11:55:16 RRSAgent has joined #wot-script 11:55:16 logging to https://www.w3.org/2022/01/24-wot-script-irc 11:55:40 meeting: WoT Scripting API 11:58:09 present+ Kaz_Ashimura, Jan_Romann 12:01:13 dape has joined #wot-script 12:02:13 cris has joined #wot-script 12:03:38 present+ Cristiano_Aguzzi, Daniel_Peintner 12:04:34 Agenda: https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/WG_WoT_Scripting_API_WebConf#24_January_2022 12:05:16 JKRhb has joined #wot-script 12:05:50 scribenick: JKRhb 12:05:51 Mizushima has joined #wot-script 12:05:51 scribenick: JKRhb 12:05:59 topic: Minutes 12:06:11 -> https://www.w3.org/2022/01/17-wot-script-minutes.html Jan-17 12:06:14 dp: The old minutes look good to me 12:06:28 present+ Tomoaki_Mizushima 12:06:28 ... we discussed lots of issues 12:06:46 ... are there any objections to making them public? 12:06:53 There none, minutes are approved. 12:06:57 topic: PRs 12:07:15 subtopic: PR #367 12:08:06 dp: PR fixes references and definitions 12:08:18 ... Zoltan and Cristiano have already approved it 12:08:47 .. there are currently 14 ReSpec warnings which will go away with these simple changes 12:08:54 ... Are there any objections? 12:09:06 There are none, dp proceeds with merging the PR 12:09:23 i|PR fixes|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/pull/367 PR 367 - Correctly reference/use definitions| 12:10:13 subtopic: PR #368 12:10:29 dp: This PR is similar, tries to resolve some ReSpec warnings 12:10:36 i|This PR|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/pull/368 PR 368 - resolve ReSpec warnings| 12:10:52 ... warnings result from a flag indicating that we are on REC track, I removed the flag 12:11:44 q+ 12:11:52 ... there are also unused definitions (user-agent and JSON-LD), which can be removed/replaced 12:12:31 ... Zoltan suggested referencing an existing user agent definition as well 12:13:02 ca: Is only the reference removed or the whole sentence? 12:13:25 dp: Only the references/ tags are replaced 12:13:53 ca: Why not removing the references alltogether if we are not using them? 12:14:16 dp: JSON-LD is currently not mentioned in the document, your argument is valid 12:14:41 ... we could remove it 12:15:13 ca: My proposal would be removing it as long as we don't find a place where we could use it. As long as this is not the case, I would prefer removing it 12:15:14 q+ 12:15:27 dp: Good point, removing it would not hurt us 12:15:29 ack cris 12:16:27 kaz: Even though the current draft does not mention it explicitly, the document uses some of the vocabulary (title, @context, ...) 12:17:00 ... Consumers check validaty based on the JSON-LD vocabulary, maybe we should add references 12:17:24 ... section 6.2 mentions JSON-LD vocabulary, for example 12:18:05 ca: Why don't we explain this relation in the Thing Description type? 12:18:12 s/section/e.g., section 6.2/ 12:18:16 kaz: We could add an editor's note for now 12:18:42 s/e.g., section 6.2/section/ 12:18:46 dp: To get rid of this warning, we should state somewhere that the term comes from JSON-LD 12:19:33 ... I would suggest the following: After the call I can go over the document and add in that JSON-LD vocabulary is used 12:20:06 s/We could/as the starting point for today, we could/ 12:20:13 s/ for now// 12:20:33 ca: In the ThingDescription type, we could mention the JSON LD vocabulary, and then we would be done 12:20:46 s/JSON LD/JSON-LD/ 12:21:04 dp: Looks good to me, this would also be my preferred solution for now to resolve the warnings 12:21:29 ... I will update the PR and will mark it as ready once I feel comfortable 12:21:35 ... then we can discuss it 12:22:05 s/... then we can discuss it/... then we can discuss it again/ 12:22:11 topic: Issues 12:22:25 subtopic: Issue #364 12:23:04 dp: I tried to make up my mind regarding this issue and I think it aligns well with the existing Subscription API 12:23:30 ... Jan also proposed adding a stop parameter to the callback 12:23:54 ... this could be used as a shortcut to the ThingDiscovery object 12:26:28 i|I tried to|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/issues/364 Issue 364 - Using a callback-based approach for Discovery?| 12:29:42 zkis has joined #wot-script 12:29:54 jr: The stop callback would serve as a way to avoid an explicit null check in the discovery callback, but it probably isn't actually needed 12:30:52 present+ Zoltan_Kis 12:31:37 ca: I like the new design, but we have to keep in mind two things: At the moment, we only have direct and discovery as method. I am wondering if it makes sense to use this new approach if we only have direct and directory methods. Should we continue this road or should we stop with what we alrady have? 12:34:04 ... should we stick to phase 2 or should we include phase 1 as well? 12:34:53 zk: The current state of the API is shaped by projects like OCF and other projects which also Bluetooth and broadcast 12:35:42 ... in some specs like OCF it is required to have the discovery in a different security phase 12:36:11 ... phase 2's whole purpose is only to fetch TDs 12:38:00 ca: I think this makes sense, but then the current API is not needed as we are just fetching TDs 12:39:12 ... both the directory and the direct method take a URL and return TDs 12:41:16 ... If we use a fetch method instead it should accept any WoT supporting URL scheme 12:42:47 dp: I agree that just using direct and directory methods does not have that much benefit, maybe we do not need the discover section at all (?) 12:43:40 ca: I would keep it but we should probably change the section drastically and align it more closely with the Discovery API 12:44:14 ... and just explicitly define a direct and a directory method 12:48:18 zk: What happens if you don't have a directory server? 12:48:46 i|What happens|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/issues/222 Related issue 222 - Possible alternative design of Discovering API| 12:49:14 ... then you must give it a URL? 12:50:53 ... I would prefer making the API more generic and not hardcode discovery methods 12:53:57 dp: I can see pros and cons for both approaches, the ThingFilter approach might need an extension of parameters in the future 12:54:10 ... parameters of concrete methods are more clearly defined 12:55:26 zk: Would you use a callback with concrete methods? 12:59:00 dp: We should align with Subscription approach/proposal by Jan. Could you revise your approach? 12:59:28 ca: I will try it out, I will add it to my own issue 13:00:07 zk: We need conformance classes for this 13:00:26 ... need to check what we are exposing 13:00:50 subtopic: Issue #219 13:01:04 dp: They are discussing it in the TD group 13:01:28 ... other issues got updates as well, we will discuss them next week 13:01:42 [adjourned] 13:01:46 rrsagent, make log public 13:01:50 rrsagent, draft minutes 13:01:50 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/01/24-wot-script-minutes.html kaz 13:03:09 chair: Daniel 13:03:11 rrsagent, draft minutes 13:03:11 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/01/24-wot-script-minutes.html kaz 14:59:47 Zakim has left #wot-script 15:02:45 Mizushima has left #wot-script