IRC log of wot-script on 2024-02-19

Timestamps are in UTC.

12:00:42 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #wot-script
12:00:46 [RRSAgent]
logging to https://www.w3.org/2024/02/19-wot-script-irc
12:01:54 [cris_]
cris_ has joined #wot-script
12:02:13 [cris_]
I'm tring to join the call but I can't access the event link
12:02:23 [cris_]
it seems that the w3c auth server is down
12:05:15 [kaz]
meeting: WoT Scripting API
12:06:00 [kaz]
chair: Cristiano
12:06:05 [Mizushima]
Mizushima has joined #wot-script
12:06:49 [kaz]
present+ Kaz_Ashimura, Crisitno_Aguzzi, Zoltan_Kis, Jan_Romann, Tomoaki_Mizushima
12:08:48 [zkis]
scribe: zkis
12:09:22 [JKRhb]
JKRhb has joined #wot-script
12:10:07 [kaz]
agenda: https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/WG_WoT_Scripting_API_WebConf#February_19%2C_2024
12:10:44 [kaz]
topic: Minutes
12:10:53 [zkis]
Minutes approved
12:10:53 [kaz]
-> https://www.w3.org/2024/02/05-wot-script-minutes.html Feb-5
12:11:07 [zkis]
Topic: quick updates
12:11:20 [zkis]
CA: we have biweekly calls now
12:11:26 [zkis]
Topic: PRs
12:11:40 [zkis]
Subtopic: PR 534
12:11:43 [cris_]
https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/pull/534
12:12:16 [kaz]
s|https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/pull/534|-">https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/pull/534|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/pull/534 PR 534 - fix(InteractionOutput): don't require schema.type in value function|
12:13:38 [zkis]
CA: started in a node-wot problem with schema
12:13:55 [zkis]
q+
12:14:12 [zkis]
CA: implementation feedback pushed to change the spec
12:14:16 [kaz]
q+
12:14:36 [zkis]
ZK: we should have a tracking issue for the case when implementations are asking spec changes
12:15:53 [zkis]
CA: a PR also counts as an issue
12:16:08 [zkis]
ZK: I am referring to normal WG practice here
12:16:27 [kaz]
ack z
12:17:46 [zkis]
JR: based on relevant comment we can make a new issue
12:18:46 [zkis]
CA: created issue 546
12:18:49 [cris_]
https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/issues/546
12:18:56 [zkis]
ack kaz
12:19:17 [zkis]
KA: this discussion contains several issues
12:19:25 [zkis]
... one is implementation feedback from node-wot
12:19:37 [zkis]
... another is a restriction by the schema mechanism
12:19:52 [zkis]
... we should think about those separately
12:20:27 [zkis]
... the spec should describe what is required by implementations, not to describe the schema mechanism
12:20:48 [dape]
dape has joined #wot-script
12:21:01 [zkis]
... the spec should think about the necessary dependencies, also towards other implementations
12:21:27 [zkis]
... what kind of data do they handle, what structure is preferred, array or object, what is preferred when, etc.
12:21:47 [zkis]
... we could start with use cases listed by Jan, but we can also ask for more use cases
12:22:04 [dape]
q+ to WebThings
12:22:12 [zkis]
CA: in general I agree with gathering more feedback
12:22:48 [zkis]
... this problem persists also in the libraries, we need to handle it somewhere
12:23:26 [zkis]
DP: maybe it's good to get other developer feedback, e.g. Mozilla WebThings, to see how do they handle similar issues
12:23:38 [zkis]
... and whether is there anything to be fixed in the TD task force
12:23:42 [zkis]
KA: agreed
12:24:00 [dape]
ack dape
12:24:00 [Zakim]
dape, you wanted to WebThings
12:24:12 [zkis]
CA: IME they don't have this problem, since they use it only for validation, while node-wot is also using it for bindings
12:24:28 [zkis]
... but we can ask nevertheless
12:25:00 [zkis]
DP: we have a use case from discovery also coming up and we also need to cover that
12:25:07 [kaz]
present+ Daniel_Peintner
12:25:15 [zkis]
CA: right, this is also needed for solving that
12:25:26 [zkis]
CA: we can do an iterative approach
12:26:01 [zkis]
... for now we can keep the issue open, but agree in a short term resolution until further feedback comes
12:27:56 [zkis]
CA: explaining the details of a short term proposal
12:28:40 [JKRhb]
q+
12:30:07 [zkis]
ack JKRhb
12:30:29 [zkis]
JR: I also tried to extend the algorithm to check the data schema
12:31:40 [zkis]
JR: for the valid schema, needs some discussion
12:31:58 [zkis]
... we might need stricter definitions for validity
12:32:42 [zkis]
ZK: is it an application level issue, or implementation level?
12:32:54 [zkis]
CA: I would ask that as a generic question from the WG
12:33:04 [zkis]
... let's separate the concerns for Scripting
12:33:24 [zkis]
... we don't need very strict rules IMHO, the TD should spec that
12:33:28 [kaz]
-> https://pr-preview.s3.amazonaws.com/JKRhb/wot-scripting-api/pull/534.html#the-check-data-schema-algorithm PR 534 Preview - 7.2.3 The check data schema algorithm
12:33:43 [zkis]
CA: we need to be able to infer the type from the application
12:33:47 [zkis]
q+
12:35:07 [kaz]
q+
12:35:12 [dape]
q+
12:35:37 [zkis]
ZK: we should spec data formats in web specs in general
12:35:49 [zkis]
CA: we can defer to the TD TF
12:35:57 [JKRhb]
q+
12:36:16 [zkis]
KA: agree, and we should look into some more implementation approaches and other specs
12:36:36 [zkis]
q?
12:36:40 [zkis]
ack zk
12:36:43 [zkis]
ack kaz
12:37:02 [zkis]
KA: it might be a good topic for the CG to have a study and tutorial
12:37:10 [zkis]
CA: yes, we can ignite a discussion there
12:38:26 [zkis]
DP: we have similar solution in value function and input data, but we don't spec the full JSON schema
12:39:00 [zkis]
DP: we could say that the value function may be used in this or that case, otherwise use ArrayBuffer
12:39:13 [zkis]
CA: right, we should update the spec
12:39:23 [dape]
ack dape
12:40:49 [zkis]
JR: there's some example to call value() then catch exception
12:41:53 [zkis]
ZK: yes, these belong to explainers
12:42:15 [kaz]
i/and other specs/and other specs. like Daniel mentioned, WebThing is one possibility, and ECHONET should ne another possibility./
12:42:38 [zkis]
JR: we wanted to expand the data schema algorithm
12:45:11 [zkis]
... (brainstorming about the algorithm)
12:46:14 [zkis]
CA: some small updates would be needed, mostly we are fine
12:46:40 [zkis]
CA: Jan, please check the steps and provide a PR
12:46:43 [zkis]
JR: ok
12:47:07 [kaz]
q+
12:47:07 [zkis]
Topic: Issues
12:47:14 [zkis]
ack JKRhb
12:47:51 [zkis]
KA: spec doesn't have to replicate the schema mechanism
12:48:10 [zkis]
... we should start with what is needed for the spec, and what can be applied from external algorithms
12:48:27 [zkis]
... if those are not enough, then we can add local algorithm steps
12:48:50 [zkis]
... is the current schema mechanism good enough?
12:49:08 [zkis]
CA: yes, it is, but doesn't explicitly cover all permutations of the schema in our spec
12:49:26 [zkis]
... we validate the schema, plus we spec what the runtime should return
12:49:55 [zkis]
CA: no reason to change, just to complete
12:50:22 [zkis]
KA: the base question is that validation by schema is different than by the spec
12:50:38 [zkis]
... so we need to think about the schema and data processing separately
12:50:46 [zkis]
CA: maybe we should indeed split
12:51:02 [dape]
q+
12:51:09 [zkis]
ack kaz
12:52:28 [zkis]
KA: the current spec should be fine, but e.g. the EchoNet people were talking about grouping data, users etc, so the use cases can get complicated, so we might want nicer mechanisms for validation and data handling
12:53:27 [zkis]
DP: in ideal case, we should also split not only the spec prose, but also use helper methods to check e.g. if the value() function would work
12:53:38 [zkis]
... without the need to catch exceptions
12:54:28 [dape]
q?
12:54:31 [dape]
ack dape
12:54:58 [zkis]
CA: opened issue 547
12:55:00 [cris_]
https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/issues/547
12:55:42 [kaz]
s|https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/issues/547|-">https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/issues/547|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/issues/547 new related Issue 547 - Refactor: separate schema validation for data processing validation|
12:55:54 [zkis]
CA: we need to open or map issues at TD spec
12:56:31 [zkis]
CA: we should split the list of issue for triaging
12:57:14 [kaz]
q+
12:58:36 [zkis]
DP: I can handle the triaging
12:59:02 [zkis]
KA: we should clarify the mechanism, e.g. split wait-for-td to multiple categories
12:59:13 [zkis]
CA: we can file issues at TD, if needed
12:59:32 [zkis]
KA: then it's just another label for TD
12:59:36 [kaz]
-> https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3Await-for-td Issues with "wait-for-td"
13:00:14 [zkis]
KZ: we have the TD label, then the TD spec may have multiple labels
13:00:29 [zkis]
DP: I can check with Ege about the labeling
13:01:16 [zkis]
KZ: we just need to handle the dependencies
13:01:28 [zkis]
CA: we have label for TD and tracking depending specs
13:01:41 [kaz]
s/KZ:/ZK:/g
13:01:43 [zkis]
CA: next week is canceled, we have biweekl
13:02:00 [kaz]
[adjourned]
13:02:01 [zkis]
CA: adjourned
13:02:06 [kaz]
s/[adjourned]//
13:02:15 [kaz]
rrsagent, make log public
13:02:19 [kaz]
rrsagent, draft minutes
13:02:20 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/02/19-wot-script-minutes.html kaz
13:02:28 [zkis]
s/biweekl/biweekly
13:02:37 [kaz]
rrsagent, draft minutes
13:02:38 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/02/19-wot-script-minutes.html kaz
15:29:31 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #wot-script
16:12:16 [Ege]
Ege has joined #wot-script