- From: Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2020 18:23:34 +0900
- To: public-wot-wg@w3.org
available at:
https://www.w3.org/2020/09/14-wot-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
14 Sep 2020
Attendees
Present
Kaz_Ashimura, Zoltan_Kis, Cristiano_Aguzzi,
Tomoaki_Mizushima, Daniel_Peintner
Regrets
Chair
Zoltan
Scribe
zkis
Contents
* [2]Topics
1. [3]past minutes
2. [4]https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/pulls
3. [5]PR 263,
https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/pull/263
4. [6]PR 260
https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/pull/260
5. [7]PR 244,
https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/pull/259
6. [8]PR262:
https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/pull/262
7. [9]PR 261,
https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/pull/261
8. [10]Ege's review
9. [11]issue 258,
https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/issues/258
10. [12]issue 242,
https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/issues/242
11. [13]next call
* [14]Summary of Action Items
* [15]Summary of Resolutions
__________________________________________________________
<scribe> Agenda:
[16]https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/pulls,
[17]https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/issues
[16] https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/pulls,
[17] https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/issues
<scribe> scribe: zkis
past minutes
[18]https://www.w3.org/2020/08/31-wot-minutes.html
[18] https://www.w3.org/2020/08/31-wot-minutes.html
Past minutes approved.
[19]https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/pulls
[19] https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/pulls
PR 263, [20]https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/pull/263
[20] https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/pull/263
Daniel: will review today
PR 260 [21]https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/pull/260
[21] https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/pull/260
Looks good, merged.
PR 244, [22]https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/pull/259
[22] https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/pull/259
Zoltan: this has a problem, mentioned in the PR
Daniel: we may init lazily, not in consume()
Zoltan: when to init then?
Daniel: when interactions are called, they could be init'd then
Cristiano: yes, that could work
... what we need to decide if we fail early, or during the
interactions (if they are not set up correctly, or there is an
error)
... I have no problem with consume() being a bit different than
constructor
Zoltan: consume() could fail early and constructor could use
lazy init
Cristiano: this could work, need to think
Daniel: we should not fail for something implementations can
correct
Cristiano: that's a valid point as well
Daniel: and this is also valid on exposed things as well as
consumed things
... so we should fail only when things cannot work
Cristiano: similarly, for security, we should be flexible, e.g.
if one of the schemes work, it should be fine
... we could lazily push error
Zoltan: I agree, also because the nature of these comms is
async, over various protocols so we cannot guarantee to fail
early
... TD validation is only syntactic, not functional
PR262: [23]https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/pull/262
[23] https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/pull/262
Zoltan: there is a question about global consistency of Forms
(e.g. every interaction has a CoAP form)
Daniel: we should be flexible here
Cristiano: we need the flexibility
... we have an open issue about ops and also about default
values
... TD issue 957
Zoltan: please put any ideas for the expose() algorithm in the
PR
Daniel: again the vote goes for flexibility
Cristiano: we should not expose something we cannot handle
Zoltan: right, we could remove the constraint
Daniel: yes, a TD is not necessarily by this runtime
Zoltan: we can leave it generic - on the other hand that step
is very complex and we have no good description of it
... but for now I will remove the sentence
Cristiano: architecturally we cannot enforce form existence or
syntax
PR 261, [24]https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/pull/261
[24] https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/pull/261
Zoltan: trivial change, done what the issue proposed
Cristiano: right
Daniel: looks good
merged
Ege's review
Zoltan: did we cover all issues raised from the review
... I need to check that.
<scribe> ACTION: ZK to check if there are issues not handled
from Ege's review
issue 258, [25]https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/issues/258
[25] https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/issues/258
Zoltan: in the light said today, what should we do for this
issue
Cristiano: right, we need to rething that
... will comment later
issue 242, [26]https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/issues/242
[26] https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/issues/242
Daniel: here as well we should apply the flexibility argument
Zoltan: if the TD designer specified these constraints, they
should be respected
Cristiano: agree with the need of checking
... at least with the convenience methods
... of the value() function
Daniel: had a similar problem in the past, sometimes schemas
are too refined and restricted; often the implementations
cannot be that rigurous
Cristiano: we should check what JSON Schema does
Zoltan: let's do that
next call
Cristiano: propose an agenda to talk about TypeScript
definitions
Daniel: we said we should have a spec before the plugfest, but
we should at least solve subscribe/unsubscribe
Adjourned.
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: ZK to check if there are issues not handled from
Ege's review
Summary of Resolutions
[End of minutes]
__________________________________________________________
Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by
David Booth's [27]scribe.perl version ([28]CVS log)
$Date: 2020/09/21 14:12:49 $
[27] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
[28] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Monday, 28 September 2020 09:23:40 UTC