Meeting minutes
Prev minutes
<kaz> Jan-11
Cristiano: about the architecture terminology, we refer to Thing fragments and others about partial TD
... fragment and partial TD are defined in Architecture
Daniel: we need to clarify this
minutes accepted
PR 288 by Kaz
<kaz> PR288
Daniel: PR 288 merged
Partial TD vs Thing fragment
Daniel: there was discussion on the Architecture meeting
Daniel: a partial TD is similar to a TD, the structure is the same
… a fragment can be anything
… we can pass just a property, without TD context
Cristiano: you got it right
Cristiano: let's see the proposal for the definition in the Arch doc
<cris> https://
Daniel: for me partial TD and Thing Model is the same thing, or too close
… a model is like a TD but don't know the instance information
… the context of a Thing model might be different
… the TD TF want a dedicated context for it
… checking validity for partial TD and fragment are simple, just remove parts from the schema
<dape> Comments added to WoT Architecture Issue 453
Cristiano: about the Thing model, I agree. Eventually it could have more features than partial TD
… partial TD is just a runtime concept
… Thing Model can be shared
Zotan: do we mandate the context in Scripting API? currently we don't require it
Daniel: that is correct
Zotan: currently it is a fragment, not a partial TD. Maybe it should be a partial TD
Daniel: without the context it doesn't work
Zotan: we have to update the algorithms then
Daniel: yes, we need to update the wording
Zotan: this validation should be in the TD spec, since it is normative (Scripting is optional)
Daniel: yes, we should reuse a schema defined in TD
Daniel: or in Architecture
Cristiano: I am afraid if we use the Thing Model definition, then we might have some mandatory elements we don't need or want
… it might also evolve with time
Zotan: is context in partial TD?
Daniel: no, I meant the same structure
Zotan: I prefer having an exact schema
Cristiano: yes
Daniel: agree
… we remove the "required" stances and then we are fine
Zotan: will that be the partial TD?
Daniel: yes, if we define it that way in Architecture
Zotan: this is a generic issue for also non-scripting clients, so it needs to be solved in TD
Daniel: not sure they will want to take it
Daniel: the TD spec does not use partial TD
… Discovery, Scripting might use it
… Thing Model is similar
Cristiano: I agree
… we should add the algorithm in Scripting and ping the TD TF if they want to integrate it
Daniel: makes sense
Zotan: OK, we can do it that way
Daniel: we should use the name "partial TD"
Cristiano: I agree with the algorithm approach, not duplicating the schema
Daniel: so how to go forward
Cristiano: I can prepare a PR
Zotan: so we need a section with an algorithm to produce the schema for validation
Cristiano: we can also define PartialTD
Zotan: I think the intent is more generic, for a ThingDescription, it's easier to grasp
Daniel: we can make clear in the algorithm that it is a partial TD
Zotan: we can also use a generic object and describe the algorithm
Cristiano: will think about it
Zotan: do we have a tracking issue?
<dape> https://
Daniel: we used to, changing the title :)
versioning
<dape> ... https://
DP summarizes the issue
Cristiano: I tried to find a use case for versioning, and it's mainly for feature detection
… this would be the main use case
… I agree that modern APIs use feature detection instead
… gave an example in the issue comment
… there might be some complex features that cannot be detected
… and that might need something like a version
… otherwise we should not define a version since we don't have a real use case yet, just hypotethical ones
… also, features should be easy to detect
Daniel: question about feature detection
… any way to test if the server supports something?
… looks like server side feature detection is not needed
Cristiano: right, we don't even know if the server is a WoT runtime at all
Daniel: a second question: how much of a complication will it be
Zoltan: the way we handle values now, I see it as a stable Web platform pattern
Cristiano: right, this is more or less standardized
Daniel: we need more experience and we can discuss later
Zotan: we can close the issue later
Daniel: thank you
adjourned