W3C

– DRAFT –
WoT Thing Description

16 October 2025

Attendees

Present
Daniel_Peintner, Ege_Korkan, Kunihiko_Toumura, Luca_Barbato, Mahda_Noura, Michael_Koster, Tomoaki_Mizushima
Regrets
-
Chair
Ege_Korkan, Michael_Koster
Scribe
Ege

Meeting minutes

Ege_Korkan, Michael_Koster, Tomoaki_Mizushima, Kunihiko_Toumura, Mahda_Noura, Luca_Barbato

Minutes

https://www.w3.org/2025/10/09-wot-td-minutes.html

ek: only major problems to be checked
… any issues with minutes?
… hearing none, approved

Binding Ontologies Alignment

mn: there is misalignment on the usage of terms in different ontologies

ek: we can create a guideline to use in registry too

<luca_barbato> +1

mn: (shows the examples)

mn: we can have a guideline in the top

ek: what is the level of the guideline?

mn: Typically it is provided as a guideline, not a standard

<luca_barbato> I have to go even earlier sadly, I'm all for consistency and automated lints

dp: we should fix one first, like Modbus. Also consistency in a single one document would be good
… that would be the minimum

ek: any other misalignments?

mn: like labels and comments

w3c/wot-binding-templates#448

ek: I have created an issue

Common Definitions

w3c/wot-thing-description#2154

ek: just extending examples

ek: (shows screen with examples)
… example 1 is about default content type cbor

dp: not putting contentType should still default to JSON right?

ek: not sure we removed it no?

ek: (looks at the spec, it still has default)
w3c/wot-thing-description#2081 can be analyzed

mn: multi protocols mean multiple forms?

ek: yes I will show it later

dp: can we remove href if there is only one href for all affordances like in websockets?

ek: out of scope right now but can be added as an example at w3c/wot-thing-description#2153
… for now we can leave the href empty in the form and provide that uri in the base field

ek: example 2 is the same but with modbus protocol

ek: example 3 is similar but shows overriding as well

ek: example 4 is multi ip address etc.

ek: maybe we should have a connection with array value

mk: we need a new construct for this case

mn: I agree. You need to repeat
… how about doing it like security

ek: yes but then the term types duplicate

mn: a different direction would be to provide a TM with placeholders
… and a new TD is generated based on ipv4 or ipv6
… like initializing a class with different values
… so it is not a design problem

ek: (shows the examples until 7)

lb: if we provide stacking rules, we can have a form array

Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by scribe.perl version 246 (Wed Oct 1 15:02:24 2025 UTC).

Diagnostics

Succeeded: s/topic: Common Definitions//

Succeeded: s/mh/mn

Succeeded: s/7(/7)

No scribenick or scribe found. Guessed: Ege

Maybe present: dp, ek, lb, mk, mn

All speakers: dp, ek, lb, mk, mn

Active on IRC: dape, Ege, luca_barbato, mahda, mjk