W3C

– DRAFT –
WoT-WG - TD-TF - Slot 1

20 November 2024

Attendees

Present
Cristiano_Aguzzi, Ege_Korkan, Jan_Romann, Kaz_Ashimura, Kunihiko_Toumura, Luca_Barbato, Michael_Koster, Tomoaki_Mizushima
Regrets
-
Chair
Ege
Scribe
EgeKorkan, EgeKorka_

Meeting minutes

Minutes Review

Nov-13

Ege: anything to change?

Ege: minutes are approved

Initial Connection

Ege: we should have it for next week to have implementation experience

Ege: we should not call it like this in the spec

Ege: we thought to not introduce it so much in the intro section
… any opinions?

Ege: I worked on the hackmd document with luca

Initial Connection Proposal (on hackmd)

Ege: We improved the documentation section
… like specification language

Ege: (talks about the content in the document)

<kaz> [ specifically the "Documentation" section ]

Defaultable elements

Ege: following the securityDefinitions mechanism, we want to apply it to anything that can be defaulted

Inlineable fields

Ege: If it is a string, it is a reference. If it is an object, it is inline definition

Thing-wide default

Ege: What do you think of having a keyword "form" and "forms" at the Thing level at the same time

Cristiano: I have point to make on "forms" vs "form"
… "forms" has the meta operations
… it can confuse people but it would be nicely consistent
… "forms" can be renamed

Ege: I was thinking of renaming "forms"
… multiple people are complaining about it

Cristiano: also scripting api is unclear about the meta operations
… so we can think about that form vs forms issue later on when we do a design overhaul of meta operations

Ege: any other opinions?

Kaz: we can continue this discussion, but I personally wonder about the usage of "form" itself. "form" makes a key component that makes a TD complicated

<cris> +1

Kaz: I agree with Cris but we should be careful about "form" vs "forms"

Ege: I think we should put a big editor's note on that. It will be a transition process for sure

Luca: meta operations aren't that useable right now since they are underdefined, I do not see a big issue
… we can also have another pattern like "formDefinitions" and "formDefault"
… as long as we are consistent, I am happy

Ege: there seems to be primary consensus on going with "formDefinitions", "form" and "forms"

Elements

Ege: These are the preliminary rules about the relationship between the elements. They should be formalized

Ege: So the only new thing in the elements is form referring to connection, connection referring to security
… and everything can be defined inline

Cristiano: So do I have to define a connection in a form in order to use a connection

<kaz> [ Ege shows the example at the "Examples" section. ]

How to combine with TMs

<kaz> [ We need to think about how this proposed mechanism would fit TMs. ]

Guidelines / Algorithm

Ege: These will be expanded later on

AOB

Ege: AOB?

Luca: do we agree on the basic mechanism?

Kaz: this document is getting big but stable. So we should copy it back to markdown on the GitHub

Ege: Any diverging opinions on the basic mechanism?

Cristiano: +1

Ege: Should we keep the versions on GitHub?

Luca: We can open a clean PR and refer to the proposals in the old one

Ege: I will do that

Ege: AOB?

<kaz> [ none, and adjourned ]

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