[Scripting][DRAFT] minutes - 19 October 2020

available at:
  https://www.w3.org/2020/10/19-wot-script-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 API

19 Oct 2020

Attendees

   Present
          Kaz_Ashimura, Jack_Dickinson, Tomoaki_Mizushima,
          Zoltan_kis, Cristiano_Aguzzi, Daniel_Peintner

   Regrets

   Chair
          Zoltan

   Scribe
          zkis

Contents

     * [2]Topics
         1. [3]Welcome Jack!
         2. [4]Past minutes
         3. [5]Publication
         4. [6]Issue #273
            https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/issues/273
         5. [7]Issue #256
            https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/issues/256
         6. [8]Issue #230
            https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/issues/230
         7. [9]PR #235
            https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/pull/228
         8. [10]Issue #227
            https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/issues/227
     * [11]Summary of Action Items
     * [12]Summary of Resolutions
     __________________________________________________________

   <scribe> scribe: zkis

Welcome Jack!

   Zoltan: New member, Jack Dickinson from Connexus

   Jack: introduction

   Followed by short introduction round.

Past minutes

   <kaz> [13]Oct-12

     [13] https://www.w3.org/2020/10/12-wot-script-minutes.html

   Zoltan: we were dependent on JSON-LD WG for publication

   Kaz: we can update the Notes after those are published

   Daniel: maybe we should leave as it is, without versioning

   Cristiano: we can point to the spec and the content file

   Past minutes approved.

Publication

   Zoltan: should we wait for the versioning issue to settle?

   Daniel: we didn't have that before and it was fine
   ... also, if we rush, it might change later
   ... so I'd go for publication

   Cristiano: should we also change the name?

   Zoltan: we are not tied to JSON-LD, so not

   TPAC schedule:
   [14]https://www.w3.org/2020/10/TPAC/group-schedule.html

     [14] https://www.w3.org/2020/10/TPAC/group-schedule.html

   Kaz: we should get the group approval on Wednesday 21 October
   and then publish it

   Zoltan: so we should have a slot on that meeting

   <kaz> [15]current draft

     [15] https://w3c.github.io/wot-scripting-api/

   Kaz: also, we need a resolution from the TF

   RESOLUTION: the Scripting TF agreed publishing the updated
   Scripting API Note.

   Daniel: do we have a WG call this week?

   Kaz: no, but we can ask the Chairs
   ... during the WoT vF2F meeting

   Daniel: the slot is on Thursday

   <inserted> [16]Scripting API slot on Oct 22 during the vF2F

     [16] https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/F2F_meeting,_October_2020#Oct_22

Issue #273 [17]https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/issues/273

     [17] https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/issues/273

   Zoltan: are we fine with "WoT interface"?

   Cristiano: yes, but we need to update the spec

issue #256 [18]https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/issues/256

     [18] https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/issues/256

   Zoltan: can we close this?

   Daniel: there were something open

   Zoltan: that was on the TD TF, not related to Scripting
   ... to provide a mechanism to define specific Events for
   protocol errors
   ... do we have the issue open in the TD spec?
   ... or it may be a TD _content_ issue, then it's not a TD spec
   issue

   Cristiano: there was a related discussion in Discovery TF as
   well
   ... will add the link later and we can close this issue

issue #230 [19]https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/issues/230

     [19] https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/issues/230

   Daniel: I could sweep over the issues and clean up.

   Zoltan: you can close it after inspecting and making sure the
   issues have been tackled

Issue #228 [20]https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/issues/228

     [20] https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/issues/228

   Zoltan: we have already taken into account the Generic Sensor
   design from early days

   Cristiano: Ege is referring to a previous issue that's been
   closed

   Related issue:
   [21]https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/pull/235

     [21] https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/pull/235

   agreed to close the issue

Issue 227 [22]https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/issues/227

     [22] https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/issues/227

   [23]https://w3c.github.io/wot-scripting-api/#dom-discoverymetho
   d

     [23] https://w3c.github.io/wot-scripting-api/#dom-discoverymethod

   Zoltan: we have "local", so we can close this

   Cristiano: it is not implemented in node-wot

   Daniel: the whole discovery part is not implemented

   Zoltan: should we introduce a new "direct" keyword to
   DiscoveryMethod?

   Cristiano: I like that
   ... however, url alone is not good enough
   ... there are many kinds of URLs
   ... we could describe the direct discovery to each binding

   Zoltan: yes, it works that way: the API describes the use case,
   the impl/bindings figure out the way

   Cristiano: we should add a section to the Binding Templates as
   well

   Zoltan: right, it needs to be defined in detail
   ... will track that use case in the Discovery TF
   ... meaning the URL patterns

   Cristiano: URLs should be opaque in the Discovery TF but I see
   the point

   adjourned

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

    1. [24]the Scripting TF agreed publishing the updated
       Scripting API Note.

   [End of minutes]
     __________________________________________________________


    Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by
    David Booth's [25]scribe.perl version ([26]CVS log)
    $Date: 2020/10/26 05:33:52 $

     [25] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
     [26] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/

Received on Monday, 26 October 2020 05:35:56 UTC