12:07:59 RRSAgent has joined #wot-script 12:08:03 logging to https://www.w3.org/2023/12/04-wot-script-irc 12:08:24 meeting: WoT Scripting API 12:08:58 present+ Kaz_Ashimura, Cristiano_Aguzzi, Jan_ROmann, Tomoaki_Mizushima, Zoltan_Kis 12:09:06 JKRhb has joined #wot-script 12:09:32 scribenick: JKRhb 12:09:37 topic: Minutes 12:09:38 topic: Minutes Review 12:09:54 ca: Minutes look fine to me, any objections to approving them? 12:10:03 No objections, minutes are approved 12:10:04 s/topic: Minutes Review/@@@/ 12:10:07 s/topic: Minutes// 12:10:20 s/@@@/topic: Minutes Review/ 12:10:23 topic: Schedule 12:10:48 ca: As you might know, we adjusted the schedule to only have biweekly calls 12:10:53 i|look fine|-> https://www.w3.org/2023/11/20-wot-script-minutes.html No-20| 12:10:58 s/No/Nov/ 12:11:01 ... we will have to reevaluate in the next year 12:11:09 rrsagent, make log public 12:11:13 rrsagent, draft minutes 12:11:15 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/12/04-wot-script-minutes.html kaz 12:11:22 ... so next week, there will be no call 12:11:43 chair: Cristiano 12:11:48 s/Nov ob/No ob/ 12:11:53 s/No-20/Nov-20/ 12:11:54 ... call in two weeks has a conflict with a meetup of the Nordic Smart Cities CG 12:11:58 rrsagent, draft minutes 12:11:59 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/12/04-wot-script-minutes.html kaz 12:12:07 ... therefore, we could cancel next week's call instead 12:12:29 q+ 12:13:00 ack k 12:13:04 ... having a last call on the 11th would be nice, but we could also cancel the last call of this year 12:13:15 zkis has joined #wot-script 12:13:37 kaz: Please remind the Nordic Smart Cities CG to join the WoT CG as well 12:13:51 ca: Will do 12:13:57 s/remind/remember/ 12:14:30 ... (adjusts the Wiki page regarding the cancelled meeting on the 18th) 12:14:33 present+ Daniel_Peintner 12:14:46 ... I would then like to have the last call next week 12:15:25 s/the Nordic Smart Cities CG to join the WoT CG as well/you should join the Nordic Smart Cities CG itself if you want to join the CG's meeting :)/ 12:15:56 dape has joined #wot-script 12:16:47 i|Will do|-> https://www.w3.org/community/smartcity-nordic/ Home page of the Nordic Chapter Smart City / Web of Things CG| 12:16:52 rrsagent, draft minutes 12:16:53 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/12/04-wot-script-minutes.html kaz 12:17:15 ... after this call I will send an email with the updated schedule, announcing that a scripting call on the 11th will take place 12:17:24 q+ 12:17:42 zk: Question regarding the Nordic Smart Cities CG: Is it the same as WoT? 12:18:38 kaz: Rather long full name, business-oriented, liasons with smart-city related businesses. Is independet from WoT CG 12:18:49 ... I encourage you to join the discussions 12:18:54 topic: PRs 12:19:07 q+ 12:19:13 ack k 12:19:17 subtopic: PR 489 12:19:28 ca: Issue still remains, need some more research 12:19:43 s/... I encourage you to join the discussions/... their discussion is very interesting, but don't need to join the call every time./ 12:19:54 ... apparently, the others in the group did not have the time to check as well 12:20:04 s/related businesses/related SDOs/ 12:20:45 dp: With the updated discovery API and a better typing, some of the issues might be resolved 12:20:54 ca: WIll play around during the Christmas break 12:21:00 subtopic: PR 524 12:21:24 s/Rather long full name, business-oriented,/No, that is a different CG organized by the W3C Nordic Chapter working on promoting W3C standards. Also/ 12:21:27 ca: PR by Jan, aligns the text and examples with the new discovery API 12:22:04 i|by Jan|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/pull/524 PR 524 - Update text and examples regarding the fetching of TDs| 12:22:10 rrsagent, draft minutes 12:22:11 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/12/04-wot-script-minutes.html kaz 12:22:47 i|Issue still|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/pull/489 PR 489 - Better types for Scripting API| 12:22:51 rrsagent, draft minutes 12:22:52 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/12/04-wot-script-minutes.html kaz 12:23:29 s/WIll/will/ 12:23:29 q? 12:23:29 ack dape 12:24:51 q+ 12:24:52 jr: removed mentions of fetch in the examples and text, and replaced it with our own requestThingDescription method 12:25:16 ... validation might need some more discussion 12:25:31 q+ 12:26:17 zk: I am against removing fetch from the spec, since fetch was just a convenience method and you cannot pass all the parameters to requestThingDescription 12:27:15 dp: We can add a note, in general we should encourage people to use requestThingDescription, as we are also doing it in node-wot 12:27:25 ack dape 12:28:25 ack j 12:29:11 jr: fetch is still mentioned, however, so that could still cover it 12:30:25 zk: Should add an explanation for when to use fetch and when to use requestThingDescription 12:30:48 ... we removed fetchTD back in the day since it did not cover all the use-cases 12:30:56 q+ 12:31:51 ... so there is more explanation required 12:31:57 ack k 12:32:34 ca: (adds a comment to the PR) 12:32:58 -> https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/pull/524#issuecomment-1838539229 Cristiano's comment 12:33:15 subtopic: PR 525 12:34:10 ca: simple PR, just corrects the use of quotes in the examples 12:34:16 ... any objections to merging? 12:34:36 i|simple|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/pull/525 PR 525 - Use simple single and double quotes in code examples| 12:34:36 No objections, PR is merged 12:34:45 rrsagent, draft minutes 12:34:46 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/12/04-wot-script-minutes.html kaz 12:34:57 topic: Issues 12:35:20 ca: This topic is related to the taskforce timeline 12:35:47 ... we should organize and relabel the issues to align them with our plans 12:35:52 ... we have 66 issues 12:36:09 -> https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/issues remaining 66 issues 12:36:10 ... we can split the issues between us 12:36:23 s/between/among/ 12:36:26 ... to check whether they make sense for the next iterations 12:36:35 ... need to define categories first 12:36:58 ... we have some labels already, first step could be to apply them consistently 12:37:11 ... I wonder if we should introduce new labels for the next iteration 12:37:44 q+ 12:38:02 ... afterward, we can work on aligning with TD and Discovery, and eventually define some use-cases 12:38:13 dp: We have the "for next iteration" label 12:38:31 ... maybe we can pick out the issues from the 66 that are the most pressing for us 12:38:37 ... now sure if we need new categories 12:38:40 ack dape 12:39:56 q+ 12:40:07 ca: For sure we can use the "for next iteration", however, it was kind of a "deferred" label. We might need to have a new label 12:40:34 ... we can use the "propose closing" label to mark issues that should be closed 12:41:00 ... could define a label called "next-up" 12:41:08 kaz: What do you mean by that? 12:42:03 ca: Label that is indicating that an issue should be worked on during the next year 12:42:32 kaz: Could use a process similar to the one used in the TD taskforce, separating into "refactoring" and "new feature" 12:42:59 ... should skim quickly over all the issues to determine if they are really needed from a developer's viewpoint 12:43:09 ... should evaluate if they are really needed 12:43:13 ack k 12:43:43 q+ 12:43:53 ca: Totally agree. I am trying to categorize, however, which issues we should review in the near future and which ones we should come back to later 12:44:12 dp: We could use something like priorities 12:44:15 q+ 12:44:29 ack d 12:44:34 ... something like "Priority 1", "Priority 2" 12:45:02 ca: How about something like "Priority: high", "Priority: low"? 12:45:54 ... should we mention the year in the description so that we know that it is for the upcoming year 12:46:40 zk: We could reuse "Next iteration", but priorities would also work 12:47:07 ... I agree with Kaz, though, that we should be consistent across Task Forces, so we could reuse the TD approach 12:47:20 kaz: We could look into the TD repository 12:48:29 ... next step after clarifying the labels should be quickly skimming over the issues and closing unneeded ones 12:49:15 ca: Relationship with TD is really important, maybe we could even add a label linking relevant issues with TD 12:49:36 s/TD repository/TD repository to see examples of labels/ 12:49:51 ... for all the 66 issues, it might be better to do it as a homework 12:50:29 ... an example is issue 190 (Create testing plan), which has been stale for four years 12:50:39 s/next step after clarifying the labels should be quickly skimming over the issues and closing unneeded ones/but the next step before attaching labels could be simply closing obsolete issues first./ 12:51:03 dp: Adding "Propose closing" and pinging the author could make sense 12:51:57 zk: It is an important issue raised by an Editor, however. We need more test cases 12:52:39 ca: Will add a comment and the label "priority: low" for now, not "Propose closing" 12:52:57 q+ 12:53:32 kaz: As you all know, testing is required only for the REC track documents 12:53:43 ... it is not required for the Note documents 12:53:49 ... if we want, we can still try that 12:53:54 ... but it is not necessary 12:54:23 ... my personal conlusion is that it is not a technical issue, but that the WoT WG should think about how to deal with testing in general 12:54:29 i|an example is|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/issues/190 Issue 190 - Create testing plan| 12:54:37 ca: (updates the comment) 12:54:58 zk: I think McCool orginally something different than what we are discussing now 12:55:14 s/it is not re/testing is not re/ 12:55:23 ... he rather meant generating some test cases automatically 12:56:27 kaz: Having some general guidelines for testing would be useful, although it is a bit too much for us at the moment 12:56:47 ... this is why I am proposing dealing with this on the WG level 12:57:06 ca: (Finalizes the comment) 12:57:08 s/personal conlusion/personal opinion/ 12:57:48 s/orginally/originally might have been thinking about/ 12:58:17 subtopic Issue 299 12:58:27 i|299|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/issues/190#issuecomment-1838579969 Cristiano's comment| 12:58:37 ca: This might be useful in the next iteration 12:58:56 i|This mi|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/issues/299 Issue 299 - Chose a particular security schema for an ExposedThing| 12:58:57 s/raised by an Editor/raised b a Chair 12:59:02 rrsagent, draft minutes 12:59:04 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/12/04-wot-script-minutes.html kaz 12:59:14 ... with the current API it is a bit difficult to direct the underlying platform which security scheme to use 12:59:23 s/raised b a Chair/raised by a Chair 12:59:30 ... comes from experimentation with node-wot and a real use-case 12:59:38 ... tend to add a high priority label 12:59:44 subtopic: Issue 303 12:59:48 q+ 13:00:23 ca: Issue opened by Zoltan 13:01:02 ack k 13:01:02 ... but as we are out of time, everybody should go through the issues and evaluate them 13:01:07 [adjourned] 13:01:09 rrsagent, draft minutes 13:01:10 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/12/04-wot-script-minutes.html kaz 13:56:55 mahda-noura has joined #wot-script 15:10:12 Zakim has left #wot-script