Re: What to do with WoT Profiles 1.0

Hi Kaz,

I apologise for the timing, I hadn't realised that and that's my mistake.

However, I respectfully disagree. The whole point of asynchronous
collaboration is that people who are not available to attend a meeting at a
specific time and date are not excluded.

I would argue we have already made more progress on this email thread than
in several WoT Profile meetings, and hopefully following Ege's suggestion
of filing issues for specific problems that need addressing will help
structure the conversation.

I also think it's important to get a consensus from the wider Working Group
on the high level question, and not just keep talking amongst ourselves in
the (currently very small) profiles task force.

I would encourage Working Group members to read as much of this thread as
they can, but as a minimum consider the key question at the top of this
thread. And then file issues for any specific concerns they may have about
profiles.

Kind regards

Ben


On Mon, 29 Apr 2024 at 11:03, Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org> wrote:

> 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
> >
>