W3C

– DRAFT –
WoT Thing Description

29 October 2025

Attendees

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

Meeting minutes

Minutes

https://www.w3.org/2025/10/22-wot-td-minutes.html

EK: Minutes look good -> approved

Publication Schedule

EK: Only blocker is namespace issue
… Dave talks with PLH

CA: Scripting API plans an update soon also

EK: You can go ahead... but not sure how long it will take

TD SpecWork

Common Definitions

EK: Minor additions compared to last week
… see https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/pull/2154/files
… one example added with protocol defaults
… doing nothing means protocol defaults are in place
… I created 3 issues

<Ege> w3c/wot-thing-description#2161

<Ege> w3c/wot-thing-description#2160

<Ege> w3c/wot-thing-description#2159

EK: issues are results of last weeks discussion

EK: 2159 is about what we agreed up on last week
… Consensus to turn connection in array
… array is OR relationship
… same semantics as in OpenAPI with security
… I suggest proposing the change as a separate PR (as a follow-up)

CA: I like the approach
… but I have a concern/question
… single form entries get expanded
… what about absolute hrefs
… do we expand them as well?

EK: If the information is present, you should stick with it
… I see the problem with the algorithm

CA: Exactly
… one can go item by item

EK: Local scope has priority

CA: I see, but it is expanded and I end up having the same twice

<live testing/exploration>

DP: Is it creating an issue or just a bad looking TD ?

CA: Causes issues with indexing

CA: I see the problem not only with base but other terms might cause problems

TM: Has connection priority?
… connection definition has ipv4 and ipv6

EK: No priority
… "connectionDefinitions" just defines it while "connection" uses it

TM: I think there are network rules
… at first I would like to see ipv4 for example

EK: For now, the client can choose
… so far the client can have it own logic

TM: Not sure if "connection" is necessary

EK: If you don't put it ... you have to do it over and over again
… we want to avoid that situation

CA: we have the freedom where to put it

EK: I will note the comment in the issue

EK: Need to go, tomorrow is normal session

[adjourned]

Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by scribe.perl version 248 (Mon Oct 27 20:04:16 2025 UTC).

Diagnostics

Maybe present: CA, DP, EK, TM

All speakers: CA, DP, EK, TM

Active on IRC: cris, dape, Ege, Mizushima