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

[Scripting] minutes - 18 January 2021

From: Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 08 Feb 2021 20:34:27 +0900
Message-ID: <874kimeqt8.wl-ashimura@w3.org>
To: public-wot-wg@w3.org
available at:
  https://www.w3.org/2021/01/18-wot-script-minutes.html

also as text below.

Thanks a lot for taking the minutes, Zoltan!

Kazuyuki

---
   [1]W3C

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

                           WoT Scripting API

18 January 2021

   [2]Agenda. [3]IRC log.

      [2] https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/WG_WoT_Scripting_API_WebConf#18_January_2021
      [3] https://www.w3.org/2021/01/18-wot-script-irc

Attendees

   Present
          Cristiano_Aguzzi, Daniel_Peintner, Kaz_Ashimura,
          Tomoaki_Mizushima, Zoltan_Kis

   Regrets
          -

   Chair
          Daniel

   Scribe
          zkis

Contents

    1. [4]Prev minutes
    2. [5]PR 288 by Kaz
    3. [6]Partial TD vs Thing fragment
    4. [7]versioning

Meeting minutes

  Prev minutes

   <kaz> [8]Jan-11

      [8] https://www.w3.org/2021/01/11-wot-script-minutes.html

   Cristiano: about the architecture terminology, we refer to
   Thing fragments and others about partial TD
   ... fragment and partial TD are defined in Architecture

   Daniel: we need to clarify this

   minutes accepted

  PR 288 by Kaz

   <kaz> [9]PR288

      [9] https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/pull/288

   Daniel: PR 288 merged

   <dape> closes [10]Isue 284 and [11]Issue 278

     [10] https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/issues/284
     [11] https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/issues/278

  Partial TD vs Thing fragment

   Daniel: there was discussion on the Architecture meeting

   Daniel: a partial TD is similar to a TD, the structure is the
   same
   … a fragment can be anything
   … we can pass just a property, without TD context

   Cristiano: you got it right

   Cristiano: let's see the proposal for the definition in the
   Arch doc

   <cris> [12]https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/issues/
   453#issuecomment-760290680

     [12] https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/issues/453#issuecomment-760290680

   Daniel: for me partial TD and Thing Model is the same thing, or
   too close
   … a model is like a TD but don't know the instance information
   … the context of a Thing model might be different
   … the TD TF want a dedicated context for it
   … checking validity for partial TD and fragment are simple,
   just remove parts from the schema

   <dape> [13]Comments added to WoT Architecture Issue 453

     [13] https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/issues/453#issuecomment-760290680

   Cristiano: about the Thing model, I agree. Eventually it could
   have more features than partial TD
   … partial TD is just a runtime concept
   … Thing Model can be shared

   Zotan: do we mandate the context in Scripting API? currently we
   don't require it

   Daniel: that is correct

   Zotan: currently it is a fragment, not a partial TD. Maybe it
   should be a partial TD

   Daniel: without the context it doesn't work

   Zotan: we have to update the algorithms then

   Daniel: yes, we need to update the wording

   Zotan: this validation should be in the TD spec, since it is
   normative (Scripting is optional)

   Daniel: yes, we should reuse a schema defined in TD

   Daniel: or in Architecture

   Cristiano: I am afraid if we use the Thing Model definition,
   then we might have some mandatory elements we don't need or
   want
   … it might also evolve with time

   Zotan: is context in partial TD?

   Daniel: no, I meant the same structure

   Zotan: I prefer having an exact schema

   Cristiano: yes

   Daniel: agree
   … we remove the "required" stances and then we are fine

   Zotan: will that be the partial TD?

   Daniel: yes, if we define it that way in Architecture

   Zotan: this is a generic issue for also non-scripting clients,
   so it needs to be solved in TD

   Daniel: not sure they will want to take it

   Daniel: the TD spec does not use partial TD
   … Discovery, Scripting might use it
   … Thing Model is similar

   Cristiano: I agree
   … we should add the algorithm in Scripting and ping the TD TF
   if they want to integrate it

   Daniel: makes sense

   Zotan: OK, we can do it that way

   Daniel: we should use the name "partial TD"

   Cristiano: I agree with the algorithm approach, not duplicating
   the schema

   Daniel: so how to go forward

   Cristiano: I can prepare a PR

   Zotan: so we need a section with an algorithm to produce the
   schema for validation

   Cristiano: we can also define PartialTD

   Zotan: I think the intent is more generic, for a
   ThingDescription, it's easier to grasp

   Daniel: we can make clear in the algorithm that it is a partial
   TD

   Zotan: we can also use a generic object and describe the
   algorithm

   Cristiano: will think about it

   Zotan: do we have a tracking issue?

   <dape> [14]https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/issues/287

     [14] https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/issues/287

   Daniel: we used to, changing the title :)

  versioning

   <dape> ... [15]https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/issues/
   224

     [15] https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/issues/224

   DP summarizes the issue

   Cristiano: I tried to find a use case for versioning, and it's
   mainly for feature detection
   … this would be the main use case
   … I agree that modern APIs use feature detection instead
   … gave an example in the issue comment
   … there might be some complex features that cannot be detected
   … and that might need something like a version
   … otherwise we should not define a version since we don't have
   a real use case yet, just hypotethical ones
   … also, features should be easy to detect

   Daniel: question about feature detection
   … any way to test if the server supports something?
   … looks like server side feature detection is not needed

   Cristiano: right, we don't even know if the server is a WoT
   runtime at all

   Daniel: a second question: how much of a complication will it
   be

   Zoltan: the way we handle values now, I see it as a stable Web
   platform pattern

   Cristiano: right, this is more or less standardized

   Daniel: we need more experience and we can discuss later

   Zotan: we can close the issue later

   Daniel: thank you

   adjourned


    Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by
    [16]scribe.perl version 127 (Wed Dec 30 17:39:58 2020 UTC).

     [16] https://w3c.github.io/scribe2/scribedoc.html
Received on Monday, 8 February 2021 11:34:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Monday, 8 February 2021 11:34:33 UTC