11:03:01 RRSAgent has joined #wot-script 11:03:01 logging to https://www.w3.org/2021/09/20-wot-script-irc 11:03:12 meeting: WoT Scripting API 11:03:32 present+ Jan_Romann, Kaz_Ashimura, Daniel_Peintner, Cristiano_Aguzzi 11:03:35 chair: Daniel 11:03:53 Mizushima has joined #wot-script 11:04:55 present+ Zoltan_Kis 11:05:05 scribenick: zkis 11:05:19 DP: last week was canceled 11:05:45 Agenda: 11:05:54 --> https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/WG_WoT_Scripting_API_WebConf#20_September_2021 11:08:42 Topic: approving previous minutes 11:08:46 --> https://www.w3.org/2021/09/06-wot-script-minutes.html 11:09:03 DP: Jan Romann joined the call 11:09:11 i/last week/topic: Preliminary/ 11:09:18 present+ Tomoaki_Mizushima 11:10:48 DP presents the summary of last meeting 11:10:55 no comments, minutes approved 11:11:05 Agenda: test fest 11:11:21 s/Agenda: test fest/Topic:test fest 11:11:33 DP: by the end of September 11:11:43 ... we need to prepare the topics 11:12:03 ... we can play with the "new" API _and_ implementation 11:12:38 s/Agenda: test fest/topic: Testfest/ 11:12:38 ZK: has discovery been used? 11:12:46 DP: not implemented yet 11:12:56 rrsagent, make log public 11:13:00 rrsagent, draft minutes 11:13:00 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/09/20-wot-script-minutes.html kaz 11:13:01 ... still under discussion 11:13:27 DP: there are 2 proposals, from Ben and Cristiano 11:13:41 ... about canceling actions 11:14:08 ... one proposal provides a handle with which the action can be referred to later (e.g. canceled) based on a TD 11:14:17 ... that was Cristiano's 11:14:32 ... Ben's proposal is more static, described in the original TD 11:14:58 DP: does anyone plan to explore these aspects during the testfest? 11:15:09 CA: will work on his proposal to test it 11:15:16 ... also will try to test discovery 11:16:03 q+ 11:16:05 JR: experimented with multicast discovery and CoAP - this has been removed from the spec 11:16:17 ... we can experiment with these 11:16:37 DP: we have stripped down discovery a lot and will wait until it stabilizes 11:17:05 DP: the implementation is using a multicast group address (CoAP, IPv4, IPv6) 11:17:13 ... send request to well known URI 11:17:20 rrsagent, draft minutes 11:17:20 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/09/20-wot-script-minutes.html kaz 11:17:45 ... go through the list of links obtained and send GET requests to get further data, e.g. resource type 11:17:57 ... there have been concerns about multicast in general 11:18:29 q? 11:18:53 KA: during the architetcure call on the 16th Sept there was discussion about canceling actions 11:19:19 ... if someone from Scripting can provide a device for that discussion, would be nice 11:19:38 ... can we do that at all? 11:19:41 s/architetcure/architecture 11:19:52 ack k 11:20:13 DP: we try to implement a server that respects the WoT Profile (i.e. Ben's proposal) 11:20:34 ... we can launch a dummy action and then try to cancel it 11:21:19 q+ 11:23:06 KA: we should list the proposals, the experiments and record the results 11:23:24 -> https://github.com/w3c/wot-testing/tree/main/events/2021.09.Online TPAC Plugfest/Testfest page 11:23:54 s/results/results on the TPAC Plugfest page/ 11:24:07 q+ 11:24:23 ZK: was it considered to provide explicit canceling actions for certain actions, instead of generic cancelable interactions (and only for Action interaction)? 11:24:34 DP: yes, that should be considered 11:24:40 ack zkis 11:25:05 s/list the proposals/list the proposals to be handled this time/ 11:25:05 DP: the use cases are important, we should test both use cases and proposals 11:25:57 CA: in Ben's proposals everything is written in place, using different op types in the Form 11:26:18 ... in my proposal, an action carries a TD where you find the operations relevant to that action 11:28:03 ZK: this has been discussed few times (to return a Thing from an interaction), but could we flatten that recursive definition? 11:28:19 CA: this proposal is new in the sense that now we have Thing Models 11:28:42 ... so we can say how Actions will look like, so we have both static and dynamic descriptions of interactions 11:28:47 --> https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/tree/main/proposals/hypermerdia-control-3 11:29:11 ... we have Action queues, some protocols allow these - Ben is solving this by another op type 11:29:20 ... we can have a mixed solution 11:29:58 -> https://w3c.github.io/wot-profile/#actions Ben's proposal on actions 11:30:12 -> https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/tree/main/proposals/hypermerdia-control-3 Cristiano's proposal on actions 11:30:26 ZK: I am not opposing dynamic interactions, we should experiment with them 11:32:10 CA: Ben's proposal is less interoperable since needs rules on how to use them 11:32:38 ... in Core Profile all actions should be cancelable and queryable 11:33:11 DP: Ben's proposal gives you a href which can be used for controlling 11:33:35 ... e.g. with the queryaction op 11:35:53 DP: with Cristiano's proposal only a subset of a TD is returned with an Action 11:37:23 ZK: can we generalize to all Interactions return a TD? Does that make sense, or do we keep Actions special? 11:37:39 CA: we could do that, e.g. for collection, but needs more thought 11:38:31 q+ 11:38:46 ack c 11:38:46 ZK: so we need to test how much effort it takes with each proposal, both for developers and spec implementers 11:39:32 KA: I believe concrete use case scenarios including app setting should be considered (i.e. a specific discussion) 11:39:53 ... e.g. Oracle products, Siemens products etc to be handled by node-wot 11:40:17 ... which part is implemented by node-wot and how other implementations work 11:40:23 ... this should be clarified 11:40:53 ... given that, we can understand what kind of interactions we need to support 11:41:47 ... for instance, if Scripting TF goes for CA's proposal implementation, which systems will use that and which ones Ben's proposal? 11:42:03 DP: the PR from Ben was merged for people can try it 11:42:15 ... so we should be able to explore also CA's proposal 11:42:56 q+ 11:43:26 ack kaz 11:44:06 KA: we should clarify the node-wot use cases for the plugfest 11:44:39 ... latest by the plugfest call on Wednesday 11:45:13 CA: on the plugfest I would practically want to experiment interacting with Web Things gateway with node-wot + app 11:45:49 -> https://github.com/WebThingsIO/gateway 11:46:12 KA: who will provide that gateway? 11:46:23 CA: I can play with that locally 11:47:40 q? 11:47:44 q+ 11:47:48 ack c 11:47:49 ZK: I think that is possible and valid, no remote gateway needs provisioning 11:47:56 -> https://github.com/w3c/wot-testing/tree/main/events/2020.09.Online network configuration for 2020 11:48:29 KA: the bigger problem is that plugfest preparation is delayed, and would be good to have network config diagram for this plugfest 11:48:42 ... that should include the proposed tests 11:48:48 ... and how to get connected to them 11:51:57 DP: we should also gather topics for the F2F 11:52:23 ZK: we should discuss how to expose bindings to apps, especially when WebThings encapsulates all but web protocols 11:52:40 DP: we can create a dedicated issue and start listing the topic 11:53:59 Topic: PR 339 11:54:15 i/we should also/topic: F2F topics/ 11:54:23 https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/pull/339 11:55:03 ZK: looks good so far 11:57:29 CA: some errors because ReSpec 11:57:40 ZK: we need to check recent ReSpec syntax 12:00:48 DP: time is up, continue on github 12:00:52 adjourned 12:01:14 rrsagent, draft minutes 12:01:14 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/09/20-wot-script-minutes.html kaz 12:11:08 Mizushima has left #wot-script 12:23:08 zkis_ has joined #wot-script 14:05:24 Zakim has left #wot-script