IRC log of wot-script on 2021-01-18

Timestamps are in UTC.

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