[Scripting] minutes - 17 May 2021

available at:
  https://www.w3.org/2021/05/17-wot-script-minutes.html


also as text below.

Thanks a lot for taking the minutes, Zoltan!

Kazuyuki

---
   [1]W3C

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


                             – DRAFT –
                           WoT Scripting API

17 May 2021

   [2]Agenda. [3]IRC log.

      [2] https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/WG_WoT_Scripting_API_WebConf#17_May_2021

      [3] https://www.w3.org/2021/05/17-wot-script-irc


Attendees

   Present
          Cristiano_Aguzzi, Daniel_Peintner, Kaz_Ashimura,
          Tomoaki_Mizushima, Zoltan_Kis

   Regrets
          -

   Chair
          Daniel

   Scribe
          zkis

Contents

    1. [4]Agenda
    2. [5]accepting past minutes
    3. [6]next call, May 24 is Whit Monday
    4. [7]June F2F
    5. [8]issue 193

Meeting minutes

  Agenda

   <dape> [9]Agenda

      [9] https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/WG_WoT_Scripting_API_WebConf#17_May_2021


  accepting past minutes

   <dape> [10]May-10

     [10] https://www.w3.org/2021/05/10-wot-script-minutes.html


   Minutes approved.

  next call, May 24 is Whit Monday

   It is a holiday in many countries, so May 24 call is skipped.

  June F2F

   <kaz> [11]June Testfest/vF2F wiki

     [11] https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/F2F_meeting,_June_2021


   Kaz: someone needs to give update for node-wot

   Daniel: will be on holiday in 2nd half of June

  issue 193

   <dape> [12]https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/issues/193


     [12] https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/issues/193


   Daniel: there was a point about Echonet

   Kaz: we need to ask Matsuda-san, etc., for clarification
   … we need to wait for the result of that

   Daniel: there was also a point about OCF

   Zoltan: will check that

   Daniel: proposal from ZK looks good, would it make sense to
   include that in the algorithms?

   Cristiano: yes - it looks like a 200 response
   … how do you specify tolerances in DataSchema?
   … just discussed with Sebastian how to model uint16

   Zoltan: right, precision is missing from DataSchema

   Daniel: yes the schema misses that

   Zoltan: what does number mean in DataSchema

   Cristiano: it's like in JavaScript

   Zoltan: so we cannot implement step 2 from the proposal

   Daniel: right, and then we go on thin ice when rejecting
   because of precision differences

   Daniel: but there is the "multipleOf" option which could help
   scaling the precision
   … so we can put an appropriate formulation there

   Zoltan: also, the app could observe the property and then write
   and check the value from the notification

   Daniel: yes that would work

   Daniel: and in the case of Philips Hue, one should model it
   with Actions

   Cristiano: I agree
   … the only way to write consistent TDs and model underlying
   protocols. I would not change the TD spec in order to cover
   protocols
   … but then what should we do when strings are truncated?

   Zoltan: a clear case of error

   Cristiano: but the same case is with numbers

   Daniel: I can see the relation
   … if match is not 1:1, if we could have an error code for that

   Zoltan: we could have a new option that hints at a minimum
   precision

   Cristiano: why not let this logic be handled by scripts?

   Zoltan: how do we return the value?

   Cristiano: in the error

   Zoltan: I see problems with that, maybe using
   InteractionOutput... typically for numbers, a standard is used
   for representation

   <dape> [13]https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/issues/200


     [13] https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/issues/200


   Daniel: this is linked to the error mapping case

   Daniel: the use case is to know which protocol binding has
   failed

   Zoltan: then we need a general information in replies which
   protocol binding was used

   Cristiano: exactly
   … we could keep the errors at interaction level, and we could
   reveal the details separately

   Zoltan: should we have a separate call for more detailed
   errors, given the Error object, or can we standardize an Error
   object

   Cristiano: will have to think about that

   Daniel: would prefer without a second call for details

   Zoltan: ok, but still I don't like to expose every protocol
   details to the apps

   Cristiano: agree with that

   Daniel: time is up

   feel free to add to the issues

   adjourned


    Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by
    [14]scribe.perl version 131 (Sat Apr 24 15:23:43 2021 UTC).

     [14] https://w3c.github.io/scribe2/scribedoc.html

Received on Monday, 12 July 2021 02:22:25 UTC