11:01:46 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #wot-script
11:01:46 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2021/05/17-wot-script-irc
11:01:59 <zkis> Meeting: WoT Scripting API
11:02:11 <dape> dape has joined #wot-script
11:06:15 <cris> cris has joined #wot-script
11:06:25 <kaz> present+ Kaz_Ashimura, Daniel_Peintner, Cristiano_Aguzzi, Zoltan_Kis
11:06:30 <kaz> Chair: Daniel
11:07:06 <Mizushima> Mizushima has joined #wot-script
11:09:29 <zkis> scribe: zkis
11:09:46 <kaz> present+ Tomoaki_Mizushima
11:09:51 <zkis> Agenda:
11:10:10 <dape> -> https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/WG_WoT_Scripting_API_WebConf#17_May_2021
11:10:27 <kaz> s/May_2021/May_2021 Agenda/
11:10:38 <kaz> s/Agenda:/topic: Agenda/
11:10:46 <kaz> agenda: https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/WG_WoT_Scripting_API_WebConf#17_May_2021
11:11:08 <zkis> Topic: accepting past minutes
11:11:19 <dape> -> https://www.w3.org/2021/05/10-wot-script-minutes.html
11:12:03 <kaz> s/html/html May-10/
11:15:47 <zkis> Minutes approved.
11:16:09 <zkis> Topic: next call, May 24 is Whit Monday
11:16:38 <kaz> s/Whit/White/
11:16:51 <kaz> s/White/Whit/
11:18:06 <zkis> It is a holiday in many countries, so May 24 call is skipped.
11:19:11 <zkis> Topic: June F2F
11:21:06 <zkis> s/June F2F/June F2F and Smart City Workshop
11:21:16 <zkis> Kaz: someone needs to give update for node-wot
11:21:38 <zkis> DP: will be on holiday in 2nd half of June
11:21:40 <kaz> i|someone|-> https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/F2F_meeting,_June_2021 June Testfest/vF2F wiki|
11:24:39 <zkis> Topic: issue 193
11:25:00 <dape> -> https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/issues/193
11:25:28 <kaz> q+
11:25:53 <zkis> DP: there was a point about Echonet
11:26:03 <zkis> Kaz: that was not very clear and kind of old
11:26:18 <zkis> ... checked with Echonet guys about the latest situation
11:26:36 <zkis> ... we need to wait for the result of that
11:26:44 <kaz> q-
11:27:41 <zkis> DP: there was also a point about ICF
11:27:47 <zkis> s/ICF/OCF
11:27:53 <zkis> ZK: will check that
11:30:19 <kaz> s/that was not very clear and kind of old/we need to ask Matsuda-san, etc., for clarification/
11:30:35 <kaz> s/... checked with Echonet guys about the latest situation//
11:30:42 <zkis> DP: proposal from ZK looks good, would it make sense to include that in the algorithms?
11:31:02 <zkis> CA: yes - it looks like a 200 response
11:31:26 <zkis> ... how do you specify tolerances in DataSchema?
11:31:40 <zkis> ... just discussed with Sebastian how to model uint16
11:33:08 <zkis> ZK: right, precision is missing from DataSchema
11:33:14 <zkis> DP: yes the schema misses that
11:33:57 <zkis> ZK: what does number mean in DataSchema
11:34:05 <zkis> CA: it's like in JavaScript
11:36:53 <zkis> ZK: so we cannot implement step 2 from the proposal
11:37:14 <zkis> DP: right, and then we go on thin ice when rejecting because of precision differences
11:38:11 <zkis> DP: but there is the "multipleOf" option which could help scaling the precision
11:38:36 <zkis> ... so we can put an appropriate formulation there
11:39:37 <zkis> ZK: also, the app could observe the property and then write and check the value from the notification
11:39:42 <zkis> DP: yes that would work
11:40:16 <zkis> DP: and in the case of Philips Hue, one should model it with Actions
11:40:20 <zkis> CA: I agree
11:40:53 <zkis> ... the only way to write consistent TDs and model underlying protocols. I would not change the TD spec in order to cover protocols
11:41:11 <zkis> ... but then what should we do when strings are truncated?
11:41:25 <zkis> ZK: a clear case of error
11:41:59 <zkis> CA: but the same case is with numbers
11:42:08 <zkis> DP: I can see the relation
11:42:36 <zkis> ... if match is not 1:1, if we could have an error code for that
11:44:22 <zkis> ZK: we could have a new option that hints at a minimum precision
11:44:37 <zkis> CA: why not let this logic be handled by scripts?
11:45:49 <zkis> ZK: how do we return the value?
11:45:58 <zkis> CA: in the error
11:50:25 <zkis> ZK: I see problems with that, maybe using InteractionOutput... typically for numbers, a standard is used for representation
11:50:30 <dape> -> https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/issues/200
11:52:20 <zkis> DP: this is linked to the error mapping case
11:54:19 <zkis> DP: the use case is to know which protocol binding has failed
11:55:15 <zkis> ZK: then we need a general information in replies which protocol binding was used
11:55:19 <zkis> CA: exactly
11:55:51 <zkis> ... we could keep the errors at interaction level, and we could reveal the details separately
11:58:16 <zkis> ZK: should we have a separate call for more detailed errors, given the Error object, or can we standardize an Error object
11:58:25 <zkis> CA: will have to think about that
11:58:37 <zkis> DP: would prefer without a second call for details
12:00:21 <zkis> ZK: ok, but still I don't like to expose every protocol details to the apps
12:00:30 <zkis> CA: agree with that
12:01:03 <zkis> DP: time is up
12:01:19 <zkis> feel free to add to the issues
12:01:21 <zkis> adjourned
12:01:30 <kaz> rrsagent, make log public
12:01:35 <kaz> rrsagent, draft minutes
12:01:35 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/05/17-wot-script-minutes.html kaz
12:07:38 <Mizushima> Mizushima has left #wot-script
12:08:14 <zkis2> zkis2 has joined #wot-script
12:52:26 <zkis2> zkis2 has joined #wot-script
13:38:54 <Zakim> Zakim has left #wot-script
14:18:33 <kaz> kaz has joined #wot-script
14:55:59 <zkis3> zkis3 has joined #wot-script
15:00:06 <zkis3> zkis3 has joined #wot-script
15:28:40 <zkis2> zkis2 has joined #wot-script