Meeting minutes
prev minutes
<dape> March-1
Daniel: (goes through the minutes)
Daniel: look good
… any objections?
(none)
approved
vF2F
Daniel: (goes through the proposed agenda)
Daniel: (also shows the draft slides)
Zoltan: we presented interaction input/output during TPAC
Daniel: need to look at previous slide set about that
Zoltan: would include several examples
… Cristiano should talk about validation
… exposedThing requires detailed discussion
Daniel: some of the discussion points have been resolved
… need to check
… note our slot is 1 hour on March 25
… we need to split our work into the people working on the specific topic
… also note that there will be conflict with the F2F call next week
Daniel: vF2F will be held on March 15, 17, 18, 22, 24 and 25
Daniel: maybe no official call but possibly additional call by the Editors
Cristiano: ok
Zoltan: ok
GitHub branch renaming
Daniel: "master" branch has been renamed to "main"
Kaz: some minor trouble with accessing the github.io page
… but it's now available
Zoltan: can with the "main" branch
Daniel: if you have a pop-up saying you need to try 3 commands, please do so
… if you don't, should be ok
Any other quick updates?
Kaz: there are discussions on memory size by the Profile TF
… also pagination of big Thing Description discussion by the Discovery TF
… so I was wondering about your interest in those points
Daniel: not sure how to handle streaming or memory size
Zoltan: for constraint device use cases, maybe we need to think about CBOR
<zkis> zk: encapsulated by implementations
<zkis> zk: Since fetching TDs is separate from the API, it is out of scope
<zkis> ca: direct discovery might be involved
Zoltan: exactly, but it is possible to encapsulate even then
Kaz: I'm asking them to clarify some concrete use cases about those proposals, so we can revisit those proposals when the concrete use case descriptions are generated
Daniel: there was some discussion about binary data
Daniel: this is a broader discussion than our scope, I think
Zoltan: also thinks we need to define a use case
… note that these days the capability of "small devices" is getting improved
… so wondering about embedded devices in the market
… thought OCF had done a lot of work on limited devices
Daniel: ok
… so as the conclusion, we may be interested but need concrete use cases :)
Issue 304
<dape> Produce ExposedThing from a ThingModel instance,
Cristiano: need a stable definition for "Thing Model"
Zoltan: let's discuss the proposal later
Issue 303
<dape> Separate ExposedThing API,
Daniel: security section as well
Zoltan: let's keep it dormant for now
Issue 302
<dape> ActionHandler returning InteractionInput always,
<kaz> i/dp: (adds a label "next iteration" to Issue 304 and Issue 303)/302/
Zoltan: we can close this issue
Cristiano: I'm OK if Daniel is OK
Daniel: ok
(closed)
Issue 299
<dape> Chose a particular security schema for an ExposedThing,
Daniel: should add some label to this issue?
Cristiano: ok with adding "next iteration"
Daniel: (adds "next iteration" label)
Issue 300
<dape> Should title be mandatory in ExposedThingInit?,
Cristiano: could you please click the link there?
old issue 212 - Partial TD validation for input of produce() method
Daniel: (clicks the link above to get issue 212)
Zoltan: may to take it into account
Daniel: this issue 212 is about what should be refused
(since Ege's point was validation)
Zoltan: we ourselves need to define exposedThing for that purpose here
… since it's not defined by Thing Description itself
Daniel: you implementation needs to add the title
Zoltan: that is regarding the low-level API
Cristiano: this is not the same behavior as the one we use for form and href
Zoltan: we should add a clarification to the Scripting API spec
Cristiano: that's true but we may get a paradox on how to handle the TD fragment
Zoltan: have not provided the title
… that was a failure
Daniel: we had discussion on the default
… having a default wouldn't be useful here
… currently, in node-wot the default kicks twice
Zoltan: but that depends on implementations
… title can be changed by the users
… while the id might be an automatically generated value
… you could use an internally generated id as well
Daniel: we need to get adjourned now
Next calls
<cris> this issue about title is proving harder than I thought :D
Kaz: my understanding was no official calls on March 15 or 22
… but possibly casual chats by the Editors on the slides, etc.
Daniel: right
[adjourned]