AW: What to do with WoT Profiles 1.0

> In the case of an asynchronous action, a Consumer should not have any expectations about the response to an invokeaction request in HTTP, since as far as I can tell there is no default specified anywhere.

Well, the default should be specified in the TD.

> Since the response to an asynchronous invokeaction request is unspecified in the HTTP Binding Template, I would argue this is in fact entirely compliant with TD 1.1. If a Consumer expects a particular response then that's a bug in the implementation.

This may work well when the actions do not return any output value. However, if an output is also defined in an asynchronous action, this implicit Action Status<https://w3c.github.io/wot-profile/#ActionStatus> must be known to the consumer beforehand so that it can correctly parse the actual value. This is definitely not in line with the behavior assumption of TD1.1.



Von: Ben Francis <ben@krellian.com>
Datum: Mittwoch, 5. Juni 2024 um 11:42
An: Kaebisch, Sebastian (T CED IIS-DE) <sebastian.kaebisch@siemens.com>
Cc: public-wot-wg@w3.org <public-wot-wg@w3.org>
Betreff: Re: What to do with WoT Profiles 1.0
On Wed, 5 Jun 2024 at 10:15, Kaebisch, Sebastian <sebastian.kaebisch@siemens.com<mailto:sebastian.kaebisch@siemens.com>> wrote:
“A WoT Thing Description MUST accurately describe the data returned and accepted by each interaction”
The TDs examples definitely does not match the answer behavior as shown Example 15<https://w3c.github.io/wot-profile/#example-15>.

Please note that PR #408<https://github.com/w3c/wot-profile/pull/408> made the synchronous member of ActionAffordance mandatory in the HTTP Basic Profile, which means the output in example 15 would only be ever returned if "synchronous" was set to false.

In the case of an asynchronous action, a Consumer should not have any expectations about the response to an invokeaction request in HTTP, since as far as I can tell there is no default specified anywhere. There is actually a known bug<https://github.com/eclipse-thingweb/node-wot/issues/1278> in node-wot regarding this behaviour which acknowledges this to be the case.

Since the response to an asynchronous invokeaction request is unspecified in the HTTP Binding Template, I would argue this is in fact entirely compliant with TD 1.1. If a Consumer expects a particular response then that's a bug in the implementation.

Today, I will reserve some time in the main call (~20min) for this kind of discussion. However, I need to ask the group if this is ok.

I'm afraid 20 minutes will not be enough to time to address these misunderstandings, but I would be grateful for any opportunity to discuss this topic and clarify Siemens' position in order to unblock the Profiles work.

Thank you

Ben