Open egekorkan opened 2 years ago
See also: https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues/1674 (WoT TD)
I have filed https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/issues/850 (WoT Architecture)
If all the TDs look like the ones submitted by @mlagally to testfest, we should be ok: https://github.com/w3c/wot-testing/blob/main/data/input_2022/Profile/TD/Oracle/TDs/BluePump%20WebThing.td.jsonld
However, this requirement should be asserted in the spec
Profile call on March 3rd: Needs more discussion and a concrete proposal.
Alternatives:
Revisit in Profile call on March 29th
Defining the protocol binding declaratively in every Form in addition to specifying it in the profile would negate most of the benefits of using a profile, which allow for much simpler Thing Descriptions by having Consumers assume a wider range of defaults. It's also not possible to describe many aspects of the profile protocol bindings declaratively in forms.
The TD and Architecture specifications should be updated to say that profiles can also define protocol bindings, as I suggested in https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues/1674 and https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/issues/850, since this is what is currently done.
I hope that we can improve this situation in 2.0 by having the profiling mechanism and binding mechanism work together, see https://github.com/w3c/wot-profile/issues/285#issuecomment-1433087304
There is the following assertion in the arch spec at https://w3c.github.io/wot-architecture/#hypermedia-driven :
However, the profiles contradict this assertion since they define a protocol binding inside the specification and this is referred to only by the
profile
term in the top level, and thus out of the hypermedia controls.