- From: Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2019 16:37:32 +0900
- To: Public Web of Things IG <public-wot-ig@w3.org>, public-wot-wg@w3.org
available at:
https://www.w3.org/2019/03/20-wot-pf-minutes.html
also as text below.
Thanks a lot for taking these minutes, Ege!
Kazuyuki
---
[1]W3C
[1] http://www.w3.org/
- DRAFT -
WoT TestFest
20 Mar 2019
Attendees
Present
Kaz_Ashimura, Michael_McCool, Ege_Korkan,
Tomoaki_Mizushima, Taki_Kamiya, Toru_Kawaguchi
Regrets
Chair
McCool
Scribe
ege, kaz
Contents
* [2]Topics
* [3]Summary of Action Items
* [4]Summary of Resolutions
__________________________________________________________
<kaz> scribenick: ege
[5]latest online report (to be updated)
[5] https://w3c.github.io/wot-thing-description/testing/report.html
McCool: (shows the latest report.html on his local PC)
... as I said in the main call, I couldn't update the test
results for a while
... some missing results here and there
<kaz> (big chunk of features starting with td-context till
td-context-ns-thing-prefix)
<inserted> (also td-date-schema-objects)
<inserted> scribenick: kaz
Ege: that one has some bug...
... can be array or object
McCool: let's create an issue then
Ege: will do
<ege> issue:
[6]https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues/364
[6] https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues/364
Kaz: you mean the block of 3 lines starting with
"td-data-schema-objects". right?
McCool: yes
<inserted> scribenick: ege
McCool: maybe a third category?
... a lot of them have to do with the security schemes
... event names, someone needs an example
... many things that need one more example
Ege: I will note that
McCool: readonly and write only might go away
Ege: no not really
Kaz: so McCool, you mean that we can remove these two
assertions, possibly?
McCool: yes, there is a good chance that they will be removed
... @context is not done
... but we need to check again
Ege: this is in dataschema level, very new
McCool: what is bothering me are the different security schemes
... as we discussed in the td call, I will make a PR to clarify
to how we use security extensions
... what might be worrisome, is like in bearer we don't use all
the options
Kaz: McCool I thought that you had identified several features
as "at risk" within the TD explainer document. is there a
possibility the features at risk would change?
<inserted>
[7]https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/blob/master/exp
lainer/Explainer.md
[7] https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/blob/master/explainer/Explainer.md
McCool: don't think so
... there is this names key
... it should be multiple language
Ege: this just appeared out of nowhere
McCool: the description seems like a multi language
... new default values in op
... you can see that an entire section can be at risk
... there is no example for all these
... psk may go through but no one other than node-wot uses this
... with json ld 1.1 this might go away
Ege: plugfest before or after workshop?
McCool: we are waiting for a venue
Kaz: my understanding is that there will be not a usual
"PlugFest" but demos like the ones we did on the Dev Day during
TPAC
McCool: we will be too busy for spec work to organize an actual
plugfest
... more discussion rather than implementations
... maybe in the second charter we can have a plugfest
<inserted> kaz: plugfest is poc for new spec work, while
testfest is testing implementability of the current specs
McCool: we will have maybe more commercial cases
Ege: should I create new assertions?
McCool: you can add it to the extra assertions
... maybe work on the big block
<kaz> [adjourned]
Summary of Action Items
Summary of Resolutions
[End of minutes]
__________________________________________________________
Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by
David Booth's [8]scribe.perl version 1.154 ([9]CVS log)
$Date: 2019/03/21 07:34:56 $
[8] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
[9] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Thursday, 21 March 2019 07:38:34 UTC