W3C

– DRAFT –
WoT-WG - TD-TF - Slot 1

24 September 2025

Attendees

Present
Cristiano_Aguzzi, Daniel_Peintner, Ege_Korkan, Kaz_Ashimura, Kunihiko_Toumura, Michael_Koster, Tomoaki_Mizushima
Regrets
-
Chair
Koster
Scribe
dape

Meeting minutes

Minutes review

-> Sep 11

Koster: Updates/additions?
… none -> minutes are approved

Publications

<kaz> TD PR 2140 - TD 2.0 FPWD Publication

Ege: Prepared PR for static documents
… I will revert some changes
… adding note that some parts will be changed in future

<kaz> Binding PR 442 - New Note Publication

<kaz> Registry PR 38 - Draft Registry Publication

Ege: other documents are all fine
… binding templates, binding registry
… FYI, no validation errors either
… all good

Koster: Sounds good

Inviting WoT CG Participants for Feedback on the Initial Connection:

Ege: will invite them for October 2nd

TD SpecWork

Manageable Affordances

<kaz> Manageable Affordances Analysis

Ege: Cristiano prepared PR, see w3c/wot-thing-description#2107

Cristiano: question why we call document "Manageable Affordances Analysis"
… I think we should merge this PR and work on updates in future PRs
… document collects previous proposals
… we have user stories
… for now 3 of them
… 1. Monitorable and Cancelable Actions

Cristiano: 2. Queue of Actions
… 3. Express dependencies between affordances

Cristiano: Valid flows are of importance
… document has section "Existing Solutions"
… some user stories can be captured with what we have
… but not in an efficient way

Cristiano: I also looked into existing technologies
… in the end it is not that common
… collected list of a few frameworks
… our TD spec can describe some frameworks already

Ege: I have one small comment
… about why we call it "Affordances"
… in BACnet one also needs to send events

Cristiano: BTW WebAgents user story about dynamic TDs

Ege: Dynamic TDs are an even bigger topic

Cristiano: Touches also discovery
… we need more features to capture that behavior
… I tend to say we should leave out dynamic TDs

Ege: We should note it somewhere

Cristiano: Ben commented also, see w3c/wot-thing-description#2107 (comment)
… not sure how I should express/list it in the document

Ege: Template does not cover all that

Cristiano: Yes
… abstract vs concrete user story

Ege: Specific use-case

Koster: Concrete protocol to be adapted
… we can refer to it
… I don't think it is yet another use case

Cristiano: yes, it's more about end user
… Ben provided valuable feedback but I suggest to add it in subsection

Ege: like "real life scenarios"
… term use case is overloaded

Cristiano: "Concurrent action instances" is mentioned by Ben also
… e.g., printer to print three tickets

Ege: We should consider that aspect

Cristiano: yes, that's new

Cristiano: I am not very happy with the current structure
… summary comes at the very end

Ege: Makes sense to move it up

Cristiano: Sections "Existing Solutions" and "Existing technologies analysis with focus on Manageable Actions" somehow overlap
… any suggestion how to improve?

Koster: Web of Things Solution instead of Existing solutions

Ege: Move "related real world implementations" under analysis

Koster: Dependencies between affordances
… we can start refining this concept

Koster: about creating new resources for long running action ?

Cristiano: It is not that common as I initially thought

Kaz: Discussion for this mechanism is very important
… I am interested in state machine solution
… extending TD
… is that too much for TDs?
… extending specification I mean

Ege: I agree

Cristiano: Analysis is in a good state, I think
… rework structure and merge soon
… and open new issues and working on requirements/solutions et cetera

Ege: Makes sense
… we should add Ben's example also

Cristiano: Can do subsection about BACnet events/alarms also

Koster: General direction looks good
… status properties might conflict with state machines but we are in a good shape

Koster: AOB?

[adjourned]

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