Re: What to do with WoT Profiles 1.0

Hi Luca, Ben, Ege and all,

Given the following:

1. It's the Golden Week this week and many of the Japanese
   participants (including myself) can't join this discussion.

2. This discussion is getting very long and it seems to me it would be
   difficult to solve the problem via email.

3. We've already started to discuss what to be handled by the WoT Profile
   specification during the Pofile calls.

I strongly would suggest we talk about the topic here, What to do with
WoT Profile 1.0", during the upcoming Profiles calls. Maybe it might
make sense to have additional dedicated virtual f2f meeting for this
topic also.

Thanks,

Kazuyuki


On Mon, 29 Apr 2024 16:36:26 +0900,
Luca Barbato wrote:
> 
> On 29/04/24 08:47, Korkan, Ege wrote:
> > Now, looking at the current profiles, we cannot do this processing
> > and generate a fully descriptive TD that can be understood by
> > node-wot for all the details of the profile. Since we cannot
> > implement all the details, it is the same thing as not implementing
> > the profile since a Consumer should support every feature. Not being
> > able to generate a fully descriptive TD implies that there are
> > implicit mechanisms in a profile and this is the real problem.
> > 
> 
> If you have knowledge of the profile you can process the implicit TD
> and produce an explicit TD that refers to vocabulary terms from
> bindings (that aren't existing now, but can and probably should
> exist), but if you do not have knowledge of profiles you might be
> confused with no way to exclude implicit elements, in general.
> 
> Ben stated that the profiles he crafted were carefully made so no
> confusion may happen, so we might try to see if nothing got overlooked
> and the situation isn't as problematic.
> 
> for node-wot since it has already a mean to address default overrides
> through subprotocols the transformation would require to add
> profile-specific subprotocols (and vocabulary terms to bind together
> coupled ops).
> 
> Or we all agree that the suggested degraded consumption of async
> actions is "fire and forget" and profile Things authors have to
> accommodate this constrain.
> 
> lu
>

Received on Monday, 29 April 2024 10:03:53 UTC