- From: Luca Barbato <luca.barbato@luminem.it>
- Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2024 12:23:45 +0200
- To: Ben Francis <ben@krellian.com>, "Korkan, Ege" <ege.korkan@siemens.com>
- Cc: "public-wot-wg@w3.org" <public-wot-wg@w3.org>
On 26/04/24 23:10, Ben Francis wrote: > In the last meeting I attended Luca said he would put a proposal in > writing to the wider Working Group (since it requires a wider > consensus), but as far as I can tell that didn't happen. I believe it > was then discussed again in the following two WoT Profile meetings, but > still no decision has been made. I tried to get at least the consensus in the TF and understand exactly how to address the concerns voiced by Daniel and Ege, but even that is taking a bit more time than I wished =/ > What you call "implcit mechansims" but I would call a "concrete protocol > binding" is the only available option to guarantee interoperability in > WoT 1.x, since the Thing Description 1.1 specification is not expressive > enough to unambiguously describe the full set of operations currently > defined. If the consensus is that this is not acceptable, then that may > rule out Profiles 1.0 being published in its current form. I think we > need to hear more opinions on this. I think the problem here is that having implicit elements could confuse a consumer, but the best would be to see something practical. > * Any mention of ambiguity means a lack of expressiveness in the > TD spec, thus should be solved there first. The TD TF is aware > that there are a lot of things to do and we are working on > structuring the work and prioritizing work items. > Metaoperations is a can of worms and we will handle that in this > charter. Any suggestions on that would be nice. Along with > manageable actions. > > > I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree on this point, because I > don't believe the Thing Description specification will ever be > expressive enough with binding templates alone to describe the level of > detail necessary for out-of-the box interoperability. You can bind a behavior to vocabulary terms, so everything would work as long as the terms are in the TD. But I think we are returning on the topic of degraded consumption. lu PS: Since Discovery and Security are on pause, can we have a Monday slot for Profiles assuming it works better for everybody?
Received on Sunday, 28 April 2024 10:23:54 UTC