11:01:57 RRSAgent has joined #wot-script 11:01:57 logging to https://www.w3.org/2021/08/09-wot-script-irc 11:02:27 meeting: WoT Scripting API 11:02:38 present+ Kaz_Ashimura, Zoltan_Kis 11:05:11 cris_ has joined #wot-script 11:05:16 joining 11:05:52 Agenda: https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/WG_WoT_Scripting_API_WebConf#9_August_2021 11:06:01 present+ Daniel_Peintner, Critiano_Aguzzi 11:06:37 scribe: zkis 11:06:58 Topic: past minutes 11:07:13 https://www.w3.org/2021/08/02-wot-script-minutes.html 11:07:15 Mizushima has joined #wot-script 11:08:21 present+ Tomoaki_Mizushima 11:08:24 DP: any comments on the minutes? 11:08:37 DP: no, past minutes approved, can be published 11:08:48 Topic: quick updates 11:09:00 DP: might miss next call 11:09:48 CA: not available either on the next call 11:10:12 ZK: so we can skip the call 11:10:36 DP: so the next call is on 23 August. 11:10:47 kaz has joined #wot-script 11:11:19 +1 11:11:21 DP: publication plan, we can make an update in September or October 11:11:36 Topic: open PR 11:11:40 -> https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/pull/329 11:12:34 s|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 i/publication/topic: publication/ 11:14:03 DP: approvals are there, can be merged (after fixing conflicts) 11:14:18 CA: we can mark package.json as private 11:17:11 DP: should we have the same name wot-typescript-definitions in the repo 11:17:21 ZK: no, I don't think we have that constraint 11:18:24 CA: it's fine as it is 11:19:12 DP: ok, comments resolved in the PR 11:20:18 DP: about version numbering, is that fine? 11:20:25 CA: the TD schema used the same convention for version 11:20:40 ... though a date in a version is not common 11:20:55 ... we can add SNAPSHOT 11:22:11 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 DP: we can merge and try right away what happens when publishing the npm 11:24:55 TOPIC: Issues 11:25:02 SUBTOPIC: Should writeProperty() return a value 11:25:03 -> https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/issues/193 11:25:10 Topic: Issue 193 11:25:42 DP: whether writing a property should return a value 11:26:10 DP: we needed a feature to tell whether a value can be returned by the write op 11:26:25 DP: I suggest the Scripting TF waits until this is finalized 11:27:02 -> https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues/875#issuecomment-892776550 11:27:12 DP: Sebastian commented 11:27:23 rrsagent, make log public 11:27:27 rrsagent, draft minutes 11:27:27 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/08/09-wot-script-minutes.html kaz 11:28:10 Chair: Daniel 11:28:22 DP: there are 3 options, 1. no return, 2. return the same data schema, 3. return a different data schema 11:28:46 DP: the Scripting API should model these 11:29:10 s/topic: Issue 193// 11:29:13 rrsagent, draft minutes 11:29:13 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/08/09-wot-script-minutes.html kaz 11:30:05 CA: this will imply other changes to the Scripting API, for instance DataSchema can be in a Form now 11:30:17 ... this is a general issue 11:31:28 DP: there will be ExpectedResponse schema, AdditionalExpectedResponse etc 11:32:28 DP: we can return InteractionOutput on writes again, we need a way to indicate to expect something or not 11:35:19 ZK: we already have the schema in InteractionOutput, that can be null 11:36:44 CA: I understood the same way 11:38:22 DP: I thought this was optional hint, but ok 11:38:57 DP: so if the TD TF decided to support the use case, Scripting might need little changes 11:39:24 CA: may we can just add InteractionOutput and check the use cases 11:41:36 ... based on Sebastian's comment on ExpectedResponse, we might need to re-check 11:42:05 ... AdditionExpectedResponse was not defined well, therefore a schema was put there 11:44:28 CA: again the question is what makes a difference between an Action and a property write 11:45:52 ZK: WoT inherited most problems from supported protocols and provided very little generalization 11:45:53 q+ 11:45:59 CA: have the same feeling 11:46:10 DP: it's because the many specific use cases 11:46:13 ack kaz 11:46:39 KA: agree with both sides but clarifying typical use cases would be good 11:46:49 ... for instance timeout with HTTP 11:47:24 ... we should consider the exact use cases 11:47:38 DP: should we raise this with the TD TF? 11:47:59 KA: obviously this is a generic comment, to stick to use cases 11:48:47 ZK: we need more than just use cases, we need to be able to generalize and make it usable 11:49:13 CA: we need more applications (with a lot of use cases) 11:49:36 KA: yes, use cases mean also the complete scenario 11:49:50 DP: we do have one mash-up use case 11:53:40 KA: we can start from the Core profile (Ben Francis) 11:54:53 DP: anyway we don't decide there, Scripting follows the decisions in the other tack forces 11:54:56 q? 11:55:14 q? 11:56:06 TOPIC: propose closing issues 11:56:08 -> https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3A%22propose+closing%22 11:56:18 -> https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/issues/107 11:58:48 DP: it's a lot of complexity and we don't have a use case 12:00:21 ZK: the TD TF should handle this first 12:00:27 q+ 12:01:21 KA: transferring issue is ok, but could go to the profile or implementation guideline 12:01:29 ... so we can raise that in the main call 12:02:58 ZK: yes, we should transfer this, not close this 12:03:57 ZK: check the Generic Sensor API how this could be dealt with 12:05:13 https://www.w3.org/TR/generic-sensor/#concepts-sampling-and-reporting-frequencies 12:05:44 KA: warning to not add big features at this point in the charter 12:05:52 DP: call adjourned 12:06:06 s/in the charter/given the charter period./ 12:06:22 rrsagent, draft minutes 12:06:22 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/08/09-wot-script-minutes.html kaz