W3C

– DRAFT –
WoT-WG - TD-TF - Slot 2

06 March 2025

Attendees

Present
Cristiano_Aguzzi, Ege_Korkan, Jan_Romann, Kaz_Ashimura, Michael_Koster, Tomoaki_Mizushima
Regrets
Sebastian
Chair
Ege, Koster
Scribe
mjk

Meeting minutes

Some updates on JSON schema validator

<EgeKorkan> PR 2080 - fix: align JSON Schema with JSON-LD @context format

<kaz> PR 2088 - Test PR on JSON Schema #2088

Registry entry dependencies

<EgeKorkan> Binding Issue 401 - Handling Bindings that depend on other bindings

Ege: issue #401

Ege: what happens when >1 binding uses another binding, e.g. CoAP
… the general idea is that we should not override the shared binding

Cristiano: agreed, we should not allow a user of a binding to override. If extension is needed in the depended binding, it should be collaboratively extended

Jan: there could also be a dependency chain
… could there be multiple dependencies?

Ege: for example, XML-RPC and HTTP
… what about the terminology, dependee

Jan: can't think of anything much better

Ege: marking as PR needed

Issue #404, required machine readable documents

<EgeKorkan> Binding Issue 404 - Required Machine Readable Documents for Registry Entries

Ege: proposal to require a JSON Schema to validate the form
… Ontologies and other diagrams are recommended but optional. If provided, they are required to be reviewed
… all documents must be listed in the summary

Cristiano: we need to keep in mind that there could be required items beyond the form
… we should generalize the text for required elements

Ege: (makes changes)

Cristiano: if new terns are defined, will a context be required?

Ege: as long as URLs resolve there will be no errors

Cristiano: there would be no JSON-LD expansion of terms, seems broken

Ege: we could require a context for new terms

Cristiano: node-wot would work, for example

Ege: we are strongly recommending the context

Ege: (shares MQTT example for review)

Ege: it seems not to be a big issue

Cristiano: there could be issues in downstream processing
… maybe we could provide a warning
… We don't have a lot of test cases in the user base

Ege: the core ontology is being used by people as RDF
… it's a small user base

Jan: should the submission include a well-known prefix to mitigate the JSON-LD issue?

Ege: adding label for PR Needed to issue #404

Ege: assigned to Koster

PR #2058, initial connection

<EgeKorkan> PR 2058 - Initial Connection Feature Description

Ege: the problem is that unexpanded document elements are difficult to validate
… added schemas to require expanded elements
… and disallow top level defaults
… to make sure the expansion is complete
… (walks through the schema to review the specific cases)

<kaz> tds.js from PR 2058

Ege: there is still one TD that is not being failed when it should
… limited to the security definition

Ege: validating the expanded TDs makes the most sense

Kaz: meta-comment, this is a big PR and still being worked on. Could we merge what we have?

Ege: yes, makes sense

Cristiano: looks like the right direction to validate the expanded TD
… it could be very verbose but expanded from a very compact and human readable TD

Ege: there could be errors in expansion that prevent validation
… (refactoring the JS expansion/validation code)

Ege: we agree on the approach of validating the expanded TD

Ege: we can continue to work on the code and adjourn the call

Ege: adjourned

Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by scribe.perl version 244 (Thu Feb 27 01:23:09 2025 UTC).