Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Mention that protocol bindings can also be defined in profiles #1674

Open
benfrancis opened this issue Aug 17, 2022 · 6 comments
Open

Mention that protocol bindings can also be defined in profiles #1674

benfrancis opened this issue Aug 17, 2022 · 6 comments
Labels
Defer to TD 2.0 Needs discussion more discussion is needed before getting to a solution

Comments

@benfrancis
Copy link
Member

First reported in #1324:

8.3 Protocol Bindings

A Protocol Binding is the mapping from an Interaction Affordance to concrete messages of a specific protocol such as HTTP [RFC7231], CoAP [RFC7252], or MQTT [MQTT]. Protocol Bindings of Interaction Affordances are serialized as forms as defined in § 6.3.9 forms.

I suggest adding text here to explain that a concrete protocol binding can now also be defined in a Profile. It may be helpful to distinguish between:

  1. A "declarative protocol binding" provided by hypermedia forms in an instance of a Thing Description, using the vocabulary defined in a Protocol Binding Template
  2. A "concrete protocol binding" provided by a Profile, which prescribes a protocol binding which all Things conforming to the Profile must use
@github-actions github-actions bot added the needs-triage Automatically added to new issues. TF should triage them with proper labels label Aug 17, 2022
@sebastiankb
Copy link
Contributor

I'm ok with it. However, the main Binding Document should be used as source to look-up to find the link to the official binding definition (which can be a profile).

@sebastiankb sebastiankb added Editorial Issues with no technical impact on implementations and removed needs-triage Automatically added to new issues. TF should triage them with proper labels labels Sep 12, 2022
@egekorkan
Copy link
Contributor

I think we should mention the usage of profiles in the TD but it depends a bit on whether the spec would be published at all

@sebastiankb
Copy link
Contributor

Since it is the planned that the profile for protocol binding purposes is mentioned in Architecture spec, we can close this issue here.
Also see
w3c/wot-architecture#860

@sebastiankb sebastiankb added the Propose closing Problem will be closed shortly if there is no veto. label Oct 25, 2022
@sebastiankb
Copy link
Contributor

from today's TD call, decided to close

@benfrancis please reopen the issue when you disagree

@benfrancis
Copy link
Member Author

@benfrancis please reopen the issue when you disagree

I like that you said "when" I disagree, not "if" :)

w3c/wot-architecture#860 was closed without merging.

The TD specification says:

Protocol Bindings of Interaction Affordances are serialized as forms as defined in § 6.3.9 forms.

The architecture specification says:

W3C WoT serializes Protocol Bindings as hypermedia controls.

Neither mention that protocol bindings can also be specified in profiles.

Since nothing has changed, I can't really agree that this issue has been resolved.

@benfrancis benfrancis reopened this Jan 11, 2023
@benfrancis
Copy link
Member Author

From w3c/wot#1065 (comment), another way of describing this:

A Protocol Binding is serialised as a Form in a Thing Description instance, by either:

  • Using vocabulary from a Protocol Binding Template to define a custom Protocol Binding for each Form
  • Referencing a Profile which provides a common Protocol Binding for all Forms using a given protocol

@egekorkan egekorkan removed Propose closing Problem will be closed shortly if there is no veto. by CR transition Review for CR transition labels Nov 22, 2023
@egekorkan egekorkan removed the Editorial Issues with no technical impact on implementations label May 8, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Defer to TD 2.0 Needs discussion more discussion is needed before getting to a solution
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

5 participants