W3C

– DRAFT –
WoT Scripting API

17 May 2021

Attendees

Present
Cristiano_Aguzzi, Daniel_Peintner, Kaz_Ashimura, Tomoaki_Mizushima, Zoltan_Kis
Regrets
-
Chair
Daniel
Scribe
zkis

Meeting minutes

Agenda

<dape> Agenda

accepting past minutes

<dape> May-10

Minutes approved.

next call, May 24 is Whit Monday

It is a holiday in many countries, so May 24 call is skipped.

June F2F

<kaz> June Testfest/vF2F wiki

Kaz: someone needs to give update for node-wot

Daniel: will be on holiday in 2nd half of June

issue 193

<dape> https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/issues/193

Daniel: there was a point about Echonet

Kaz: we need to ask Matsuda-san, etc., for clarification
… we need to wait for the result of that

Daniel: there was also a point about OCF

Zoltan: will check that

Daniel: proposal from ZK looks good, would it make sense to include that in the algorithms?

Cristiano: yes - it looks like a 200 response
… how do you specify tolerances in DataSchema?
… just discussed with Sebastian how to model uint16

Zoltan: right, precision is missing from DataSchema

Daniel: yes the schema misses that

Zoltan: what does number mean in DataSchema

Cristiano: it's like in JavaScript

Zoltan: so we cannot implement step 2 from the proposal

Daniel: right, and then we go on thin ice when rejecting because of precision differences

Daniel: but there is the "multipleOf" option which could help scaling the precision
… so we can put an appropriate formulation there

Zoltan: also, the app could observe the property and then write and check the value from the notification

Daniel: yes that would work

Daniel: and in the case of Philips Hue, one should model it with Actions

Cristiano: I agree
… the only way to write consistent TDs and model underlying protocols. I would not change the TD spec in order to cover protocols
… but then what should we do when strings are truncated?

Zoltan: a clear case of error

Cristiano: but the same case is with numbers

Daniel: I can see the relation
… if match is not 1:1, if we could have an error code for that

Zoltan: we could have a new option that hints at a minimum precision

Cristiano: why not let this logic be handled by scripts?

Zoltan: how do we return the value?

Cristiano: in the error

Zoltan: I see problems with that, maybe using InteractionOutput... typically for numbers, a standard is used for representation

<dape> https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/issues/200

Daniel: this is linked to the error mapping case

Daniel: the use case is to know which protocol binding has failed

Zoltan: then we need a general information in replies which protocol binding was used

Cristiano: exactly
… we could keep the errors at interaction level, and we could reveal the details separately

Zoltan: should we have a separate call for more detailed errors, given the Error object, or can we standardize an Error object

Cristiano: will have to think about that

Daniel: would prefer without a second call for details

Zoltan: ok, but still I don't like to expose every protocol details to the apps

Cristiano: agree with that

Daniel: time is up

feel free to add to the issues

adjourned

Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by scribe.perl version 131 (Sat Apr 24 15:23:43 2021 UTC).