11:02:14 RRSAgent has joined #wot-script 11:02:14 logging to https://www.w3.org/2021/08/23-wot-script-irc 11:02:41 meeting: WoT Scripting API 11:02:46 cris has joined #wot-script 11:02:46 chair: Daniel 11:03:00 present+ Kaz_Ashimura, Cristiano_Aguzzi, Daniel_Peintner 11:03:50 Agenda: https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/WG_WoT_Scripting_API_WebConf#23_August_2021 11:05:46 present+ Zoltan_Kis 11:06:23 Mizushima has joined #wot-script 11:06:27 scribenick: cris 11:06:37 topic: previous minutes 11:06:48 -> https://www.w3.org/2021/08/09-wot-script-minutes.html Aug-9 11:07:04 dape: we talked about TypeScript definitions types, now merged 11:07:10 present+ Tomoaki_Mizushima 11:07:23 ... we moved issue 193 to other task forces 11:07:50 ... also touched propose closing issues but we'll finish the discussion today 11:07:58 ... minutes approved? 11:08:00 ... ok 11:08:09 topic: Quick updates 11:08:26 dape: we should keep in mind publication plan 11:08:44 ... Semptember? we don't have any pressure 11:08:51 topic: Open PRs 11:09:00 dape: minor pr 11:09:00 docs: add readme about TS files and process, https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/pull/331 11:09:27 ... it's about the latest changes in typescript folder 11:09:43 ... there's no readme under typescript folder 11:09:52 ... the PR adds the two readmes 11:10:07 i/minor pr/subtopic: PR 331/ 11:10:42 cris: good to go :) 11:10:53 dape: should we wait for merge it? 11:10:58 zoltan: don't need to wait 11:11:05 dape: ok merging 11:11:57 ... no more open PRs 11:12:00 topic: issues 11:12:06 Propose Closing Issues, https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3A%22propose+closing%22 11:12:16 subtopic: propose closing issues 11:12:27 dape: issue 107 is very old 11:13:12 i|issue 107|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/issues/107 Issue 107 - Very high frequency updates| 11:13:18 ... it seems like the idea is to close the issue and move the discussion to TD 11:14:53 cris: I don't think keeping it open would benefit anyone. let's move to TD task force 11:15:10 zoltan: I'd move to TD task force too, but it doesn't hurt to keep it open 11:15:36 ... also we should think about how this affect our API in any way 11:15:39 q+ 11:16:25 dape: it might change HOW the users use our API 11:17:49 zoltan: we might need to add some parameter to InteractionOption 11:19:11 dape: when I said HOW I meant that people might decide to use Polling instead of observing if they can't handle event frequency 11:19:58 kaz: Why don't we label the issue with "discussion with TD" 11:20:14 ... and remove next iteration, it is quite vague 11:20:24 ... maybe next charter? or out of scope 11:21:35 zoltan: it is an optional change... deep down is about implementation 11:22:05 dape: it might be really complex and you will get not too much in return 11:23:17 cris: I had the same feeling 11:24:56 zoltan: we need to check the api desing to handle control flow transparently. 11:25:04 ... we have streams now 11:25:36 ... maybe we are missing the client hint to tell the other side how much it can handle 11:26:23 q? 11:26:25 q- 11:26:27 q+ 11:26:27 ... I'd put this facts on the issue 11:26:35 ... we need to solve the problem 11:27:07 kaz: We can close the issue for the scripting api it self and move it to profile / TD 11:27:44 zoltan: dave implementation is an use case 11:27:55 kaz: not really a product 11:28:16 ... I usually refer to business implementation 11:28:22 ... echonet is an example 11:28:41 ... philipps HUE another one 11:29:09 ... research base implementation might be still fine but is it well connected ? 11:29:11 q+ 11:29:12 https://opentelemetry.io/docs/ 11:29:39 zoltan: we can learn from open API for telemetry 11:30:04 dape: is it from intel? 11:30:20 zoltan: no, but we can keep in mind its desing 11:30:37 s/desing/design/ 11:30:47 ack k 11:30:57 s/it self/itself/ 11:31:16 s|profile / TD|use case or profile| 11:31:19 dape: closing or not, we have still to keep it track of it 11:31:43 https://open-telemetry.github.io/opentelemetry-js/ 11:32:13 kaz: next iteration is vague... we failed to clarify and close the issue. 11:32:30 s/the issue./the issue in a timely manner./ 11:33:12 dape: it is a place holder to look for improvements 11:33:18 ... but I see your point 11:33:44 q? 11:33:45 q? 11:33:48 ack cris 11:34:39 q+ 11:34:45 zoltan: the trivial answer is to use streams 11:34:53 cris: yes exactly 11:35:44 kaz: in the Media group we are looking for further collaboration with WoT 11:36:00 ... but we don't have a good use case yet 11:36:30 s/use case/use case description/ 11:36:54 q- 11:36:56 q+ 11:37:33 cris: about next iteration I agree that it is a little bit vague and do not incentive people into discussion 11:38:03 ack k 11:38:25 dape: ok, then remove propose closing and next iteration label 11:39:06 s/propose closing/"propose closing"/ 11:39:16 s/next iteration/"for next iteration"/ 11:39:21 s/label/labels/ 11:40:45 cris: why don't we directly ask people to verify if the current api cover the feature described in the issue 11:41:00 zoltan: ok 11:41:05 dape: ok commented 11:43:08 dape: I'd remove next iteration labels where it make sense 11:43:37 ... for example issue 274 it was not really deferred but just an optional feature 11:44:23 s/in the Media group/for example, with the MEIG, / 11:45:45 i/about next/kaz: we should clarify actual use cases about how to handle streaming videos for WoT, e.g., streaming data, data cue and time synchronization./ 11:45:59 rrsagent, make log public 11:46:03 rrsagent, draft minutes 11:46:03 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/08/23-wot-script-minutes.html kaz 11:46:47 i/we should/scribenick: kaz/ 11:47:00 i/about next iteration/scribenick: cris/ 11:47:16 cris: suggestion: why don't we change next iteration to something more precise? next charter? 11:47:54 dape: I'm not sure that we are part of regular charting process 11:49:02 kaz: My proposal is to just put enhancement everywhere is possible, for example where we don't know the timing. 11:49:12 s/charting/chartering/ 11:49:25 s/put enhancement/put "enhancement"/ 11:50:34 cris: not sure, if it is actually equivalent 11:51:52 kaz: since we approaching the end of this charter we should reach a consensus: either enachement or close. 11:52:21 ... or clearly state which one should be close in this period frame. 11:52:41 ... do we have any priority. 11:53:12 zoltan: I don't have strong opinion. We have bigger problems, like discovery 11:54:10 kaz: next iteration implies that the issues should be closed by the end of this period 11:55:17 s/next iteration/"next iteration"/ 11:55:31 s/implies/implied/ 11:55:40 s/should be/should have been/ 11:55:47 zoltan: I would keep them open, just rename them 11:55:56 s/period/period when those issues were generated./ 11:56:13 s/rename them/use better label/ 11:57:21 q? 11:57:30 rrsagent, draft minutes 11:57:30 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/08/23-wot-script-minutes.html kaz 11:58:08 s/next iteration labels/"next iteration" labels/ 11:58:09 rrsagent, draft minutes 11:58:09 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/08/23-wot-script-minutes.html kaz 11:58:15 cris: what about some legend on the labels? 11:58:25 zoltan: should be fine 11:58:55 s/next iteration is/"next iteration" is/ 11:58:57 rrsagent, draft minutes 11:58:57 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/08/23-wot-script-minutes.html kaz 11:59:04 ... also I think our time together should be more focused on features rather than house keeping 12:00:01 dape: ok I'd create a table for labels 12:00:15 s/ok I'd/ok. I'd/ 12:00:19 ... PR will be available soon 12:00:25 rrsagent, draft minutes 12:00:25 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/08/23-wot-script-minutes.html kaz 12:00:42 adjourned 12:01:00 rrsagent, draft minutes 12:01:00 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/08/23-wot-script-minutes.html kaz