12:03:27 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #wot-script
12:03:27 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2021/01/18-wot-script-irc
12:04:26 <kaz> Meeting: WoT Scripting API
12:04:52 <kaz> present+ Kaz_Ashimura, Cristiano_Aguzzi, Daniel_Peintner, Zoltan_Kis
12:06:08 <cris> cris has joined #wot-script
12:07:38 <kaz> scribenick: zkis
12:07:55 <Mizushima> Mizushima has joined #wot-script
12:08:31 <kaz> -> https://www.w3.org/2021/01/11-wot-script-minutes.html Jan-11
12:09:19 <kaz> present+ Tomoaki_Mizushima
12:09:42 <kaz> i/11-wot-/topic: Prev minutes/
12:14:05 <kaz> topic: PRs
12:14:40 <kaz> -> https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/pull/288 PR288
12:15:35 <kaz> rrsagent, make log public
12:16:15 <kaz> rrsagent, draft minutes
12:16:15 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/01/18-wot-script-minutes.html kaz
12:17:34 <kaz> Agenda: https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/WG_WoT_Scripting_API_WebConf#18_January_2021
12:18:03 <zkis> DP: PR 288 merged
12:18:12 <dape> --> closes https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/issues/284 and https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/issues/278
12:18:13 <kaz> rrsagent, draft minutes
12:18:13 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/01/18-wot-script-minutes.html kaz
12:18:29 <kaz> i/278/topic: Issues/
12:19:00 <kaz> s/topic: Issues/
12:19:03 <zkis> Topic: partial TD vs Thing fragment
12:19:14 <kaz> i/closes/closes related issues/
12:19:14 <zkis> DP: there was discussion on the Architecture meeting
12:19:50 <zkis> DP: a partial TD is similar to a TD, the structure is the same
12:19:57 <zkis> ... a fragment can be anything
12:20:18 <zkis> ... we can pass just a property, without TD context
12:20:32 <zkis> CA: you got it right
12:20:36 <cris> https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/issues/453#issuecomment-760290680
12:21:05 <zkis> CA: let's see the proposal for the definition in the Arch doc
12:21:30 <zkis> (link to proposal)
12:22:13 <zkis> DP: for me partial TD and Thing Model is the same thing, or too close
12:22:34 <zkis> ... a model is like a TD but don't know the instance information
12:22:47 <zkis> ... the context of a Thing model might be different
12:22:58 <zkis> ... the TD TF want a dedicated context for it
12:23:27 <zkis> ... checking validity for partial TD and fragment are simple, just remove parts from the schema
12:23:46 <dape> --> https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/issues/453#issuecomment-760290680
12:24:13 <zkis> CA: about the Thing model, I agree. Eventually it could have more features than partial TD
12:24:21 <zkis> ... partial TD is just a runtime concept
12:24:28 <zkis> ... Thing Model can be shared
12:25:17 <zkis> ZK: do we mandate the context in Scripting API? currently we don't require it
12:25:26 <zkis> DP: that is correct
12:26:21 <zkis> ZK: currently it is a fragment, not a partial TD. Maybe it should be a partial TD
12:26:37 <zkis> DP: without the context it doesn't work
12:28:22 <zkis> ZK: we have to update the algorithms then
12:28:44 <zkis> DP: yes, we need to update the wording
12:28:49 <zkis> q?
12:29:57 <zkis> ZK: this validation should be in the TD spec, since it is normative (Scripting is optional)
12:30:09 <zkis> DP: yes, we should reuse a schema defined in TD
12:30:14 <cris> q+
12:30:21 <zkis> DP: or in Architecture
12:30:30 <zkis> ack cris
12:30:58 <zkis> CA: I am afraid if we use the Thing Model definition, then we might have some mandatory elements we don't need or want
12:31:10 <zkis> ... it might also evolve with time
12:32:14 <zkis> ZK: is context in partial TD?
12:32:27 <zkis> DP: no, I meant the same structure
12:32:43 <zkis> ZK: I prefer having an exact schema
12:32:45 <zkis> CA: yes
12:32:48 <zkis> DP: agree
12:33:14 <zkis> ... we remove the "required" stances and then we are fine
12:33:49 <zkis> ZK: will that be the partial TD?
12:34:03 <zkis> DP: yes, if we define it that way in Architecture
12:35:37 <zkis> ZK: this is a generic issue for also non-scripting clients, so it needs to be solved in TD
12:36:29 <zkis> DP: not sure they will want to take it
12:38:05 <zkis> DP: the TD spec does not use partial TD
12:38:15 <zkis> ... Discovery, Scripting might use it
12:38:24 <zkis> ... Thing Model is similar
12:39:03 <zkis> CA: I agree
12:39:23 <zkis> ... we should add the algorithm in Scripting and ping the TD TF if they want to integrate it
12:39:43 <zkis> DP: makes sense
12:39:53 <zkis> ZK: OK, we can do it that way
12:40:07 <zkis> DP: we should use the name "partial TD"
12:40:34 <zkis> CA: I agree with the algorithm approach, not duplicating the schema
12:40:46 <zkis> DP: so how to go forward
12:40:53 <zkis> CA: I can prepare a PR
12:41:49 <zkis> ZK: so we need a section with an algorithm to produce the schema for validation
12:42:14 <zkis> CA: we can also define PartialTD
12:44:04 <zkis> ZK: I think the intent is more generic, for a ThingDescription, it's easier to grasp
12:44:28 <zkis> DP: we can make clear in the algorithm that it is a partial TD
12:45:44 <zkis> ZK: we can also use a generic object and describe the algorithm
12:46:49 <zkis> CA: will think about it
12:47:04 <zkis> ZK: do we have a tracking issue?
12:47:20 <dape> ... https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/issues/287
12:47:22 <zkis> DP: we used to, changing the title :)
12:48:12 <zkis> Topic: versioning
12:48:19 <dape> ... https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/issues/224
12:49:03 <zkis> DP summarizes the issue
12:49:38 <zkis> CA: I tried to find a use case for versioning, and it's mainly for feature detection
12:49:45 <zkis> ... this would be the main use case
12:50:03 <zkis> ... I agree that modern APIs use feature detection instead
12:50:14 <zkis> ... gave an example in the issue comment
12:51:07 <zkis> ... there might be some complex features that cannot be detected
12:51:15 <zkis> ... and that might need something like a version
12:51:43 <zkis> ... otherwise we should not define a version since we don't have a real use case yet, just hypotethical ones
12:52:03 <zkis> ... also, features should be easy to detect
12:53:31 <dape> q+
12:54:17 <zkis> ack dape
12:55:56 <zkis> DP: question about feature detection
12:56:46 <zkis> ... any way to test if the server supports something<
12:56:51 <zkis> s/</?
12:58:11 <zkis> ... looks like server side feature detection is not needed
12:58:25 <zkis> CA: right, we don't even know if the server is a WoT runtime at all
12:58:50 <zkis> DP: a second question: how much of a complication will it be
12:59:49 <zkis> ZK: the way we handle values now, I see it as a stable Web platform pattern
13:00:02 <kaz> q?
13:00:04 <zkis> CA: right, this is more or less standardized
13:00:08 <zkis> ack kaz
13:00:32 <zkis> DP: we need more experience and we can discuss later
13:01:03 <zkis> ZK: we can close the issue later
13:01:12 <zkis> DP: thank you
13:01:24 <zkis> adjourned
13:01:35 <kaz> rrsagent, draft minutes
13:01:35 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/01/18-wot-script-minutes.html kaz
14:02:07 <zkis> zkis has joined #wot-script
14:45:04 <zkis> zkis has joined #wot-script
14:54:25 <zkis> zkis has joined #wot-script
15:30:31 <Zakim> Zakim has left #wot-script
17:31:14 <zkis> zkis has joined #wot-script