- 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 07:38:33 UTC