W3C

- DRAFT -

WoT Scripting

30 Mar 2020

Attendees

Present
Kaz_Ashimura, Daniel_Peintner, Ege_Korkan, Zoltan_Kis, Tomoaki_Mizushima
Regrets
Chair
Zoltan
Scribe
zkis

Contents


<scribe> scribe: zkis

Past minutes https://www.w3.org/2020/03/23-wot-minutes.html

past minutes approved

Daniel: MMc also asked for approving the F2F minutes

<kaz> monday minutes

no objections, minutes approved

Issues, #208 https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/issues/208

Daniel: on the TD call the issue was acknowledged and more work is needed on the Event affordance

Ege: we need some ideas from existing experience, e.g. M. Lagally

Zoltan: does it make sense to expose subscribe id's or keep them private in the impl?

Ege: usually not, except perhaps in few use cases
... subscription payload might make sense in certain application
... maybe we can say if there is a use case, we come back to this

Zoltan: so until then we identify events by names in Scripting

Daniel: the implementations needs to keep them as a state
... today we don't expose the subscriber id's
... we don't fully support yet any filtering on events

Zoltan: do implementations understand subscription data or is it opaque?
... in the current bindings?

Daniel: at most we pass subscription data along in node-wot

Zoltan: the Oracle use case would need that node-wot passes on the data

Daniel: yes

Issue_204 https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/issues/204

DP made a semantic layer prototype in https://github.com/danielpeintner/thingweb.node-wot/commit/844e199357d84494030549dadd655d20fe8a0706

Daniel: this is a layer built on the top of the existing Scripting API
... enables fetching e.g. a semantic Property
... supported for ConsumedThing
... this is for experimenting

Zoltan: I like it's a layered approach, like a library; not sure we should standardize yet

Daniel: it would be good to standardize

Ege: would not oppose this, and should be standardized

Zoltan: the standardization could happen in a new spec, like Generic Sensor vs Accelerometer specifications

<kaz> 6. The ConsumedThing interface

Zoltan: it could be separate conformance class

Daniel: it makes sense to do it in other spec that extends the current API
... we should get M. Koster and other and experiment with it in plugfests etc
... for instance about parameters etc
... we should look into semantic extensions

Zoltan: what are next steps? plugfest PoC?

Daniel: will work on implementation in node-wot, but need input and feedback from M. Koster and others

Zoltan: so first part of the work will be in node-wot

Daniel: there will be the plugfest call, any plans for the virtual plugfest?

Ege: there was the VPN tool proposed and needs to be tested
... so that we could make virtual plugfests easiers

<kaz> Mar-25 PlugFest minutes

Issue_201 https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/issues/201

Zoltan: should we introduce a Scripting-specific data description type that would merge mediaType (contentType from Forms) and DataSchema?
... otherwise in order to extend the algorithms, we'd need to define everything the TD spec defines

Daniel: going with Value would be fine, we don't even need DataSchema there
... it's repetitive

Zoltan: that is true also for mediaType

Daniel: we need the mediaType because we don't know which form was used
... app can look just at the mediaType

Zoltan: we can get DataSchema by property name from the TD

Daniel: right
... we need this both on input and output
... we still need the formIndex in InteractionOptions

Zoltan: I can create an experimental PR for this

Ege: makes sense to me, too

Daniel: the only fear is to break existing implementations

Zoltan: that requires some thinking
... should we include API version in the spec?

Daniel: never seen a good solution with a version

Zoltan: let's continue in the issue discussion

<kaz> [adjourned]

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

[End of minutes]

Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.154 (CVS log)
$Date: 2020/04/07 05:52:31 $