,
so
we
are
now
up
and
running,
and
this
does.
This
is
the
first
official
meeting
we
didn't
have
a
unofficial
meeting
before
we
were
chartered.
A
And
then
our
next
meeting
parts
will
be
or
meeting
events
will
be
at
109
at
the
hackathon,
where
we
have
been
discussing
with
the
randy
group
and
also
in
here
that
we
should
have
a
meeting
to
well.
We
should
we
should
somehow,
during
the
hackathon
work,
a
bit
more
of
some
features
and
a
number
of
at
least
other
sort
of
sdf
related
things
part
of
the
wishy
hackathon
group.
A
A
And
then
I
cleared
this
since
last
meeting.
Well,
since
the
unofficial
meeting
I
was
asked
to
present-
or
we
were
off
to
present
this
asdf
work
to
the
omas
blackworks,
the
msc
group,
the
like
redemption
group,
and
so
I
did
so
on
a
week
a
week
ago
and
they
were
quite
interested
in
this
work.
I
told
them
to
join.
A
A
A
A
We
are
looking
beyond
109,
we
have
a.
There
will
be
a
we'll
try
to
run
regular
interims
between
the
physic
and
virtual
physical
meetings,
and
we
will
send
out
the
doodle
for
filing
a
meeting
time,
or
I
mean
that
would
be
more.
We
could
have
discussed
it,
but
but
we
will
be
following
that
up
in
the
near
future
and
then
finally,
from
a
process
perspective.
A
A
A
So
to
the
big
point
of
today:
well,
the
first
big
point
in
today:
the
the
call
for
adoption
on
sdf
one
zero
draft,
and
this
was
sent
out.
A
conference
option
was
sent
out
asking
for
objections
on
october
20th
and
to
my
I
haven't
seen
any
objections
raised
so
far
so
are
there
is
it's?
Are
there
any
final
final
objections
that
somebody
wants
to
raise
here
before
we
adopt
this
draft
going
forward.
A
A
A
A
C
E
And
now
what
is
the
point
of
having
a
choice?
Usually
we
have
different
states
or
different
settings
that
we
start
describing
by
by
giving
them
string.
Names
like
on
and
off
or
enabled
and
paid
for
and
whatever,
and
one
question
that
came
up
in
the
discussion
was:
how
do
these
text
string
names
map
to
semantic
tags
on
on
one
end
and
how
do
they
map
to
implementation
level,
entities
that
that
often
are
integers?
E
So
this
is
the
the
canonical
example.
I
think
that
that's
one
of
michael's,
michael
costas,
examples
where
we
have
an
sdf
property
called
stage
that
is
essentially
a
choice
between
on
and
off.
Of
course,
you
could
simply
describe
with
a
boolean,
but
here
we
chose
to
describe
it
with
two
named
alternatives.
One
called
on
one
called
off
and
we
also
have
a
way
to
put
a
description
there.
E
So
all
this
would
have
been
a
little
bit
more
difficult
by
by
just
using
a
boolean
and
of
course
you
might
also
have
a
third
thing
in
there
standby
heating
up
for
whatever.
So
it's
a
natural
thing
that
the
these
enums
actually
can
be
extended
over
time,
so
starting
with
with
boolean,
gives
you
a
somewhat
sub-optimal
basis
for
for
further
extensions.
E
E
E
E
I
have
no
idea
how
how
currents
are
specified
with
numbers
between
1
and
254,
but
you
could
imagine
that
and-
and
the
description
could
describe
this
in
in
more
detail.
So
this
is
an
actual
number
meant
to
be
a
number
on
the
information
model
level,
and
then
there
are
two
cases
which
are
also
expressed
by
numbers
just
because
they
are
in
in
some
ecosystem.
D
B
D
There
accommodation
for
the
fact
that
that
different
ecosystems
could
well
have
completely
different
ways
of
dealing
with
the
things
like
one
of
them
has
one
is
the
highest
number
or
the
brightest,
and
the
one
has
254
is
the
brightest
or
different.
I
mean
I
don't
know,
I
can't
imagine
things
other
than
integers,
but
maybe
there
are,
but
I
guess
does
that
make
any
sense.
What
I'm
asking.
E
D
D
F
Well,
I
can
throw
in
one
reflection
here:
one
thing:
well:
sdf
can
be
used
for
two
different
things.
One
is
kind
of
like
describing
a
specific
ecosystem
thing
I
mean
kind
of
quite
accurately
and
then
also
specifying
these
is
that
consolidated
models
or
whatever
we
call
them
nowadays,
those
that
have
you
know
much
more
potential
for
actually
doing
the
translations,
and
some
of
these
features
may
be
more
useful
for
one
or
the
other
use
case
of
sdf.
F
So,
yes,
I
can
imagine
you
could
describe
an
ecosystem
kind
of
especially
legacy
models
in
a
way
that
you
don't
get.
You
know
full
round
trip
ability
or
or
like
full
translation
between
different
ecosystems,
but
then
those
constellated
models
would
be
using
a
more
restrict,
more
restricted
set.
That
would
have
more
capabilities
for
that
kind
of
a
translation
and-
and
I
can
imagine
sometimes
we're
gonna
hit
some
cases
where
you
know
all
things
are
translatable
to
all
ecosystems
or
you
may
need
to
do
you
know
human
knowledge
needed.
F
E
A
E
E
Okay,
but
what
I
really
want
to
show
in
this
example
was
that
there
are
two
constructs
here:
one
is
called
any
off
and
the
other
one
is
called
sdf
enum
and
really.
The
only
thing
that
differs
between
them
is
that
in
one
case,
the
the
it's
described
by
an
array
with
unnamed
entries
and
in
the
other
case,
it's
described
by
a
map
with
named
entries
and
that's
the
kind
of
unnecessary
choice
that
you
definitely
don't
want
to
have
in
a
specification
language.
E
E
So
he
has
a
property
here
that
has
a
choice
between
three
cases.
The
cases
are
actually
labeled,
but
the
the
label
is
in
the
alternative.
It's
it's!
Not
a
label
given
by
the
choice
to
the
alternative.
That's
in
the
alternative
and
yeah
all
three
are
numbers,
and-
and
they
have
certain
ranges-
and
this
essentially
could
be
modeled
in
in
very
different
ways.
But
this
is
of
course,
one
way
to
model
a
range
of
numbers
where
sub-ranges
have
have
specific
semantics,
like
warm,
neutral
and
cool,
and
so
on.
E
E
E
E
E
F
F
F
C
F
E
A
E
E
C
A
E
Say
how
to
compose
types
out
of
components
so
this
time
this
is
not
a
choice,
it's
actually
putting
in
all
the
components
in
into
a
more
complex
type,
and
it
has
been
called
complex
types
before,
but
I
think
that
that's
not
not
specific
enough.
So,
let's
talk
about
composing
types
out
of
components
and
that
that's
the
issue
number
four
and
the
the
ugly
thing
is
that
we
we
can
do
this
for
some
cases
already
in
sdf
1.0
in
particular,
for
for
actions
and
events
in
a
slightly
weird
way.
E
But
we
cannot
do
this
for
properties
right
now,
so
that
definitely
needs
to
be
fixed
and
again
we
we
don't
have
a
good
way
to
describe
optionality,
so
we're
doing
this
with
sdf
required
at
the
moment.
But
the
main
reason
for
that
is
simply
that
we
don't
have
a
syntactic
place
to
to
put
in
the
optionality.
E
E
E
E
E
E
So
what
what's
magenta
in
this
slide
is:
is
a
data
schema?
So
that's,
it
looks
like
a
json
schema.
Aux
schema
and
the
the
green
thing
is
the
the
composite
schema
that
is
built
out
of
these
two
elementary
schema.
So
we
we
have
a
type
at
the
end
that
has
two
fields
called
element,
one
and
element
two,
and
these
are
of
type
number
and
string.
E
So
this
is
kind
of
obvious.
The
only
thing
that's
missing
here
is
optionality,
and
maybe
even
repeatability,
because
we
can
always
put
put
in
an
array
if
we
want
repeatability.
So
maybe
we
don't
need
that,
but
optionality
is
something
that
often
is
desirable
and
yeah.
We
could
of
course,
do
the
same
thing.
We
do
for
repeatability
and
invent
an
optional.
A
A
F
F
E
F
E
F
E
E
So
how
do
we
share
elements
of
a
specification
both
within
the
specification
and
between
specifications?
That's
issue
number
three,
and
we
have
a
bit
of
an
answer
to
that.
So
the
the
current
spec
says
how
to
use
json
pointers
to
do
this,
but
we
haven't
really
tested
that,
so
we
are
not
quite
sure
how
we
would
run
the
management
of
that
space
and-
and
we
have
to
find
that
out
so
before
we
can
go
into
the
details,
we
probably
have
to
decide.
E
What
can
we
actually
reference
in
stf10?
That's
always
a
data
type
and
we
essentially
only
can
reference
data
types
that
are
defined
in
an
sdf
data,
so
the
the
the
reference
is
a
universal
construct,
so
it
could
be
used
for
referencing
something
else,
but
I
don't
think
we
provide
the
semantics
for
what
that
would
mean.
E
So
we
we
probably
have
to
think
about
the
need
to
reference
and
then
maybe
combine
so
we
go
back
to
the
composition
issue
entire
affordances
and
another
interesting
thing
about
references
is
that
you
sometimes
want
to
have
something
that
is
very
much
like
something
else,
but
not
exactly
like
it.
So
there
may
be
a
desire
to
alter
a
referenced
type
or
affordance,
and
actually
1.0
has
something
there.
But
again,
that's
that's
pretty
much
untested,
so
we
need
to
find
out
whether
that
that
actually
makes
sense
in
the
next
slide.
E
That
says:
oh
I'm,
I'm
almost,
but
not
entirely
like
a
length,
but
my
minimum
actually
is
0.05
so
that
that's
a
reference
that
actually
alters
the
definition
or
make
makes
a
copy
of
the
division,
and
then
it
goes
ahead
and
alters
that
so
it's
a
sub
type
in
in
some
way
and
of
course,
obvious
thing
that
comes
up
here.
Cables
must
at
least
be
five
centimeters.
E
E
E
E
Now
what
we
have
defined
in
1.0,
what
have
an
exercise
is
an
import
export
system.
So
when
we
have
one
specification
that
defines
a
length
type
and
does
this
in
a
namespace
that
is
called
moo
inside
the
specification
and
that
namespace
is
identified
as
default.
Namespace
then,
essentially,
this
the
yellow
specification
specifies
that
goes
into
https
example.com,
slash,
sdf
data
length
and
from
a
different
specification,
the
white
one.
Here
we
can
reference
it
by
giving
the
namespace
a
local
name
which
need
not
be
the
same
one.
So
it's
not
new
but
foo.
E
E
E
E
A
C
F
F
One
is
kind
of
the
generic
description
and
the
second
one
is
description
of
that
thing
in
the
context
where
it's
used,
that's
something
what
we're
currently
wasn't
lacking
in.
You
know
in
ipsa
models,
but
something
I
would
love
to
have
there
too.
That's
something
might
be
a
useful
feature,
because
it's
very
hard
to
do
good
generic
description
that
fits
in
all
the
contexts
nicely.
F
Yeah,
I
think,
like
one
of
them
was
a
a
property
called
level
and
you
would
like
to
use
the
same
level
on
a
a
a
dimmer
and
on
a
buzzer
and
yeah.
You
cannot
write
there.
This
is
the
you
know,
intensity
of
the
light
or
the
volume
of
the
buzzer,
because
it's
level,
I
think
that
was
one
of
the
where,
where
we
struggled
back
in
the
days.
D
F
For
example,
yeah
yeah,
so
so
what
the
the
good
thing
about
having
this
generic
level
property,
is
that
you
would?
You
know
when
you,
for
example,
do
a
ui?
You
would
have
some
kind
of
you
know
a
dial
for
the
person
to
tweak
hey.
You
know,
I'm
changing
the
level
of
this
thing
and
instead
of
having
you
know,
audio
level
and
light
level
different
things
you
could
actually
have
them
in
the
same,
but
then
have
kind
of
this
additional.
F
D
A
A
A
A
E
F
A
B
A
And,
of
course,
there
is
a
because
we
only
have
aob
business
here.
There
is
one
thing
that
I
was
thinking
of,
but
actually
forgot
to
put
into
the
agenda
here,
which
is
slightly
related
to
this,
and-
and
this
is
of
course,
that
we
should
look
at
various
ways
of
of
reaching
out
to
other
iot
ecosystems
that
are
not
part
of
one
dm
for
whatever
reason
and
if
they
want
to
sort
of
pitch
in
and
have
their
particular
ideas
and
so
on.
A
D
But
I
think
that
maybe
opcua
has
gotten
is
fallen
through.
There's,
probably
some
other
transport
focused
ones
that
maybe
some
siemens
people
would
know.
I
don't
know
like.
In
other
words,
I
probably
don't
know
what
they
are,
and
I
don't
know
if
the
automotive
space
is
even
close
to
the
point
of
having
regular
object
models.
I
think
they're
well
they're
still
arguing
about
connectors
and
wires
right
so,
but
there
may
be
some
work
there
that
we
just
I'm,
I'm
I'm
ignorant
of.
D
D
But
anyway
I
pasted
in
the
notes
I
pasted
the
december
calendar
hearing
that
you
said
we
thought
we
could
have
all
of
november
to
nail
this
down,
and
so
the
question
was
whether
there
was
a
worth
having
a
virtual
interim
in
december
to
provide
a
a
a
deadline
to
this
or
whether
that
may
make
sense
to
do
this.
In
january.
Beginning
of
january,.
D
E
A
C
C
E
D
A
A
C
A
D
Sounds
good
to
me,
so
I
think
we've
got
to
the
end
of
the
meeting.
I
will
make
sure
that
the
youtube
link
when,
as
soon
as
I
see
it,
reposted
by
the
secretariat,
I
will
make
sure
that
gets
posted
into
the
list,
and
maybe
some
people
will
watch
the
watch
our
meeting
and
wish
to
comment
since
we're
so
small
and
we
should
find
out.
We
should
probably
reach
out
to
the
people
we
expected
to
come,
find
out
why
they
missed
it.
And
what
do
we
do
to
fail
to
capture
their.
D
D
F
A
D
A
The
problem
with
no
I
mean
and
the
problem
with
that
was-
and
that
was
not
asked
for
by
the
by
the
in
the
charter
during
the
charter
discussion
either.
I
think
the
problem
with
that
request
was
to
have
more
psa
soft
requirements
like
performance,
reliability
and
so
on,
included
here
and
given
that
none
of
the
ecosystems
today
model
those
and
that
I
guess
I
mean
it's
probably
a
whole,
I'm
not
saying
that.
A
I
mean
it
really
is
super
cool
to
have
it
there,
and
I
mean
they
also
ask
for
things
like
traffic,
like
kind
of
traffic
parameters
or
traffic
dimensioning
parameters
and
stuff.
I
don't
think
that
seems
like
sdf
needs
to
rely
on
other
people
defining
those
terms
first,
and
then
we
can
bring
them
in
rather
than
the
other
way
around.