[Scripting] minutes - 12 October 2020

available at:
  https://www.w3.org/2020/10/12-wot-script-minutes.html

also as text below.

Thanks,

Kazuyuki

---
   [1]W3C

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

                               - DRAFT -

                           WoT Scripting API

12 Oct 2020

Attendees

   Present
          Kaz_Ashimura, Daniel_Peintner, Cristiano_Aguzzi,
          Tomoaki_Mizushima, Zoltan_Kis

   Regrets

   Chair
          Daniel/Zoltan

   Scribe
          kaz

Contents

     * [2]Topics
         1. [3]IRC channel for the Scripting API call
         2. [4]Prev minutes
         3. [5]PR 270
         4. [6]Issue 252
         5. [7]Issue 241
         6. [8]Publication
         7. [9]Issue 223
         8. [10]Issue 222
         9. [11]Discovery API
        10. [12]Issues with "F2F" label
     * [13]Summary of Action Items
     * [14]Summary of Resolutions
     __________________________________________________________

   <scribe> scribenick: kaz

IRC channel for the Scripting API call

   Kaz quickly asks everybody if it's OK to use "#wot-script" as
   the IRC channel for the WoT Scripting API call because
   sometimes there is another WoT-related call on the same day
   which also use "#wot" as the IRC channel.

   And everybody is OK with using "#wot-script" from now on.

Prev minutes

   <dape>
   [15]https://www.w3.org/2020/10/05-wot-script-minutes.html

     [15] https://www.w3.org/2020/10/05-wot-script-minutes.html

   Daniel: (goes through the minutes)
   ... don't see any blocking points
   ... any objections for publishing these minutes

   (no objections)

PR 270

   [16]PR 270

     [16] https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/pull/270

   Daniel: Cristiano gave some comment

   Cristiano: agree with you that this could be done on the client
   side
   ... but many event APIs support the 'once' option, and it would
   be nice to have an additional feature for the WoT Scripting API
   too. however, we should think about this more.

   Daniel: Zoltan?

   Zoltan: this is not generic event handling but part of WoT
   Scripting API
   ... very WoT-specific

   [17]Cristiano's comment on GitHub

     [17] https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/pull/270#issuecomment-707009956

   Zoltan: so would suggest we should not merge this PR but simply
   close it

   Cristiano: we could add some specific label to record this
   idea?

   Daniel: adds labels of "enhancement" and "for next iteration"

   Kaz: if this feature is "useful" for the next version, we
   should keep this open

   Zoltan: we can't identify actual solution for this idea, so it
   would be confusing to keep this open

   Daniel: let's come back after getting possible subscription API
   changes
   ... btw, Issue 268 is related to this PR

   [18]Issue 268

     [18] https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/issues/268

   Zoltan: we should keep this as well open
   ... also should add specific labels

   Daniel: added "enhancement" label

Issue 252

   [19]Issue 252

     [19] https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/issues/252

   Daniel: created a PR for this issue

   [20]PR 271

     [20] https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/pull/271

   Daniel: there are 3 documents related to security
   ... but think the necessary points on mitigation are described
   within the "WoT Security & Privacy Guidelines" document
   ... so removed the Security Best Practices document and the
   Security Testing MD file from the reference section

   Kaz: think we should check with McCool

   Daniel: yeah, we can, but note that the links for those two
   documents are broken

   Cristiano: OK with merge, but we could ask McCool for updated
   resources

   Note: Kaz checked with McCool and confirmed that PR 271 could
   be safely merged during the [21]main call on Oct 14.

     [21] https://www.w3.org/2020/10/14-wot-minutes.html

Issue 241

   [22]Issue 241

     [22] https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/issues/241

   Cristiano: would clarification for Issue 241 before publication

   Daniel: got a resolution to add a note explaining the relation
   between Scripting "interaction" and TD "affordance"

   Zoltan: still strongly prefer "interaction" to "affordance" for
   the WoT Scripting API
   ... we could add an Editor's note on the history of the
   terminology

   Cristiano: will do my best to explain that
   ... you can improve the text later

   Zoltan: ok

Publication

   Daniel: we still have unresolved issues but can we move forward
   with publication?
   ... what about versioning?

   Cristiano: we need to wait for the joint discussion with the
   JSON-LD WG guys

   Kaz: are you aware of the joint meeting with JSON-LD will be
   held tomorrow 2 hours later than the Scripting time?

   Cristiano: yes

   Daniel: yes

Issue 223

   [23]Issue 223

     [23] https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/issues/223

   Daniel: need to update the Changes section

   Zoltan: can create a PR for that purpose

   Daniel/Kaz: tx

Issue 222

   [24]Issue 222

     [24] https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/issues/222

   Cristiano: need more time

   Kaz: we need to identify which Issues and PRs need to be fixed
   before publication, and if we've resolved all of them, we can
   go ahead and publish the updated draft (Changes section is one
   of those issues)

Discovery API

   Zoltan: Daniel, please show the discovery API

   [25]9. The ThingDiscovery interface

     [25] https://w3c.github.io/wot-scripting-api/#the-thingdiscovery-interface

   [26]more specifically "9.3 The ThingFilter dictionary"

     [26] https://w3c.github.io/wot-scripting-api/#the-thingfilter-dictionary

   (some discussion on the fragment property)

   Daniel: we should not touch this part at the moment

   Zoltan: can look into it

   Kaz: this should be done after the publication. right?

   Zoltan: at least can add clarification quickly, e.g., by
   tomorrow

   Kaz: is there any concrete issue about this?

   Zoltan: a related issue on the wot-discovery repo

   Daniel: also related issue 222 created by Cristiano

   [27]Issue 222

     [27] https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/issues/222

   [28]Issue 206

     [28] https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/issues/206.

   Cristiano: we should handle those issues later

Issues with "F2F" label

   [29]Issue 214

     [29] https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/issues/214

   Cristiano: how to handle this within the Scripting API?

   Zoltan: we use Promises for WoT interactions
   ... why do we need to have an explicit feature for this?
   ... the current API definition is based on the API design
   ... that said, OAuth 2.0 code flow is a new proposal, so we can
   continue the discussion

   Cristiano: ok. let's see what we can

   (we're out of time...)

   Daniel: we'll have discussion during the joint call with
   JSON-LD
   ... also next week

   [adjourned]

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

   [End of minutes]
     __________________________________________________________


    Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by
    David Booth's [30]scribe.perl version ([31]CVS log)
    $Date: 2020/10/19 09:10:16 $

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

Received on Monday, 26 October 2020 05:37:26 UTC