Adding new fields to templates

[egekorkan]

Note: I have started from the binding templates point of view but went on to include others

In order to evaluate gaps between each use case and the corresponding WoT specification, I think we need the following new information that is clearly indicated with a corresponding field. I have grouped them per WoT specification.

Binding templates

• Used protocols
• Used media types
• Use of a specific platform or standard (like OPC-UA, OCF, Philips Hue, etc.)
• Used security mechanisms

TD

• Required behavior, i.e. monitoring of actions. Maybe it would be good to require use case submitters to specify a small behavior between the Thing and the Consumer in this system. This is sometimes done in the description section
• Required affordance or even better required operation types (might be difficult to ask outsiders for this much information) but this can be extracted from the point above
• Used security mechanisms

Architecture

• Deployment scenario, i.e. where is the Thing and its Consumer (local network deployment, cloud, etc.)

Scripting API

• Required behavior, i.e. monitoring of actions. Maybe it would be good to require use case submitters to specify a small behavior between the Thing and the Consumer in this system. This is sometimes done in the description section

Discovery

• Used service discovery protocols

---

These are of course my opinions and ideally each TF should sit and think what requirements they can have in a use case. These should be picked up by the use case TF and used in the template. Given that we have 70 use cases already with some from non WG/IG participants, maybe it is already too late for them but at least we can do this for new use cases.

[mmccool]

Agree that the use cases are at very different levels of abstraction, and many lack details. An improved template would help. The question is what to do with existing use cases (that may have been submitted by others...).

[mmccool]

Requirements template could be used to capture detail, e.g. about protocols needed.

[egekorkan]

In the TD and Binding call on 06.04.2022:

• We have to indicate that these fields are not mandatory to fill. If the use case author does not know or care about, for instance, a specific protocol, that field can be left empty.
• There was no further field needed for the binding templates, so I will create a PR with the above terms