Meeting minutes
Preliminary
Daniel: last week was canceled
approving previous minutes
<dape> Sep-6
Daniel: Jan Romann joined the call
DP presents the summary of last meeting
no comments, minutes approved
test fest
Daniel: by the end of September
… we need to prepare the topics
… we can play with the "new" API _and_ implementation
Zoltan: has discovery been used?
Daniel: not implemented yet
… still under discussion
Daniel: there are 2 proposals, from Ben and Cristiano
… about canceling actions
… one proposal provides a handle with which the action can be referred to later (e.g. canceled) based on a TD
… that was Cristiano's
… Ben's proposal is more static, described in the original TD
Daniel: does anyone plan to explore these aspects during the testfest?
Cristiano: will work on his proposal to test it
… also will try to test discovery
Jan: experimented with multicast discovery and CoAP - this has been removed from the spec
… we can experiment with these
Daniel: we have stripped down discovery a lot and will wait until it stabilizes
Daniel: the implementation is using a multicast group address (CoAP, IPv4, IPv6)
… send request to well known URI
… go through the list of links obtained and send GET requests to get further data, e.g. resource type
… there have been concerns about multicast in general
Kaz: during the architecture call on the 16th Sept there was discussion about canceling actions
… if someone from Scripting can provide a device for that discussion, would be nice
… can we do that at all?
Daniel: we try to implement a server that respects the WoT Profile (i.e. Ben's proposal)
… we can launch a dummy action and then try to cancel it
Kaz: we should list the proposals to be handled this time, the experiments and record the results on the TPAC Plugfest page
<kaz> TPAC Plugfest/Testfest page
Zoltan: was it considered to provide explicit canceling actions for certain actions, instead of generic cancelable interactions (and only for Action interaction)?
Daniel: yes, that should be considered
Daniel: the use cases are important, we should test both use cases and proposals
Cristiano: in Ben's proposals everything is written in place, using different op types in the Form
… in my proposal, an action carries a TD where you find the operations relevant to that action
Zoltan: this has been discussed few times (to return a Thing from an interaction), but could we flatten that recursive definition?
Cristiano: this proposal is new in the sense that now we have Thing Models
… so we can say how Actions will look like, so we have both static and dynamic descriptions of interactions
<dape> https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/tree/main/proposals/hypermerdia-control-3
Cristiano: we have Action queues, some protocols allow these - Ben is solving this by another op type
… we can have a mixed solution
<kaz> Ben's proposal on actions
<kaz> Cristiano's proposal on actions
Zoltan: I am not opposing dynamic interactions, we should experiment with them
Cristiano: Ben's proposal is less interoperable since needs rules on how to use them
… in Core Profile all actions should be cancelable and queryable
Daniel: Ben's proposal gives you a href which can be used for controlling
… e.g. with the queryaction op
Daniel: with Cristiano's proposal only a subset of a TD is returned with an Action
Zoltan: can we generalize to all Interactions return a TD? Does that make sense, or do we keep Actions special?
Cristiano: we could do that, e.g. for collection, but needs more thought
Zoltan: so we need to test how much effort it takes with each proposal, both for developers and spec implementers
Kaz: I believe concrete use case scenarios including app setting should be considered (i.e. a specific discussion)
… e.g. Oracle products, Siemens products etc to be handled by node-wot
… which part is implemented by node-wot and how other implementations work
… this should be clarified
… given that, we can understand what kind of interactions we need to support
… for instance, if Scripting TF goes for CA's proposal implementation, which systems will use that and which ones Ben's proposal?
Daniel: the PR from Ben was merged for people can try it
… so we should be able to explore also CA's proposal
Kaz: we should clarify the node-wot use cases for the plugfest
… latest by the plugfest call on Wednesday
Cristiano: on the plugfest I would practically want to experiment interacting with Web Things gateway with node-wot + app
<dape> https://
Kaz: who will provide that gateway?
Cristiano: I can play with that locally
Zoltan: I think that is possible and valid, no remote gateway needs provisioning
<kaz> network configuration for 2020
Kaz: the bigger problem is that plugfest preparation is delayed, and would be good to have network config diagram for this plugfest
… that should include the proposed tests
… and how to get connected to them
F2F topics
Daniel: we should also gather topics for the F2F
Zoltan: we should discuss how to expose bindings to apps, especially when WebThings encapsulates all but web protocols
Daniel: we can create a dedicated issue and start listing the topic
PR 339
https://
Zoltan: looks good so far
Cristiano: some errors because ReSpec
Zoltan: we need to check recent ReSpec syntax
Daniel: time is up, continue on github
adjourned