- From: Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 07 Dec 2020 21:01:08 +0900
- To: public-wot-wg@w3.org
available at:
https://www.w3.org/2020/11/23-wot-script-minutes.html
also as text below.
Thanks a lot for taking the minutes, Zoltan!
Kazuyuki
---
[1]W3C
[1] http://www.w3.org/
WoT Scripting API
23 Nov 2020
Attendees
Present
Kaz_Ashimura, Cristiano_Aguzzi, Zoltan_Kis,
Daniel_Peintner, Tomoaki_Mizushima
Regrets
Chair
Daniel
Scribe
zkis
Contents
* [2]Topics
1. [3]past minutes
2. [4]issue sweeping
3. [5]issue 281
https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/issues/281
4. [6]issue 278
https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/issues/278
5. [7]issue 268
https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/issues/268
6. [8]issue 242
https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/issues/242
7. [9]issue 238
https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/issues/238
8. [10]issue 224,
https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/issues/224
* [11]Summary of Action Items
* [12]Summary of Resolutions
__________________________________________________________
<scribe> scribe: zkis
past minutes
<kaz> [13]Nov-16
[13] https://www.w3.org/2020/11/16-wot-script-minutes.html
Daniel: any objections?
No objections
Minutes approved.
issue sweeping
<kaz> [14]Issues
[14] https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/issues
issue 281 [15]https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/issues/281
[15] https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/issues/281
Zoltan: fixed by PR #280, closed.
issue 278 [16]https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/issues/278
[16] https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/issues/278
<inserted> DP: we should use dated links for the case one of
the specs is moving forward and the other is stopped
Zoltan: do the dependencies already have a known URL?
Kaz: they will be published tomorrow
... if we are using dated URL in the Scripting API draft, we
need to update the pubdate
Cristiano: we should go with the undated URLs
... wondering if there is problem because publishing more often
Zoltan: in general I agree we should use undated, as it was
also recommended in the TPAC
... (since people always look on the newest versions of
documents)
Kaz: the other specs in WoT are using dated URLs
... and we can also use them for this publication
Zoltan: checking the source code, the Scripting biblio has
dated URLs for Architecture and TD, and not dated for the
others
... should we continue that for the upcoming Note?
Cristiano: fine with both
Kaz: technically it will use dated URL every time
Zoltan: we can leave it to that way
... let us know how it works better
<scribe> ACTION: ZK to update the issue with a summary of this
discussion
issue 268 [17]https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/issues/268
[17] https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/issues/268
Zoltan: this was already discussed and we chose the design in
the Note that will be published
Cristiano: will check again and decide if will continue keeping
it open
issue 242 [18]https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/issues/242
[18] https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/issues/242
Cristiano: this is one of the TD validation issues
Zoltan: do we need to spec these in the algorithms?
Cristiano: we could just say the value function applies the
DataSchema of the returned object and raise an error
Daniel: node-wot has not yet implemented these validations,
it's an open issue
Zoltan: it is our job to define well the validation and make it
normative for security and privacy reasons
Cristiano: showing the "check data schema" algorithm
... we need to add the steps that check the bounds
Daniel: we could get away not defining steps if they are not
provided in the schema
Zoltan: we must include the checks if the boundary values are
defined
Daniel: this is getting complicated, we should follow
DataSchema
Cristiano: also there is a problem to keep up in the TD
<kaz> [19]6.2.3 The check data schema algorithm
[19] https://w3c.github.io/wot-scripting-api/#the-check-data-schema-algorithm
Cristiano: for instance the data schema checking algorithm is
it public or not?
... could we follow the JSON Schema validation?
Zoltan: yes, preferably we should refer to external algorithm
Cristiano: do we have corner cases when our algorithm is more
restrictive than JSON Schema validation?
Daniel: we are using less keywords so we should comply with
JSON Schema validation
Zoltan: we should make it clear how do we apply it in our
algorithms
Cristiano: that would solve a series of issues
issue 238 [20]https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/issues/238
[20] https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/issues/238
Cristiano: could not find edge cases when JSON Schema would not
be enough
... the question is should we go deeper than JSON Schema
checking
... but probably not
Daniel: need to ask Ege
... Ege had additional points
Cristiano: we need to decide which checks used by Ege to
standardize in Scripting
... also, should we fail early or late?
CA is leaving a comment in the issue
issue 224, [21]https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/issues/224
[21] https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/issues/224
Cristiano: should we add a runtime property for querying the
version?
Zoltan: we could check what other specs do
<scribe> ACTION: ZK and CA look into other specs
adjourned
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: ZK and CA look into other specs
[NEW] ACTION: ZK to update the issue with a summary of this
discussion
Summary of Resolutions
[End of minutes]
__________________________________________________________
Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by
David Booth's [22]scribe.perl version ([23]CVS log)
$Date: 2020/12/07 11:59:31 $
[22] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
[23] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Monday, 7 December 2020 12:01:12 UTC