W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wot-wg@w3.org > August 2020

[Scripting] minutes - 27 July 2020

From: Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2020 16:20:12 +0900
Message-ID: <87tux9zm1f.wl-ashimura@w3.org>
To: public-wot-wg@w3.org
available at:
  https://www.w3.org/2020/07/27-wot-minutes.html

also as text below.

Thanks a lot for taking the minutes, Zoltan!

Kazuyuki

---
   [1]W3C

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

                               - DRAFT -

                             WoT Scripting

27 Jul 2020

Attendees

   Present
          Kaz_Ashimura, Zoltan_Kis, Daniel_Peintner,
          Cristiano_Aguzzi, Tomoaki_Mizushima

   Regrets

   Chair
          Daniel Peintner

   Scribe
          zkis

Contents

     * [2]Topics
         1. [3]Agenda discussion
         2. [4]last meeting minutes
         3. [5]Next release
         4. [6]Updates on read/write-multiple
         5. [7]Discovery
         6. [8]Implementation
         7. [9]Next calls
     * [10]Summary of Action Items
     * [11]Summary of Resolutions
     __________________________________________________________

   <inserted> scribenick: zkis

Agenda discussion

   <scribe> Agenda: release discussion, updates, discovery,
   implementation, testing, next calls.

   Daniel: any other agenda points?

last meeting minutes

   <kaz> [12]July-20

     [12] https://www.w3.org/2020/07/20-wot-minutes.html

   Minutes approved

Next release

   Daniel: People should take a look at the spec but people are on
   holiday. I thought about end of August.

   Zoltan: I agree

   Daniel: we should give 3 weeks for checking the spec

   Zoltan: we can fix the ReSpec error by checking the
   cross-references
   ... end of August sounds good

   Cristiano: for me too

   Mizushima: I am on holiday in the end of August
   ... but no problem

   Daniel: will write an email asking feedback until 24 August

Updates on read/write-multiple

   Daniel: we should defer this removal a little more
   ... we can put a note these features are in danger

   Zoltan: we can also decide to include only stable features in
   the spec, so remove it and re-add it when it becomes clear

   Daniel: node-wot already has it and if people use it then we
   should give some time
   ... the TD task force has the same issue

   Zoltan: we need a deprecation mechanism in node-wot

   Cristiano: we could mark it in the TypeScript definition
   ... what about of differing from the TD on this?
   ... but we should synch with the TD spec
   ... the API version should be linked to the TD version

   Zoltan: we could include properties with the API version and
   the TD version

   Cristiano: we could also include it in the API doc
   ... so not only machine-readable, but also human-readable

   Daniel: Cristiano please create an issue about this

   Zoltan: does the TD spec have an official version number?

   Cristiano: the spec has one

   Zoltan: the TDs have a version, what is the rule there?

   Cristiano: is that the ontology version there?

   Daniel: we need to check that

   Zoltan: vocabulary and ontology versions should define it

   Cristiano: right, we need to discuss this in the TD call

   Daniel: maybe there are other changes as well

   Cristiano: as a developer I should be able to point to a page
   or a version

   Zoltan: optimally we should be able to define a dependency in
   Node

   Cristiano: will create an issue at the TD and also at Scripting

   <scribe> ACTION: Cristiano creates issue for versioning on the
   TD and Scripting specs

Discovery

   <kaz> [13]July-20 Discovery minutes

     [13] https://www.w3.org/2020/07/20-wot-discovery-minutes.html

   Daniel: who was present on the call?

   Cristiano: I was, taking the minutes
   ... maybe we should check the minutes
   ... presents the discussion from the Discovery call
   ... in the first version of the spec there are sections which
   use some conflicting words vs our usage of the same words
   ... we discussed that with Zoltan in github issue
   ... they use 2-phase discovery, 1. find the service, 2. use
   that service

   Zoltan: the current API reflects IoT protocols discovery
   mechanisms, but not the WoT-specific 2-phase discovery

   Daniel: the first phase is what is not supported in the current
   API

   Cristiano: authentication is also in the loop

   Zoltan: which should be pushed outside the API if possible at
   all

   Daniel: we do have an issue to conveniently fetch a TD, which
   corresponds to the "direct" discovery

   Cristiano: in the Discovery TF usage of the word direct refers
   to Directory

   <kaz> [14]WoT Discovery initial draft

     [14] https://w3c.github.io/wot-discovery/

   Cristiano: we need more work on this, so we cannot make the
   Scripting changes right now

   Zoltan: I agree, especially with phase 1

   Daniel: so Cristiano and Zoltan are checking the Discovery TF
   works

Implementation

   Daniel: if we publish the spec, we also need to update the
   implementation
   ... hopefully could find the time in August for this
   ... we need some help with testing

   Cristiano: is that full end to end testing like Ege is doing,
   or just unit tests?

   Daniel: I very much like the test suite that has a server
   running and will test a client against the API
   ... and gives a mark for the coverage

   Cristiano: that scoring mechanism would be nice indeed, but
   it's quite difficult IMHO

   Daniel: the issue number is 190

   [15]https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/issues/190

     [15] https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/issues/190

   Daniel: it is difficult because we need both a server and a
   client

   Cristiano: how do we test that a client consumes a TD in the
   right way?
   ... how do we check the correct behaviour of an implementation

   Daniel: it's doable in JS and TS, but in a different language
   it's different

   Zoltan: we could define a test spec and implementations could
   implement that
   ... in language-specific way

   Cristiano: that would be nice, needs a lot of work

   Zoltan: the algorithms in the spec should be clear enough that
   a test suite could be created from that

   Cristiano: was thinking about the same point
   ... we could also refer to a reference implementation such as
   node-wot

   Zoltan: so when in doubt how to implement, please check
   node-wot?

   Cristiano: yes, something like that: check the spec and the
   reference implementation

   Zoltan: indeed, and implementations should give feedback on the
   spec and also on node-wot
   ... I think we should first create tests in node-wot, and then
   see what can be generalized

   Cristiano: should be like an integration test
   ... I wrote some tests like that on the Java implementation
   ... of another spec

   Daniel: I will check with Ege

   Cristiano: while we are implementing the new spec version, we
   could also think about how to test

   Daniel: right

Next calls

   Daniel: on August 3 neither Cristiano nor Zoltan is available
   ... so we skip next week

   Zoltan: after August 10 it's fine for me

   Daniel: I could give availability later

   <scribe> ACTION: Daniel to send email for asking for spec
   feedback

   Daniel: any other business?

   adjourned

Summary of Action Items

   [NEW] ACTION: Cristiano creates issue for versioning on the TD
   and Scripting specs
   [NEW] ACTION: Daniel to send email for asking for spec feedback

Summary of Resolutions

   [End of minutes]
     __________________________________________________________


    Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by
    David Booth's [16]scribe.perl version ([17]CVS log)
    $Date: 2020/07/28 06:01:36 $

     [16] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
     [17] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Tuesday, 11 August 2020 07:20:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 11 August 2020 07:20:17 UTC