W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wot-wg@w3.org > May 2018

[wot-test] minutes - 9 May 2018

From: Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 10 May 2018 10:33:01 +0900
Message-ID: <CAJ8iq9V3hpnd5BMdpd-APf7uB7GE7Pq5Wfrn7uWCpb2=q_nUog@mail.gmail.com>
To: Public Web of Things IG <public-wot-ig@w3.org>, public-wot-wg@w3.org
available at:

also as text below.

Thanks a lot for taking these minutes, Michael Koster!




      [1] http://www.w3.org/

                               - DRAFT -

                              WoT Testing

09 May 2018


      [2] https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/Test_WebConf#Agenda


          Kaz_Ashimura, Michael_McCool, Kunihiko_Toumura,
          Matthias_Kovatsch, Michael_Koster, Soumya_Kanti_Datta,
          Tomoaki_Mizushima, Toru_Kawaguchi, Takeshi_Yamada,





     * [3]Topics
         1. [4]review minutes
         2. [5]progress against plan
         3. [6]Online test things
         4. [7]setup for the AC meeting
         5. [8]plugfest planning
     * [9]Summary of Action Items
     * [10]Summary of Resolutions

   <kaz> scribenick: mjkoster

review minutes

   <kaz> [11]prev minutes

     [11] https://www.w3.org/2018/05/02-wot-test-minutes.html


progress against plan

   <kaz> [12]Scripting API draft - Conformance section

     [12] https://w3c.github.io/wot-scripting-api/#conformance

   <McCool> Looks like scripting API making some progress on
   marking normative assertions

   <McCool> also they do have the conformance text now


     [13] https://rawgit.com/zolkis/wot-scripting-api/master/index.html


     [14] https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description

   McCool: will ask about progress on Friday at the TD meeting

   <inserted> kaz: got some feedback from the CSS WG about how to
   extract assertions from specs:

   1) Blocks of normative text: split the document in sections at
   H1-H6, remove well-known non-normative sections based on their
   ID (status, bibliography, ToC, etc.), remove other
   non-normative sections based on their first line containing "is
   informative" or "is not normative", and remove notes
   (class=note) and examples (class=example). But extracting
   individual assertions from the remaining text would require
   knowledge of English.
   2) All CSS properties and descriptors with several of their
   characteristics (property-specific syntax, inheritance, media).
   Properties are rather well marked up, because various tools
   rely on that mark-up (such as Bikeshed, which makes alphabetic
   indexes and cross-references).
   3) The productions of the generic syntax of CSS and productions
   that are shared by several properties are often, but not always
   marked up with class=prod. This is less consistent, because
   nobody in the WG itself extracts them automatically. For some
   parts there are no productions at all, because they have been
   replaced by an example top-down, left-to-right parsing
   algorithm in English.

   (toumura leaves)

   McCool: will clean up and create a conventions section
   ... based on these 3 items
   ... there needs to be a conformance section

   kaz: initial sentence at the beginning of each section to
   indicate whether it is normative or informative

   McCool: next step is extraction of normative statements to
   create test cases
   ... security and bindings are informative
   ... binding templates will be incorporated into TD and have
   some normative content at that point

Online test things

   McCool: example of a remote access thing
   ... has basic auth as a security example
   ... planning to host a Thing Directory also

   <kaz> [15]Online Test Things

     [15] https://github.com/w3c/wot/blob/master/testing/online.md

   McCool: people should put things online for remote access
   ... can the Oracle implementation be available online?

   Lagally: it is online since Prague
   ... want to give people some hands-on help and be careful about

   McCool: we need a way to distribute credentials

setup for the AC meeting

   Matthias: want to discuss setup for the AC meeting
   ... what things are safe to use in the Panasonic demo? What
   about the blinds?
   ... tried the hangout but couldn't get the lab camera

   Kawaguchi: will check into it

   Matthias: will be set up to pitch WoT during the entire session
   ... has a Nabaztag bunny for control

plugfest planning

   McCool: what security protocols will we support
   ... time to start on the preparation documents
   ... can we make it easier to record results?

   Matthias: the result document is easy to use, it is a good

   McCool: thinking about a template per project
   ... each one can be smaller

   kaz: would it include all of the elements, including proxy,

   McCool: yes, separate documents for each project

   Matthias: it might go too far to the fine grain extreme and
   result in too many small documents
   ... maybe there is some balance where common components are
   documented together

   McCool: we should try to have some basic security implemented
   ... what is expected to be supported by node-wot for the next

   Matthias: bearer token and http basic are implemented
   ... could add digest

   McCool: we should work up some scenarios
   ... would be good to have an ACE interoperability test

   Matthias: can we make a security questionnaire and make it
   demand driven?
   ... some way to pick from a few options

   McCool: what about planning separate meetings for testing and

   Koster: eventually will need a separate planning cycle for the

   McCool: still developing an overall test plan

   <kaz> [adjourned]

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

   [End of minutes]

    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [16]scribe.perl version
    1.152 ([17]CVS log)
    $Date: 2018/05/10 01:31:05 $

     [16] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
     [17] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Thursday, 10 May 2018 01:34:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:27:49 UTC