IRC log of wot-script on 2021-08-09

Timestamps are in UTC.

11:01:57 [RRSAgent]

RRSAgent has joined #wot-script

11:01:57 [RRSAgent]

logging to https://www.w3.org/2021/08/09-wot-script-irc

11:02:27 [kaz]

meeting: WoT Scripting API

11:02:38 [kaz]

present+ Kaz_Ashimura, Zoltan_Kis

11:05:11 [cris_]

cris_ has joined #wot-script

11:05:16 [cris_]

joining

11:05:52 [kaz]

Agenda: https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/WG_WoT_Scripting_API_WebConf#9_August_2021

11:06:01 [kaz]

present+ Daniel_Peintner, Critiano_Aguzzi

11:06:37 [zkis]

scribe: zkis

11:06:58 [zkis]

Topic: past minutes

11:07:13 [zkis]

https://www.w3.org/2021/08/02-wot-script-minutes.html

11:07:15 [Mizushima]

Mizushima has joined #wot-script

11:08:21 [kaz]

present+ Tomoaki_Mizushima

11:08:24 [zkis]

DP: any comments on the minutes?

11:08:37 [zkis]

DP: no, past minutes approved, can be published

11:08:48 [zkis]

Topic: quick updates

11:09:00 [zkis]

DP: might miss next call

11:09:48 [zkis]

CA: not available either on the next call

11:10:12 [zkis]

ZK: so we can skip the call

11:10:36 [zkis]

DP: so the next call is on 23 August.

11:10:47 [kaz]

kaz has joined #wot-script

11:11:19 [Mizushima]

+1

11:11:21 [zkis]

DP: publication plan, we can make an update in September or October

11:11:36 [zkis]

Topic: open PR

11:11:40 [dape]

-> https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/pull/329

11:12:34 [kaz]

s|https://www.w3.org/2021/08/02-wot-script-minutes.html|-">https://www.w3.org/2021/08/02-wot-script-minutes.html|-> https://www.w3.org/2021/08/02-wot-script-minutes.html Aug-2|

11:13:01 [kaz]

i/publication/topic: publication/

11:14:03 [zkis]

DP: approvals are there, can be merged (after fixing conflicts)

11:14:18 [zkis]

CA: we can mark package.json as private

11:17:11 [zkis]

DP: should we have the same name wot-typescript-definitions in the repo

11:17:21 [zkis]

ZK: no, I don't think we have that constraint

11:18:24 [zkis]

CA: it's fine as it is

11:19:12 [zkis]

DP: ok, comments resolved in the PR

11:20:18 [zkis]

DP: about version numbering, is that fine?

11:20:25 [zkis]

CA: the TD schema used the same convention for version

11:20:40 [zkis]

... though a date in a version is not common

11:20:55 [zkis]

... we can add SNAPSHOT

11:22:11 [zkis]

ZK: it's like a note in the version string, so whether it contains a date or snapshot it's private decision

11:23:37 [zkis]

DP: we can merge and try right away what happens when publishing the npm

11:24:55 [dape]

TOPIC: Issues

11:25:02 [dape]

SUBTOPIC: Should writeProperty() return a value

11:25:03 [dape]

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

11:25:10 [zkis]

Topic: Issue 193

11:25:42 [zkis]

DP: whether writing a property should return a value

11:26:10 [zkis]

DP: we needed a feature to tell whether a value can be returned by the write op

11:26:25 [zkis]

DP: I suggest the Scripting TF waits until this is finalized

11:27:02 [dape]

-> https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues/875#issuecomment-892776550

11:27:12 [zkis]

DP: Sebastian commented

11:27:23 [kaz]

rrsagent, make log public

11:27:27 [kaz]

rrsagent, draft minutes

11:27:27 [RRSAgent]

I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/08/09-wot-script-minutes.html kaz

11:28:10 [kaz]

Chair: Daniel

11:28:22 [zkis]

DP: there are 3 options, 1. no return, 2. return the same data schema, 3. return a different data schema

11:28:46 [zkis]

DP: the Scripting API should model these

11:29:10 [kaz]

s/topic: Issue 193//

11:29:13 [kaz]

rrsagent, draft minutes

11:29:13 [RRSAgent]

I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/08/09-wot-script-minutes.html kaz

11:30:05 [zkis]

CA: this will imply other changes to the Scripting API, for instance DataSchema can be in a Form now

11:30:17 [zkis]

... this is a general issue

11:31:28 [zkis]

DP: there will be ExpectedResponse schema, AdditionalExpectedResponse etc

11:32:28 [zkis]

DP: we can return InteractionOutput on writes again, we need a way to indicate to expect something or not

11:35:19 [zkis]

ZK: we already have the schema in InteractionOutput, that can be null

11:36:44 [zkis]

CA: I understood the same way

11:38:22 [zkis]

DP: I thought this was optional hint, but ok

11:38:57 [zkis]

DP: so if the TD TF decided to support the use case, Scripting might need little changes

11:39:24 [zkis]

CA: may we can just add InteractionOutput and check the use cases

11:41:36 [zkis]

... based on Sebastian's comment on ExpectedResponse, we might need to re-check

11:42:05 [zkis]

... AdditionExpectedResponse was not defined well, therefore a schema was put there

11:44:28 [zkis]

CA: again the question is what makes a difference between an Action and a property write

11:45:52 [zkis]

ZK: WoT inherited most problems from supported protocols and provided very little generalization

11:45:53 [kaz]

q+

11:45:59 [zkis]

CA: have the same feeling

11:46:10 [zkis]

DP: it's because the many specific use cases

11:46:13 [zkis]

ack kaz

11:46:39 [zkis]

KA: agree with both sides but clarifying typical use cases would be good

11:46:49 [zkis]

... for instance timeout with HTTP

11:47:24 [zkis]

... we should consider the exact use cases

11:47:38 [zkis]

DP: should we raise this with the TD TF?

11:47:59 [zkis]

KA: obviously this is a generic comment, to stick to use cases

11:48:47 [zkis]

ZK: we need more than just use cases, we need to be able to generalize and make it usable

11:49:13 [zkis]

CA: we need more applications (with a lot of use cases)

11:49:36 [zkis]

KA: yes, use cases mean also the complete scenario

11:49:50 [zkis]

DP: we do have one mash-up use case

11:53:40 [zkis]

KA: we can start from the Core profile (Ben Francis)

11:54:53 [zkis]

DP: anyway we don't decide there, Scripting follows the decisions in the other tack forces

11:54:56 [kaz]

q?

11:55:14 [kaz]

q?

11:56:06 [dape]

TOPIC: propose closing issues

11:56:08 [dape]

-> https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3A%22propose+closing%22

11:56:18 [dape]

-> https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/issues/107

11:58:48 [zkis]

DP: it's a lot of complexity and we don't have a use case

12:00:21 [zkis]

ZK: the TD TF should handle this first

12:00:27 [kaz]

q+

12:01:21 [zkis]

KA: transferring issue is ok, but could go to the profile or implementation guideline

12:01:29 [zkis]

... so we can raise that in the main call

12:02:58 [zkis]

ZK: yes, we should transfer this, not close this

12:03:57 [zkis]

ZK: check the Generic Sensor API how this could be dealt with

12:05:13 [zkis]

https://www.w3.org/TR/generic-sensor/#concepts-sampling-and-reporting-frequencies

12:05:44 [zkis]

KA: warning to not add big features at this point in the charter

12:05:52 [zkis]

DP: call adjourned

12:06:06 [kaz]

s/in the charter/given the charter period./

12:06:22 [kaz]

rrsagent, draft minutes

12:06:22 [RRSAgent]

I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/08/09-wot-script-minutes.html kaz