<dape> scribe: dape

Previous minutes

McCool: Minutes approval

July-27

no objections --> minutes approved

Review progress on draft

McCool: see https://github.com/w3c/wot-discovery/pull/38

Farshid: Terminology
... e.g., Anonymous TD

<kaz> PR preview - 3. Terminology

McCool: Should order them alphabetically

Farshid: Section 8.2. Directory API
... added embedded TD
... see Example 1

<kaz> PR preview - 8.2 Directory

McCool: Issue about example/code highlighting
... normative parts should be visible as is

Farshid: class "advisement" as in wot-thing-dscription/index.template.html ?

McCool: maybe even new class like "normativeTD"
... see Issue #41

Kaz: Can do CSS updates but should make clear what it means within the text outside the example

<kaz> new issue 41 - Update CSS to add syntax highlighting for normative TD content

McCool: should also look into other specs how it is done there

Farshid: On top of example 1 added https
... link to anchor possible?

McCool: Should be...
... architecture contains most of our terminology
... maybe also being self-contained makes sense... and not being vague

Farshid: concern i had, webhooks and long polling is not always working.. for example for sleeping devices

McCool: Yes, notifications might have this issue
... a scheme like MQTT would make more sense
... or support a scheme where the device explicitly asks for updates

Farshid: what about websocket?

McCool: Would need to create a protocol over Websockets
... does not really solve the problem

<kaz> issue 42 - Decide how to securely do notifications from a Directory

Farshid: could provide information about the time frame (e.g., since yesterday)
... added @type "WoT-Discovery" ?

McCool: Yes, should be part of main ontology

Farshid: Moreover, should it be "WoT-Discovery" or just "Discovery" since there is "Thing"

McCool: see https://github.com/w3c/wot-discovery/issues/43

<kaz> issue 43 - Define the WoT-Directory type somewhere (eg in new version of context, in 1.1)

McCool: context file would be backward compatible ...
... "Discovery" might make sense
... suggest changing "WoT-Directory" to "Directory"

Farshid: need to take care, have mentioning before
... will update accordingly

David: in Connexus we used SSE (works through firewalls)
... sometimes websockets of use also
... we recently enabled websocket
... looks like an SSE stream

Koster: make it look like SSE useful in subprotocols?

David: I think so

<kaz> revisits issue 42 - Decide how to securely do notifications from a Directory

Koster: We encourage people to use SSE also

David: Note: AWS does not support SSE in lambdas
... do support websockets
... that's why we modified our "convention"

McCool: suggest creating issue in binding templates w.t.r
... add SSE-over-websockets as subprotocol

<kaz> wot-binding-templates issue 102 - Add SSE-over-websockets as a subprotocol

David: w.r.t. unique ID in events
... SSE has a field for events ids... but not available for websockets
... need to add explicit discriminator

Koster: Qualifies it as subprotocol

Farshid: I suggest implementing SSE first for notifications
... back to Example 1

McCool: Scopes?

Farshid: "write" for changes
... "read" for no changes

McCool: ok, let's revisit this part

Farshid: have action for changing database
... also read/retriev database

McCool: for htv namespaces one needs to add according context

Farshid: array of responses?
... issue on TD side
... "updateTD" is a simple interaction with the need to know the "id"

McCool: Anonymous TDs ?
... need to check whether identical

Farshid: Related issue (use-case) exists

McCool: Concern that database blows up if we don't check for identical TDs

Farshid: lifetime is another option

McCool: might have @type for system generated IDs

Farshid: response, fieldValue could be used

McCool: full/relative URL could be in the response
... should talk about handling IDs in TD

Farshid: we do have full or partial update

McCool: scope "update" besides "write"

Farshid: Yes, makes sense

McCool: what about PATCH?
... op field?

Farshid: op field is optional

McCool: do we have op code for PATCH

Koster: believe we do not have it
... TD samples are most of the times very simple... no complex structure

McCool: should also cross reference the idea of using array of responses

<FarshidT> array for response: https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues/617

McCool: e.g., error responses

<kaz> issue 44 - Define error responses

<inserted> scribenick: kaz

McCool: editor's note on the issue here?

Farshid: will do

McCool: error responses description here

PR preview - 8.2.2.1 Registration

<Koster> Can we make an Action for the patch case?

[error objects to be JSON-LD?]

McCool: shows TD 5.3.3.8 OAUth2SecurityScheme

TD spec - 5.3.3.8

McCool: btw, maybe you could highlight part of the text
... please look at how it's done within the TD spec

Farshid: ok
... should we merge this PR 38?

McCool: few small changes to be added
... you fix them, and I can merge PR 38 later
... send an email when it's done
... I'll go ahead and merge PR 38
... thanks a lot, Farshid!
... this is a great PR

[adjourned]