W3C

– DRAFT –
WoT-WG - TD-TF - Slot 2

14 November 2024

Attendees

Present
Daniel_Peintner, Ege_Korkan, Kaz_Ashimura, Kunihiko_Toumura, Luca_Barbato, Michael_Koster, Michael_McCool, Tomoaki_Mizushima
Regrets
-
Chair
Ege
Scribe
dape

Meeting minutes

Draft minutes

<kaz> Nov-7

Ege: https://www.w3.org/2024/11/07-wot-td-minutes.html

Ege: Any objections?
… none -> minutes approved

Initial Connection

<EgeKorkan> Initial Connection proposal on Hackmd

Ege: back to the document we talked about yesterday
… cleaned up the document a bit
… propsosal building up on Lucas idea
… what we call "a valid form" is still the same
… we have examples with all the different variations
… connection is basically copy & pasting into connection

McCool: security defintition should come earlier
… we should not repeat the same scheme etc again

Ege: you get both benefits

McCool: I think it is not consistent
… we should use the mechanism we have
… I still think we should not be re-doing the definitions in a different place
… verbosity is not an issue

Kaz: Meta question
… how long do we want to use the time for initial connection

Ege: Depends .. once finished we can switch to use-cases

Kaz: OK. If we'd like to prioritize the Initial Connection topic for today right before Plugfest, that's fine. Just wanted to confirm that.

Luca: Very strong "NO" to keep security definitions out
… duplicates things twice
… security definition is always a connection
… we discussed that lenghy in past

McCool: Question do we ever use security more than once
… combo schemes might cause problems
… complex examples blow up

Luca: Make connection definitions "stackable" would address your concern
… having 2 containers doing the same, I don't like

McCool: Does "stackable" mean sub classing?
… is that what you mean?

Luca: Yes

McCool: I am surprised to see this approach.. Orthogonal might make more sense

Ege: we don't give new names
… let's look at examples

<McCool> (sorry, I was muted, but did say that "security" should be "scheme" if we take a subclass approach. Defaults etc. would also apply.)

Ege: inline version
… 1 protocol, 1 contentType etc and form becomes rather empty
… equivalent example .. just more verbose
… just not inlining it
… example without any re-using
… like the current TD
… next example, without defaults
… what we do not allow is to inline the JSON object instead of the key

McCool: What do you inline.. connection or security?

Ege: string is a reference

McCool: About security
… inlining security is similar idea
… we cannot really inline security
… w.r.t. sub classing vs. delegating

Ege: You are talking about consistency ?

McCool: Yes, having string and object for security
… like anonymous scheme

Ege: Concern about mixing?

McCool: Yes
… not clear and we could have name conflicts
… similar idea for connection inlining

Ege: I would say for parsing this might be annoying
… more if conditions
… anyhow, part for security makes sense
… Luca?

Ege: Showed proposal within Siemens. Liked it so far .. but ask for straightforward parsing

Daniel: Difficult to comment.. I think we should put it into an GH issue with a nicer comparison

Ege: BTW, for Plugfest I will provide a script that converts one to another

McCool: w.r.t. parsing complexity ... use different names
… I think this removes some IFs

Ege: Yes, partly

Koster: Alternative design: make references explicit
… used in SDF
… with key-word ... it makes it easy to parse
… $ref

<Ege showing example to override pre-defined connection in form>

McCool: I think this is different

Koster: Yes, it is an alternate design

Ege: Overriding should be possible, M. Koster?

McCool: Another facet is that it should be easy to understand by people

Luca: About parsing key or object
… is it sort of common
… strategy is to look-up key
… you create dictionary
… I think it is common and straightforward
… w.r.t. getting the names
… forms contain a form ... saying "default" seems wrong. we should come up with a different name.

Ege: Maybe we could say "connection"

<McCool> ntd... I have another meeting starting on the hour

Luca: "inherit" ?

<McCool> re use cases, we can discuss next week in the UC call and/or in the TD call once I have had time to update the PR

Luca: concept of "combo security" makes the whole thing rather complex
… same problem exists already with combo container
… should look at complex examples

Kaz: My impression is that the example is getting complicated more and more like "SVG and MathML within HTML5".
… wonder whether connection definition should be inlinable
… might want to think about defining connectionDefinition separately

Ege: Out-sourcing connection definition might be ideal for some cases but resolving issues pop-up

Ege: I will try to show all the examples in a nicer way

[adjourned]

Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by scribe.perl version 238 (Fri Oct 18 20:51:13 2024 UTC).