W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wot-wg@w3.org > August 2021

[wot-discovery] minutes - 7 June 2021

From: Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 02 Aug 2021 19:56:22 +0900
Message-ID: <87pmuwnmi1.wl-ashimura@w3.org>
To: public-wot-wg@w3.org
available at:

also as text below.

Thanks a lot for taking the minutes, Cristiano!



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

                             WoT Discovery

07 June 2021

   [2]IRC log.

      [2] https://www.w3.org/2021/06/07-wot-discovery-irc


          Andrea_Cimmino, Chrstian_Glomb, Cristiano_Aguzzi,
          Ege_Korkan, Farshid_Tavakolizadeh, Kaz_Ashimura,
          Kunihiko_Toumura, Michael_McCool





    1. [3]minutes
    2. [4]Pending PRs
         1. [5]PR 192
         2. [6]PR 195
         3. [7]PR 191
         4. [8]PR 196
         5. [9]PR 198
         6. [10]184
    3. [11]testing

Meeting minutes


   <kaz> [12]May-31

     [12] https://www.w3.org/2021/05/31-wot-discovery-minutes.html

   McCool: we reviewed different PRs

   McCool: I recently worked on TD signatures, some updates later
   … we accepted different refactoring PRs
   … farshid have you completed the updates to the mentioned PRs?

   Farshid: yes

   McCool: I have not yet discussed about slack with Kaz
   … but we have time
   … any objection to publish the minutes?
   … ok minutes accepted

  Pending PRs

    PR 192

   <kaz> [13]PR 192 - Addition of change log WD2

     [13] https://github.com/w3c/wot-discovery/pull/192

   McCool: let's start simple, PR 192 is about change log
   … farshid already reviewed and approved it
   … we can fix it up later
   … if we find any issues
   … any objection?

   Farshid: not an objection but it would be cool to have dates or
   timestamps for features

   McCool: it should be new changes after the last WD
   … anyway we'll fix it later

    PR 195

   McCool: another easy one, it is just a bug fix
   … any comments?
   … ok merged

   McCool: does the sub prs provide all the changes requested by

   Farshid: they contain more than that, some updates in the text
   for example

   McCool: Ok I'll propose to merge them and than close the
   original now.

    PR 191

   <kaz> [14]PR 191 - Refactor Directory Service API TD (retrieve
   one and search as actions, listing as things property)

     [14] https://github.com/w3c/wot-discovery/pull/191

   Farshid: we reviewed it last time

   McCool: seems ok
   … merged

    PR 196

   <kaz> [15]PR 196 - Refactor Directory Service API TD (split

     [15] https://github.com/w3c/wot-discovery/pull/196

   McCool: no review from Ben here

   Farshid: now we have three affordances
   … all nouns
   … we don't have type for partial TD

   McCool: diff is confusing
   … in the created event

   Farshid: it was called full
   … it was clashing with the update parameter
   … diff is more consistent

   McCool: is ok for now, let's go on and see if it works out
   … we can improve the text a little bit by saying that some
   query parameters are ignored for a particular event type
   … I am ok with the current shape, adding a small point
   … any objection to merge it?
   … merged

    PR 198

   <kaz> [16]PR 198 - Notification API: pass event type in HTTP
   path instead of query

     [16] https://github.com/w3c/wot-discovery/pull/198

   Farshid: this is a change in the api, not just a refactoring
   … you can now subscribe to two event types at a time

   McCool: it is a little bit protocol specific

   Farshid: but also extensible

   McCool: url should be opaque in general
   … I am ok merging it

   Farshid: actually you are right td does not allow Event

   Ege: you could use a subscription payload to achive it

   McCool: to be discussed in the TD it self
   … filtering by urls is better than nothing

   Ege: here is custom workaround
   … for the td we need something generic

   Cristiano: yeah maybe something like a root form

   mc creating an issue about subscribing to a subset of events


   <kaz> [17]PR 184 - Refactor Directory Service API TD

     [17] https://github.com/w3c/wot-discovery/pull/184

   McCool: this is the original pr, we agreed to close it without
   merging cause it got replaced by the other one

   Farshid: there was also an issue
   … 133

   <FarshidT_> [18]https://github.com/w3c/wot-discovery/issues/133

     [18] https://github.com/w3c/wot-discovery/issues/133


     [19] https://github.com/w3c/wot-discovery/issues/133

   <FarshidT_> [20]https://github.com/w3c/wot-discovery/issues/133

     [20] https://github.com/w3c/wot-discovery/issues/133

   McCool: ok PR closed
   … closing also the issue
   … above


   McCool: farshid can you attend testing calls?

   Farshid: yes I'll be there on Wednesday and Friday

   Ege: we need a testing plan

   McCool: what are the features that we need to test?
   … we need a fine tuned test suite
   … not just comply to our TM

   Ege: we need to interact with an API

   McCool: I think so

   McCool: there is also peer-to-peer

   Ege: how would it looks like?

   McCool: there's also introduction
   … if the state is observable we need to check it
   … but there might be apis where the state is private
   … triggering errors might work
   … what do we have for testing?

   Farshid: we have a full test suite for go
   … it would be really cool to have it in python

   Ege: we just need the output

   Farshid: yeah but how to use for other implementations?

   McCool: we should create an id for each testable feature
   … and create an csv file

   Ege: we don't need a brand new test suite
   … just a tool to run
   … and the output

   McCool: what is required by w3c is a test result and a test
   … it comes to us to define features
   … we don't even need to check your code

   Farshid: the suite is test oriented

   <Ege> tdd-reg-create-known-td

   Farshid: how would we report optional features?

   McCool: just put everything pass or fail than we can later
   ignore it

   Farshid: if you are getting or patching there are many things
   to verify

   Ege: for creation for example there should be two child

   McCool: why don't we try to use Farshid suite and name each
   test with unique name?
   … and understand the feature map we need

   Farshid: ok

   McCool: farshid does not have sparql support
   … andrea does not have jsonpath there

   Andrea: yes it supports jsonpath, but we don't have tests for

   <Ege> @farshid is this the running tests for linksmart:

     [21] https://github.com/linksmart/thing-directory/blob/master/catalog/http_test.go

   McCool: ok we have few months to fill up the gaps
   … do we have a existing test suite for jsonpath?

   Andrea: I don't know, we have it for sparql
   … the benchmarks generate the data and than test it with
   … I have to check if this can be adapted for TDs

   McCool: ok to define a plan
   … but which version of the spec we will use
   … I would use the current draft
   … we should freeze the editor draft
   … for the next two weeks and then use the report to pin point
   gaps etc.

   Farshid: can we do editorial changes

   McCool: yes

   Farshid: I can provide tests for multi cast dns

   McCool: we don't have to test qr code
   … we just test things that we defined changes to other
   standards like the service type

   McCool: also we need to test security

   McCool: please check if there are some test suite for json-path

   McCool: closing the meeting see you tomorrow in the test call

   <kaz> [adjourned]

    Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by
    [22]scribe.perl version 136 (Thu May 27 13:50:24 2021 UTC).

     [22] https://w3c.github.io/scribe2/scribedoc.html
Received on Monday, 2 August 2021 10:56:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Monday, 2 August 2021 10:56:28 UTC