[Scripting] minutes - 9 August 2021

available at:
  https://www.w3.org/2021/08/09-wot-script-minutes.html


also as text below.

Thanks a lot for taking the minutes, Zoltan!

Kazuyuki

---
   [1]W3C

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


                             ¡V DRAFT ¡V
                           WoT Scripting API

09 August 2021

   [2]Agenda. [3]IRC log.

      [2] https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/WG_WoT_Scripting_API_WebConf#9_August_2021

      [3] https://www.w3.org/2021/08/09-wot-script-irc


Attendees

   Present
          Critiano_Aguzzi, Daniel_Peintner, Kaz_Ashimura,
          Tomoaki_Mizushima, Zoltan_Kis

   Regrets
          -

   Chair
          Daniel

   Scribe
          zkis

Contents

    1. [4]past minutes
    2. [5]quick updates
    3. [6]publication
    4. [7]open PR
    5. [8]Issue 193: Should writeProperty() return a value
    6. [9]propose closing issues

Meeting minutes

  past minutes

   [10]Aug-2

     [10] https://www.w3.org/2021/08/02-wot-script-minutes.html


   Daniel: any comments on the minutes?

   Daniel: no, past minutes approved, can be published

  quick updates

   Daniel: might miss next call

   Cristiano: not available either on the next call

   Zoltan: so we can skip the call

   Daniel: so the next call is on 23 August.

   <Mizushima> +1

  publication

   Daniel: publication plan, we can make an update in September or
   October

  open PR

   <dape> [11]https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/pull/329


     [11] https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/pull/329


   Daniel: approvals are there, can be merged (after fixing
   conflicts)

   Cristiano: we can mark package.json as private

   Daniel: should we have the same name wot-typescript-definitions
   in the repo

   Zoltan: no, I don't think we have that constraint

   Cristiano: it's fine as it is

   Daniel: ok, comments resolved in the PR

   Daniel: about version numbering, is that fine?

   Cristiano: the TD schema used the same convention for version
   ¡K though a date in a version is not common
   ¡K we can add SNAPSHOT

   Zoltan: it's like a note in the version string, so whether it
   contains a date or snapshot it's private decision

   Daniel: we can merge and try right away what happens when
   publishing the npm

  Issue 193: Should writeProperty() return a value

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


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


   Daniel: whether writing a property should return a value

   Daniel: we needed a feature to tell whether a value can be
   returned by the write op

   Daniel: I suggest the Scripting TF waits until this is
   finalized

   <dape> [13]https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues/

   875#issuecomment-892776550

     [13] https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues/875#issuecomment-892776550


   Daniel: Sebastian commented

   Daniel: there are 3 options, 1. no return, 2. return the same
   data schema, 3. return a different data schema

   Daniel: the Scripting API should model these

   Cristiano: this will imply other changes to the Scripting API,
   for instance DataSchema can be in a Form now
   ¡K this is a general issue

   Daniel: there will be ExpectedResponse schema,
   AdditionalExpectedResponse etc

   Daniel: we can return InteractionOutput on writes again, we
   need a way to indicate to expect something or not

   Zoltan: we already have the schema in InteractionOutput, that
   can be null

   Cristiano: I understood the same way

   Daniel: I thought this was optional hint, but ok

   Daniel: so if the TD TF decided to support the use case,
   Scripting might need little changes

   Cristiano: may we can just add InteractionOutput and check the
   use cases
   ¡K based on Sebastian's comment on ExpectedResponse, we might
   need to re-check
   ¡K AdditionExpectedResponse was not defined well, therefore a
   schema was put there

   Cristiano: again the question is what makes a difference
   between an Action and a property write

   Zoltan: WoT inherited most problems from supported protocols
   and provided very little generalization

   Cristiano: have the same feeling

   Daniel: it's because the many specific use cases

   Kaz: agree with both sides but clarifying typical use cases
   would be good
   ¡K for instance timeout with HTTP
   ¡K we should consider the exact use cases

   Daniel: should we raise this with the TD TF?

   Kaz: obviously this is a generic comment, to stick to use cases

   Zoltan: we need more than just use cases, we need to be able to
   generalize and make it usable

   Cristiano: we need more applications (with a lot of use cases)

   Kaz: yes, use cases mean also the complete scenario

   Daniel: we do have one mash-up use case

   Kaz: we can start from the Core profile (Ben Francis)

   Daniel: anyway we don't decide there, Scripting follows the
   decisions in the other tack forces

  propose closing issues

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

   issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3A%22propose+closing%22

     [14] https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/issues?q=is:issue+is:open+label:"propose+closing"

   <dape> [15]https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/issues/107


     [15] https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/issues/107


   Daniel: it's a lot of complexity and we don't have a use case

   Zoltan: the TD TF should handle this first

   Kaz: transferring issue is ok, but could go to the profile or
   implementation guideline
   ¡K so we can raise that in the main call

   Zoltan: yes, we should transfer this, not close this

   Zoltan: check the Generic Sensor API how this could be dealt
   with

   [16]https://www.w3.org/TR/

   generic-sensor/#concepts-sampling-and-reporting-frequencies

     [16] https://www.w3.org/TR/generic-sensor/#concepts-sampling-and-reporting-frequencies


   Kaz: warning to not add big features at this point given the
   charter period.

   Daniel: call adjourned


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

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

Received on Monday, 20 September 2021 08:44:20 UTC