- From: Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 08 Feb 2021 20:34:27 +0900
- 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