-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1
Expand file tree
/
Copy pathindex.html
More file actions
1158 lines (1089 loc) · 58.5 KB
/
index.html
File metadata and controls
1158 lines (1089 loc) · 58.5 KB
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
874
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
882
883
884
885
886
887
888
889
890
891
892
893
894
895
896
897
898
899
900
901
902
903
904
905
906
907
908
909
910
911
912
913
914
915
916
917
918
919
920
921
922
923
924
925
926
927
928
929
930
931
932
933
934
935
936
937
938
939
940
941
942
943
944
945
946
947
948
949
950
951
952
953
954
955
956
957
958
959
960
961
962
963
964
965
966
967
968
969
970
971
972
973
974
975
976
977
978
979
980
981
982
983
984
985
986
987
988
989
990
991
992
993
994
995
996
997
998
999
1000
<!doctype html>
<html lang="en">
<head>
<meta charset="utf-8" />
<meta name="color-scheme" content="light dark" />
<title>Web of Things (WoT) Binding Registry</title>
<script src="https://www.w3.org/Tools/respec/respec-w3c" class="remove"></script>
<script class="remove">
var respecConfig = {
shortName: "wot-binding-registry",
specStatus: "ED",
copyrightStart: 2025,
noLegacyStyle: true,
inlineCSS: true,
noIDLIn: true,
group: "wg/wot",
charterDisclosureURI: "https://www.w3.org/2004/01/pp-impl/95969/status",
wgPublicList: "public-wot-wg",
edDraftURI: "https://w3c.github.io/wot-binding-registry/",
github: "https://github.com/w3c/wot-binding-registry",
issueBase: "https://www.github.com/w3c/wot-binding-registry/issues",
editors: [{
name: "Ege Korkan",
w3cid: "110131",
company: "Siemens AG",
companyURL: "https://www.siemens.com/"
}],
xref: ["i18n-glossary", "w3c-process"],
otherLinks: [{
key: "Contributors",
data: [{
value: "In the GitHub repository",
href: "https://github.com/w3c/wot-binding-registry/graphs/contributors"
}]
},
{
key: "Repository",
data: [{
value: "We are on GitHub",
href: "https://github.com/w3c/wot-binding-registry/"
},
{
value: "File a bug",
href: "https://github.com/w3c/wot-binding-registry/issues"
}
]
}
]
};
</script>
<!-- ASSERTION HIGHLIGHTING -->
<style>
.rfc2119-assertion {
background-color: #e6e6e6;
}
.darkmode .rfc2119-assertion {
background-color: #223a2c;
}
.at-risk {
background-color: yellow;
}
</style>
<!-- END ASSERTION HIGHLIGHTING -->
</head>
<body>
<section id="abstract">
<h2>Abstract</h2>
<p>
W3C Web of Things (WoT) enables applications to interact with and orchestrate connected Things at the Web scale.
The standardized abstract interaction model exposed by the WoT Thing Description enables applications to scale
and evolve independently of the individual Things. Through WoT Bindings, the abstract interactions can be bound
to various network-level protocols, standards, and platforms for connected Things, which already have have
millions of devices deployed in the field today. This is done through protocol-specific URI schemes, additional
descriptive vocabularies, and examples that guide the implementors of WoT Things and Consumers alike.
</p>
<p>
This document defines a registry of WoT bindings that make it possible to have a record of the different
bindings. Additionally, it sets the rules that govern this registry to guarantee a quality standard, long
lifecycle and ease of use for the developers.
</p>
</section>
<section id="sotd"></section>
<section id="introduction" class="informative">
<h2>Introduction</h2>
<p>
The Web of Things (WoT) has the goal of improving interoperability in IoT and enabling the integration of
various IoT ecosystems and communities. While the [[WOT-THING-DESCRIPTION11]] defines the abstract operations
and interaction affordances, bindings map these to concrete network messages. Thus, thanks to bindings, the W3C
Web of Things support multiple protocols and media types in a descriptive approach by adding further information
to Thing Descriptions.
</p>
<p>
As the number of such protocols and media types is vast and tends to change over time, this document defines a
flexible mechanism called a Binding Registry. This document relies on the registry track mechanism of the
<a href="https://www.w3.org/policies/process/#registries">W3C Process</a> and extends it to be specific and fit
to the purposes of WoT bindings.
</p>
<p>
This enables a binding to be written by people with a good understanding of the binding, who are not necessarily
participants of the WoT Working Group, such as other organizations developing a standard that can be used with
WoT. This also allows the WoT Working Group to focus on the core specifications and engage other communities at
the same time.
</p>
</section>
<section id="conformance"></section>
<section id="terminology">
<h2>Terminology</h2>
<p>
The fundamental WoT terminology such as <dfn class="lint-ignore">Thing</dfn>,
<dfn class="lint-ignore">Consumer</dfn>, <dfn class="lint-ignore">Thing Description</dfn> (<dfn class="lint-ignore">TD</dfn>), <dfn class="lint-ignore">Interaction Model</dfn>, <dfn class="lint-ignore">Interaction Affordance</dfn>,
<dfn class="lint-ignore">Property</dfn>, <dfn class="lint-ignore">Action</dfn>,
<dfn class="lint-ignore">Event</dfn>, <dfn class="lint-ignore">Data Schema</dfn>,
<dfn class="lint-ignore">Content Type</dfn>, <dfn class="lint-ignore">Protocol Binding</dfn>,
<dfn class="lint-ignore">Binding Template</dfn>, <dfn class="lint-ignore">Servient</dfn>,
<dfn class="lint-ignore">Vocabulary</dfn>, <dfn class="lint-ignore">WoT Interface</dfn>,
<dfn class="lint-ignore">WoT Runtime</dfn>, <dfn class="lint-ignore">IoT Platform</dfn>, etc. is defined in
<a data-cite="WOT-ARCHITECTURE#terminology">Section 3</a>
of the WoT Architecture specification [[WOT-ARCHITECTURE]].
</p>
<p>
In addition, this specification introduces further definitions below. These terms sometimes don't use the term
<em>WoT</em>. Please use the "WoT" prefix outside of the context of Web of Things.
</p>
<dl>
<dt>
<dfn id="dfn-binding">Binding</dfn>
</dt>
<dd>
A human-readable document that gives guidance on how to describe a specific IoT protocol, data format or IoT
platform in the context of WoT. This is also the registry entry. See
<a href="https://www.w3.org/policies/process/#registry-entry">registry entry</a> for more information.
</dd>
<dt>
<dfn id="dfn-binding-instance">Binding Instance</dfn>
</dt>
<dd>
A form element in a TD or TM that contains the concrete mapping of the operation to a binding. Thus it is a
machine-readable description of how to activate an affordance.
</dd>
<dt>
<dfn id="dfn-wot-binding-registry">WoT Binding Registry</dfn>
</dt>
<dd>
A W3C Registry Track document that contains the <a>WoT Binding Registry Table</a>, its requirements and
possibly other information. See <a href="https://www.w3.org/policies/process/#registry">registry</a> for more
information on the definition.
</dd>
<dt>
<dfn id="dfn-wot-binding-registry-table">WoT Binding Registry Table</dfn>
</dt>
<dd>
A list of bindings that are usable in the context of WoT. See
<a href="https://www.w3.org/policies/process/#registry-table">registry table</a> for more information.
</dd>
<dt>
<dfn id="dfn-wot-binding-registry-definition">WoT Binding Registry Definition</dfn>
</dt>
<dd>
A set of requirements that explain how the registry table is structured and maintained. See
<a href="https://www.w3.org/policies/process/#registry-definition">registry definition</a> for more
information.
</dd>
<dt>
<dfn id="dfn-binding-implementation">Binding Implementation</dfn>
</dt>
<dd>One of the codebases that implements the binding to build the correct network messages</dd>
<dt>
<dfn id="dfn-execution-binding-instance">Execution of a Binding Instance</dfn>
</dt>
<dd>The request on the wire that is sent after parsing a TD's <a>binding instance</a>.</dd>
<dt>
<dfn id="dfn-binding-summary">Binding Summary</dfn>
</dt>
<dd>
A custodian-owned document that summarizes the binding with an abstract, examples, access/usage rights and
possibly more. This is a supporting document for a binding entry.
</dd>
<dt>
<dfn id="dfn-json-schema-for-a-binding">JSON Schema for a Binding</dfn>
</dt>
<dd>
A JSON Schema that allows validating the elements added by the <a>Binding</a> (registry entry). This is a
supporting document for a binding entry.
</dd>
<dt>
<dfn id="dfn-json-ld-context-for-a-binding">JSON-LD Context for a Binding</dfn>
</dt>
<dd>
A machine-readable JSON-LD document that defines all the terms to be used in a <a>binding instance</a>, which
allows the terms to be dereferenced correctly by a JSON-LD parser. This is a supporting document for a binding
entry.
</dd>
<dt>
<dfn id="dfn-vocabulary-in-rdf-for-a-binding">Vocabulary in RDF for a Binding</dfn>
</dt>
<dd>
A machine-readable RDF document that formally defines all the terms of the binding, which allow semantic
processing of a TD using those terms. The scope of these documents is not limited to WoT. This is a supporting
document for a binding entry.
</dd>
<dt>
<dfn id="dfn-vocabulary-document-for-a-binding">Vocabulary Document for a Binding</dfn>
</dt>
<dd>
A human-readable version of the vocabulary defined at <a>Vocabulary in RDF for a Binding</a>. This is a
supporting document for a binding entry.
</dd>
<dt>
<dfn id="dfn-custodian">Custodian</dfn>
</dt>
<dd>See <a href="https://www.w3.org/policies/process/#custodian">custodian</a>.</dd>
<dt>
<dfn id="dfn-reviewer">Reviewer</dfn>
</dt>
<dd>A person who is an expert in the specification that the binding is targeting.</dd>
<dt>
<dfn id="dfn-dependency">Dependency</dfn>
</dt>
<dd>An entry that is used or referenced to from another entry.</dd>
<dt>
<dfn id="dfn-dependent">Dependent</dfn>
</dt>
<dd>An entry that uses or references another entry.</dd>
</dl>
</section>
<section id="registry-definition">
<h2>Registry Definition</h2>
<p class="note">
This registry is currently not published as a <i>W3C Registry</i> yet, meaning it is not finalized and stable.
Thus, we are currently in a pilot phase where only a small number of bindings written by the WoT Working Group
are included. They are still managed using the rules explained in this section but will not leave the
<code>Initial</code> state of the lifecycle. After the pilot phase, the registry will be opened to external
submissions and the process defined here will be used to manage submissions and entries. This pilot exists to
test the process and the rules defined in this section.
</p>
<p>
A <a href="#dfn-wot-binding-registry-definition">set of rules</a> extending the
<a href="https://www.w3.org/2023/Process-20230612/#reg-def">Registry Definitions from the W3C Process Document</a>
can be found below and is structured as follows.
</p>
<ul>
<li>
<a href="#entry-format"></a>
<!-- what is put into the table and not what the binding should contain -->
</li>
<li>
<a href="#lifecycle"></a>
<!-- how are they submitted, updated, deprecated etc. -->
</li>
<li><a href="#ownership"></a></li>
<li>
<a href="#submission-requirements"></a>
<!--What the binding has to contain to go into the table-->
</li>
</ul>
<section id="entry-format">
<h2>Entry format</h2>
<p>
<span class="rfc2119-assertion" id="entry-format-information"
>Each entry MUST contain the following information</span>.
<span class="rfc2119-assertion" id="entry-format-conflict"
>All parts of the entry MUST not conflict with existing bindings</span>.
</p>
<table class="def numbered">
<!-- -->
<caption>
Entry format information
</caption>
<thead>
<tr>
<th>Information</th>
<th>Type</th>
<th>Description</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr id="form-name">
<td>Name of the binding</td>
<td>
<a href="https://www.w3.org/TR/2012/REC-xmlschema11-2-20120405/#string"><code>string</code></a>
</td>
<td>Examples: <code>HTTP Binding</code>, <code>CoAP Binding</code></td>
</tr>
<tr id="form-link">
<td>Link to the binding document</td>
<td>
<a href="https://www.w3.org/TR/2012/REC-xmlschema11-2-20120405/#anyURI"><code>anyURI</code></a>
</td>
<td>
Stable link whose content cannot change (e.g., a date, version number, etc.), which can be managed by
another entity than the custodian. <br />
Examples: <code>https://www.w3.org/TR/wot/binding-templates/http-20240726/index.html</code>
</td>
</tr>
<tr id="form-target-spec">
<td>Specification that the Binding Targets</td>
<td>
<a href="https://www.w3.org/TR/2012/REC-xmlschema11-2-20120405/#string"><code>string</code></a> followed
by an <a href="https://www.w3.org/TR/2012/REC-xmlschema11-2-20120405/#anyURI"><code>anyURI</code></a>
</td>
<td>
The name and link of the specification that the binding is designed to target. Example: `MQTT 3.1.1
(https://docs.oasis-open.org/mqtt/mqtt/v3.1.1/os/mqtt-v3.1.1-os.html)`
</td>
</tr>
<tr id="form-pref">
<td>Binding ontology prefix</td>
<td>
<a href="https://www.w3.org/TR/2012/REC-xmlschema11-2-20120405/#string"><code>string</code></a>
</td>
<td>Examples: <code>htv</code>, <code>modv</code>, <code>cov</code></td>
</tr>
<tr id="form-id">
<td>Binding Identification in TD</td>
<td>any type</td>
<td>
URI Scheme or other TD terms reserved for this binding. <br />
Examples: <code>"subprotocol":"sse"</code>,
<code>"href":"http://example.com"</code>,
<code>"contentType":"application/json"</code>
</td>
</tr>
<tr id="form-tdver">
<td>Supported TD version</td>
<td>
<a href="https://www.w3.org/TR/2012/REC-xmlschema11-2-20120405/#string"><code>string</code></a> or Array
of <a href="https://www.w3.org/TR/2012/REC-xmlschema11-2-20120405/#string"><code>string</code></a>
</td>
<td>
<span class="rfc2119-assertion" id="entry-format-supported-td-version"
>A binding SHOULD correspond to specific TD specification version(s).</span>
<br />
Note: <em>no uniqueness needed</em>
</td>
</tr>
<tr id="form-stat">
<td>Status</td>
<td>
<a href="https://www.w3.org/TR/2012/REC-xmlschema11-2-20120405/#rf-enumeration">enumeration</a> of
[<code>Initial</code>, <code>Current</code>, <code>Superseded</code>, <code>Obsolete</code>]
</td>
<td>
One of <code>Initial</code>, <code>Current</code>, <code>Superseded</code> or <code>Obsolete</code>.
</td>
</tr>
<tr id="form-summ">
<td>Summary Document</td>
<td>
<a href="https://www.w3.org/TR/2012/REC-xmlschema11-2-20120405/#anyURI"><code>anyURI</code></a>
</td>
<td>Link to the <a href="#dfn-binding-summary">summary document</a> of a Binding.</td>
</tr>
<tr id="form-ver">
<td>Version</td>
<td>
<a href="https://www.w3.org/TR/2012/REC-xmlschema11-2-20120405/#string"><code>string</code></a>
</td>
<td>
A string that identifies a specific version of this binding. Example: <code>1.0-2026-01-15</code>. See
<a href="#life-ver">Versioning</a> for more information.
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p class="ednote">
W.r.t. "Binding Identification in TD": These terms should be refined based on the additions/changes to the TD
2.0 mechanism, e.g., introducing a <code>protocol</code> term or putting restrictions on URI scheme and
<code>subprotocol</code> combination, data mapping, etc.
</p>
</section>
<section id="lifecycle">
<h2>Lifecycle</h2>
<p>
Each entry in the registry goes through a lifecycle managed by the <a>Custodian</a>. The state in the
lifecycle can be seen in the registry itself, as well as the
<a href="https://github.com/orgs/w3c/projects/222">GitHub project</a> that is used to track submissions and
transition requests.
</p>
<section id="life-subm">
<h3>Technical submission mechanism</h3>
<p>The mechanism is as follows:</p>
<ul>
<li>
We work with issues only. The information for the entry format is submitted as a list. This way, non-W3C
members can submit a binding. Reviews from the custodian happen on the issue. The submitter is expected to
answer until the custodian makes a PR to add the binding to the registry or change its status.
</li>
<li>
A purpose built GitHub project for tracking submissions is used. When a submission comes in form an issue,
it is automatically added to column "Binding Submitted". When the <a>custodian</a> and
<a>reviewers</a> start looking at it, it goes to the "Under Review" column. If the review is in
favor, the custodian makes the PR to add it to the registry and the issue goes to column
"Accepted". If the review is not in favor, it goes to the column "Rejected". All these
changes are reflected as comments in the original issue.
</li>
<li>
<span class="rfc2119-assertion" id="life-subm-archival">
If the submitter cannot guarantee the stability of the link to the binding, they MUST send an email to
<code>https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/</code> and attach the binding and supporting
documents.
</span>
This way, if the submitter fails to keep the link stable, an archived version exists for the users.
</li>
<li>
<span class="rfc2119-assertion" id="life-subm-mark-conflict"
>If a new entry conflicts with another entry, the reviewer MUST mark the new submission
accordingly.</span>
<span class="rfc2119-assertion" id="life-subm-conflict-deprecation-rejection"
>As two bindings that do the same are not allowed, either the old one MUST be deprecated or the new one
MUST be rejected.</span>
See also point 13 under "Requirements on the Submitted Document".
</li>
</ul>
</section>
<section id="life-stat">
<h3>Status</h3>
<p>
An entry can have the following status values: <code>Initial</code> -> <code>Current</code> ->
<code>Superseded</code> or <code>Obsolete</code>
</p>
<ul>
<li>
<code>Initial</code>: Document is correctly written but no implementation experience has been necessarily
documented.
</li>
<li>
<code>Current</code>: Custodian recommends it for new implementations and it has enough implementation
experience. While this is also called as <code>stable</code>, given that it can be superseded later, it is
recommended to use the term <code>current</code>.
</li>
<li>
<code>Superseded</code>: A previously "current" entry that is now superseded with a newer one
</li>
<li><code>Obsolete</code>: Custodian does not recommend the usage of this binding</li>
</ul>
<p>
The diagram below represents the lifecycle sates and the possible transitions between them. Please refer to
<a href="#transitions">transitions</a> for the requirements and process for each transitions.
</p>
<figure style="text-align: center">
<img src="./images/lifecycle.svg" alt="Registry Entry Lifecycle Diagram" />
<figcaption>Registry Entry Lifecycle States</figcaption>
</figure>
<p class="ednote">
This is inspired by the
<a href="https://w3c.github.io/ttwg/boilerplate/registry/#registry-entry-status">TTWG Boilerplate</a>.
<br />
Alternatives can be reconsidered if needed. Initial: provisional, draft, in development. Current: Final,
Stable. Outdated: Old, Deprecated (not preferred since it is still usable), Previous, Obsolete. Also see
<a href="https://www.w3.org/policies/process/#RecsObs">https://www.w3.org/policies/process/#RecsObs</a>
</p>
</section>
<section id="life-ver">
<h3>Versioning</h3>
<p>
<span class="rfc2119-assertion" id="entry-format-version-uniqueness">
Different bindings may share the same version string, but each version of a binding MUST be unique within
that binding's history.
</span>
<span class="rfc2119-assertion" id="entry-format-version-form"
>The version string SHOULD contain a UTC-based date in ISO 8601 format in the form of
<code>YYYY-MM-DD</code>.
</span>
<span class="rfc2119-assertion" id="life-versioning-unique-version">
If anyone wants to submit a newer version of an entry, it MUST be a new submission.
</span>
As indicated in <a href="#transition-from-current-to-superseded">transition to superseded</a> and
<a href="#transition-from-current-to-obsolete">transition to obsolete</a>, the newer versions results in
state changes.
<span class="rfc2119-assertion" id="life-versioning-review-for-new-version">
Review of a new version of an existing binding SHOULD take the previous reviews into account.
</span>
</p>
</section>
<section id="life-deldep">
<h3>Deletion and deprecation</h3>
<p>
No entry is ever deleted. Deprecated entries are moved to another table or are clearly marked deprecated,
colored differently, and moved to the bottom.
</p>
</section>
</section>
<section id="ownership">
<h2>Ownership</h2>
<p>
The registry is managed by a <a>Custodian</a> and submissions and transitions are reviewed by
<a href="#dfn-reviewer">Reviewers</a>.
</p>
<section id="own-cust">
<h3>Custodian</h3>
<p>
<span class="rfc2119-assertion" id="ownership-custodian-role"
>A change in the registry MUST be confirmed by the <a>Custodian</a>. The custodian of this registry is the
WoT WG in the beginning.</span>
<span class="rfc2119-assertion" id="ownership-custodian-delegation"
>If the WoT WG no longer exists, the W3C Team or its delegated entity MUST be the <a>Custodian</a>.</span>
For example, a dedicated W3C community group can be created to maintain the registry. This way, the registry
can be maintained for a long period.
</p>
</section>
</section>
<section id="submission-requirements">
<h2>Submission Requirements</h2>
<!-- Requirements on the Submitted Document -->
<p>What does the binding have to contain to go into the table.</p>
<ul>
<li><a href="#req-opmap"></a></li>
<li><a href="#req-contmap"></a></li>
<li><a href="#req-traninit"></a></li>
<li><a href="#req-docsec"></a></li>
<li><a href="#req-copy"></a></li>
<li><a href="#req-openread"></a></li>
<li><a href="#req-openrev"></a></li>
<li><a href="#req-summ"></a></li>
<li><a href="#req-trancurr"></a></li>
<li><a href="#req-content"></a></li>
<li><a href="#req-docs"></a></li>
<li><a href="#req-confl"></a></li>
<li><a href="#req-redef"></a></li>
<li><a href="#req-deps"></a></li>
</ul>
<section id="req-opmap">
<h3>WoT operation</h3>
<p>
<span class="rfc2119-assertion" id="submission-requirements-wot-operation"
>A binding that uses a protocol MUST map at least one WoT operation (<code>op</code> keyword value such as
<code>readproperty</code>) to a protocol message and vice versa.</span>
</p>
</section>
<section id="req-contmap">
<h3>ContentType</h3>
<p>
<span class="rfc2119-assertion" id="submission-requirements-contenttype"
>A binding that uses a serialization format via the <code>contentType</code> keyword MUST mention how the
Data Schema terms should be used to describe the messages.</span>
This avoids submission of a binding like "XML Binding" that says "Use
<code>contentType:application/xml</code> and nothing more. That alone would not be enough to serialize
correct messages based on the data schema.
</p>
<p class="ednote">
TODO: We will need additional mechanisms (including vocabulary terms) to ensure that it is possible to use
other media types.
</p>
</section>
<section id="req-docsec">
<h3>Document Section</h3>
<p>
<span class="rfc2119-assertion" id="submission-requirements-one-section"
>The WoT binding MAY be just one section of the document.
</span>
<span class="rfc2119-assertion" id="submission-requirements-section-link"
>In that case, the "Link to the binding document" in the registry entry MUST point to the
specific location.</span>
PDF or similar document types MAY be submitted if the "Link to the binding document" in the
registry entry contains a text pointing to the section. However, HTML and Webpages SHOULD be favored.
</p>
</section>
<section id="req-copy">
<h3>Copyright</h3>
<p>
<span class="rfc2119-assertion" id="submission-requirements-copyright"
>The WoT binding document MAY follow another copyright than the W3C copyright.</span>
The submitter is free to choose based on the process they or their organization follows.
</p>
</section>
<section id="req-openread">
<h3>Open to read</h3>
<p>
<span class="rfc2119-assertion" id="submission-requirements-openread"
>The binding document linked in the registry entry SHOULD be open to read, use, and implement, but that is
not required for the document to be added to the registry.</span>
</p>
<p class="note">
Given that a submitter who cannot guarantee the stability of the link needs to send the binding to the W3C
Archive (see <a href="#life-subm-archival">submission instructions</a>), such bindings automatically become
open to read.
</p>
</section>
<section id="req-openrev">
<h3>Reviewer Access</h3>
<p>
<span class="rfc2119-assertion" id="submission-requirements-openrev"
>Reviewers MUST have access to the binding document and to the protocol or media type specification (what
the binding specifies).</span>
</p>
</section>
<section id="req-summ">
<h3>Summary Document</h3>
<p>
<span class="rfc2119-assertion" id="submission-requirements-summary-document"
>The submitter MUST fill in the GitHub form provided by the custodian to generate a
<a href="#dfn-binding-summary">summary document</a>, which is hosted by the custodian together with the
registry.</span>
This form contains the following:
</p>
<ul>
<li>
<span class="rfc2119-assertion" id="submission-requirements-summary-document-abstract"
>Abstract - It MUST contain an abstract with the following information</span>:
<ul>
<li>What is the content of the binding about, e.g., what is this protocol?</li>
<li>Who should use it?</li>
<li>
For what purpose(s) should it be used, e.g., monitoring, process control? This SHOULD use terminology
of the submitter, i.e., the custodian does not provide definitions for this.
</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>
<span class="rfc2119-assertion" id="submission-requirements-summary-document-examples"
>Examples - It SHOULD contain examples (can be one) TDs or TMs demonstrating the use of the
binding</span>
</li>
<li>
<span class="rfc2119-assertion" id="submission-requirements-summary-document-access-usage"
>It MUST contain Access/Usage restrictions about the binding, protocol, implementation, etc., using the
terminology and/or documents of the submitter.</span>
A non-exhaustive list of examples of restrictions:
<ul>
<li>Reading the binding document</li>
<li>Reading the protocol specification</li>
<li>Implementing a non-commercial device/Thing</li>
<li>Implementing a non-commercial Consumer application/driver</li>
<li>Conditions for commercial use, e.g., building a commercial product with the binding</li>
<li>Making a statement about your product's supporting that binding</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>
<span class="rfc2119-assertion" id="submission-requirements-summary-document-dependency"
>If the entry depends on another one, it MUST specify the exact version of the dependency upon which it
depends at the time of submission.</span>
</li>
<li>
<span class="rfc2119-assertion" id="submission-requirements-summary-document-availability"
>The availability of the machine-readable documents MUST be indicated in the summary document using the
submission mechanism.</span>
Also see <a href="#req-docs">Req-Docs</a>.
</li>
<li>
<span class="rfc2119-assertion" id="submission-requirements-summary-document-previous-version"
>The previous version of the summary document MUST be listed as a link</span>.
</li>
<li>
<span class="rfc2119-assertion" id="submission-requirements-summary-document-chronological-ordering"
>If the chronological ordering of the entries is not clear from the version string, the summary document
MUST explain the ordering mechanism.</span>
</li>
</ul>
</section>
<section>
<h3>Transitions</h3>
<p>
Every transition including the initial submission is triggered by an issue, which can be made by the
submitter, the custodian or anyone who creates an issue using the correct template. For each transition -
defined in <a href="#life-stat">lifecycle status</a> - the following sections explain the requirements and
rules that need to be followed by the submitter, custodian and reviewers.
</p>
<p>
<span class="rfc2119-assertion" id="transition-requirements-trigger">
As a general rule, a transition MAY be triggered by the submitter, the custodian or anyone who creates an
issue using the correct template.
</span>
<span class="rfc2119-assertion" id="transition-requirements-notify">
However, the custodian MUST notify the initial submitter and the organization related to the entry of any
transition request using the contact information provided in the submission issue.
</span>
<span class="rfc2119-assertion" id="transition-requirements-approve">
In the case of no replies within 30 days from the initial submitter or the organization related to the
entry, the custodian MUST process the transition, consulting reviewers when necessary for the transition
in question.
</span>
<span class="rfc2119-assertion" id="transition-reviewer-submitter-different">
The custodian MUST assign reviewers for the submission and transitions who are different from the initial
submitter and the organization related to the entry.
</span>
<span class="rfc2119-assertion" id="transition-post-review-time-minimum">
The custodian MUST wait 15 days after the end of the review process before making a decision on the
transition to allow for any further comments or discussions to take place.
</span>
<span class="rfc2119-assertion" id="transition-post-review-time-maximum">
The custodian MUST make a decision on the transition within 30 days after the end of the review process.
</span>
<span class="rfc2119-assertion" id="transition-check-old-entries">
If there are other entries in the registry with <code>Initial</code> or <code>Current</code> status
targeting the same specification, the reviewers MUST take them into account.</span>
For example, a newer version of the same binding would result in a transition to <code>Superseded</code> for
the older version, which should be used in the review.
<span class="rfc2119-assertion" id="transition-reviewer-finding-guarantees">
While the custodian is tasked with assigning reviewers, the custodian MAY NOT be able to assign
reviewers</span>
<span class="rfc2119-assertion" id="transition-reviewinger-reassign">
As there are no guarantees that reviewers complete their reviews, the custodian MAY reassign reviewers if
necessary.</span>
</p>
<p>
<span class="rfc2119-assertion" id="transition-issue-template-conformance"
>The submitter MUST use the correct transition issue template for each transition request and conform to
the requirements defined in the template.</span>
</p>
<section id="req-traninit">
<h3>Transition to Initial</h3>
<p>
<span class="rfc2119-assertion" id="submission-requirements-initial-submission-template"
>The initial submission MUST be made using
<a
href="https://github.com/w3c/wot-binding-registry/issues/new?template=binding_transition_current.yaml"
>the corresponding issue template</a
>
and conform to the requirements defined in the template.</span>
<span class="rfc2119-assertion" id="submission-requirements-req-content"
>Initial entry MUST be a correct document which complies with <a href="#req-content"></a> and
<a href="#req-docs"></a>.
</span>
<span class="rfc2119-assertion" id="submission-requirements-IANA-registration-provisional">
The submitter MAY do a provisional registration of the URI Scheme at IANA.
</span>
The reviewer does not need to check whether the binding tries to map <code>readproperty</code> to a
non-existent HTTP method. A successful initial document triggers a "Call for Implementation".
</p>
<p>
<span class="rfc2119-assertion" id="submission-requirements-reviewer">
The custodian MUST assign at least one reviewer who is a WoT expert for an initial submission.
</span>
</p>
</section>
<section id="req-trancurr">
<h4>Transition from <code>Initial</code> to <code>Current</code></h4>
<ul>
<li>
<span class="rfc2119-assertion" id="submission-requirements-initial-current-transition-template"
>The transition to the current state MUST be made using
<a
href="https://github.com/w3c/wot-binding-registry/issues/new?template=binding_transition_current.yaml"
>the corresponding issue template</a
>
and conform to the requirements defined in the template.</span>
</li>
<li>
<span class="rfc2119-assertion" id="submission-requirements-transition-current-full-iana-registration">
The URI Scheme MUST be registered as a full registration at IANA for this transition.
</span>
<span
class="rfc2119-assertion"
id="submission-requirements-transition-iana-registration-submitter-trigger"
>
The submitter SHOULD trigger the registration at IANA.
</span>
<span
class="rfc2119-assertion"
id="submission-requirements-transition-iana-registration-custodian-trigger"
>
If needed, the custodian MAY trigger the IANA registration.
</span>
</li>
<li>
<span class="rfc2119-assertion" id="transition-current-reviews">
The transition MUST be reviewed from the protocol specification and WoT point of views and result in
two separate review documents.</span>
</li>
<li>
<span class="rfc2119-assertion" id="transition-current-reviewers">
The custodian SHOULD assign at least two reviewers, one of whom is an expert in the binding's
target specification and another who is a WoT expert.</span>
Thus, it is possible that the same person can be both reviewers if they are experts in both the
binding's target specification and WoT. Nevertheless, two separate reviews need to be done as
explained in the point above.
</li>
<li>
<span class="rfc2119-assertion" id="submission-requirements-transition-submission"
>Starting from the initial submission, each binding MUST demonstrate a certain level of concrete
development maturity.</span>
This process involves real-world testing, which can take place in Plugfests, independent testing events,
or even informal collaboration between developers. These testing events do not have to be organized by
W3C and can be conducted remotely, including over VPN. The goal is to demonstrate that the binding
correctly maps protocol operations and is well understood by at least two parties.
</li>
<li>
<span class="rfc2119-assertion" id="submission-requirements-transition-validated"
>At each testing event,
<a href="#dfn-execution-binding-instance">every operation defined in the binding MUST be validated</a>
automatically (e.g., scripts, test suites, etc.).</span>
<span class="rfc2119-assertion" id="submission-requirements-transition-dedicated-document"
>The results MUST be published in a dedicated document (README, or other human-readable documents)
called <em>Test Report</em>.</span>
</li>
<li>
<em>Test Report</em>
<ul>
<li>
<span class="rfc2119-assertion" id="submission-requirements-test-report-information"
>A <em>Test Report</em> MUST contain information on the testing environment.</span>
</li>
<li>
<span class="rfc2119-assertion" id="submission-requirements-test-report-logical-process"
>A <em>Test Report</em> MUST provide an example of the logical process (not necessarily code)
about how a TD can be processed to establish a communication between consumer and exposer.</span>
</li>
<li>
<span class="rfc2119-assertion" id="submission-requirements-test-report-scenario"
>A <em>Test Report</em> MUST contain information about the scenario that was tested, e.g.
controlling the room temperature by measuring temperature and adjusting the heater.</span>
</li>
<li>
<span class="rfc2119-assertion" id="submission-requirements-test-report-implementation-experience"
>A <em>Test Report</em> MUST explain where discussions on implementation experience should be
collected.</span>
</li>
<li>
<span class="rfc2119-assertion" id="submission-requirements-test-report-history"
>A <em>Test Report</em> SHOULD provide the history of all the past testing events (or explain how
to retrieve the history of the results gathered during those events).</span>
</li>
<li>
<span class="rfc2119-assertion" id="submission-requirements-test-report-reference"
>A <em>Test Report</em> SHOULD contain a reference to the
<a href="#dfn-binding-implementation">implementations of Consumers or Exposers</a>.</span>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>
<span class="rfc2119-assertion" id="submission-requirements-test-report-implementation"
>The <em>Test Report</em> MUST contain at least one implementation of a Consumer</span>
(capable of understanding and performing all the operations described in the binding) and one Exposer
(capable of handling all the operations and features described in the binding and optionally be able to
create a valid TD). Additional implementations can be added even after the transition to the Current.
</li>
<li>
The exact contents of the Test Report is not decided yet. See
<a href="https://github.com/w3c/wot-binding-registry/issues/3">https://github.com/w3c/wot-binding-registry/issues/3</a>
</li>
<li>
<span class="rfc2119-assertion" id="submission-requirements-test-report-published"
><em>Test Reports</em> and related resources SHOULD be published in a public git repository.</span>
<span class="rfc2119-assertion" id="submission-requirements-test-report-public"
>The repository containing the test reports and related resources MUST be accessible to the reviewers
and the custodian.</span>
</li>
<li>
Collaboration between the custodian, reviewers, and submitters is highly encouraged, ideally through a
Plugfest or another structured testing session where different implementations can be evaluated
collectively.
</li>
</ul>
</section>
<section>
<h4>Transition from <code>Current</code> to <code>Superseded</code></h4>
<p>
Superseding a binding allows the custodian to recommend a newer version of a binding while still keeping
the older version available for reference.
<span class="rfc2119-assertion" id="submission-requirements-transition-superseded"
>When a new version of a binding is accepted as <code>Current</code>, the previous
<code>Current</code> version MUST be transitioned to <code>Superseded</code>.</span>
No additional reviews are necessary as the reviewers of the new version would have already reviewed the
previous version as part of their review process.
<span class="rfc2119-assertion" id="submission-requirements-current-superseded-transition-template"
>While this transition happens automatically with a new binding transitioning to current,
<a
href="https://github.com/w3c/wot-binding-registry/issues/new?template=binding_transition_superseded.yaml"
>this transition issue template</a
>
MAY be used for triggering a transition additionally.</span>
</p>
</section>
<section>
<h4>Transition from <code>Current</code> to <code>Obsolete</code></h4>
<p>
<span class="rfc2119-assertion" id="submission-requirements-transition-current-obsolete">
An entry MAY be transitioned to <code>Obsolete</code> from <code>Current</code> if the that binding is
not recommended for use.
</span>
<span class="rfc2119-assertion" id="submission-requirements-initial-current-obsolete-template"
>The transition to the obsolete state from current MUST be made using
<a
href="https://github.com/w3c/wot-binding-registry/issues/new?template=binding_transition_obsolete.yaml"
>the corresponding issue template</a
>
and conform to the requirements defined in the template.</span>
</p>
</section>
<section>
<h4>Transition from <code>Superseded</code> to <code>Obsolete</code></h4>
<p>
<span class="rfc2119-assertion" id="submission-requirements-transition-superseded-obsolete">
An entry MAY be transitioned to <code>Obsolete</code> from <code>Superseded</code> if the that binding
is not recommended for use anymore.
</span>
<span class="rfc2119-assertion" id="submission-requirements-initial-superseded-obsolete-template"
>The transition to the obsolete state from superseded MUST be made using
<a
href="https://github.com/w3c/wot-binding-registry/issues/new?template=binding_transition_obsolete.yaml"
>the corresponding issue template</a
>
and conform to the requirements defined in the template.</span>
</p>
</section>
<section>
<h4>Transition from <code>Initial</code> to <code>Superseded</code></h4>
<p>
<span class="rfc2119-assertion" id="submission-requirements-transition-initial-superseded">
An entry MAY be transitioned to <code>Superseded</code> from <code>Initial</code> if another entry will
continue development and maintenance.
</span>
<span class="rfc2119-assertion" id="submission-requirements-current-initial-transition-template"
>While this transition happens automatically with a new binding transitioning to initial or current,
<a
href="https://github.com/w3c/wot-binding-registry/issues/new?template=binding_transition_superseded.yaml"
>this transition issue template</a
>
MAY be used for triggering a transition additionally.</span>
</p>
</section>
<section>
<h4>Transition from <code>Initial</code> to <code>Obsolete</code></h4>
<p>
<span class="rfc2119-assertion" id="submission-requirements-transition-initial-obsolete">
An entry MAY be transitioned to <code>Obsolete</code> from <code>Initial</code> if the that binding is
not recommended for use or testing anymore.
</span>
<span class="rfc2119-assertion" id="submission-requirements-initial-obsolete-template"
>The transition to the obsolete state from initial MUST be made using
<a
href="https://github.com/w3c/wot-binding-registry/issues/new?template=binding_transition_obsolete.yaml"
>the corresponding issue template</a
>
and conform to the requirements defined in the template.</span>
</p>
</section>
</section>
<section id="req-content">
<h3>Content</h3>
<p>
Registry entries are expected to contain a human-readable document describing the binding. In order to
ensure a certain level of consistency and to make it easier for developers to understand how the binding
works and to implement it, the document is expected to contain specific sections. As protocol bindings and
media type bindings are expected to have different content, the requirements are different for each of them.
<span class="rfc2119-assertion" id="submission-requirements-content-findability">
While the order of the sections is not strict, the required sections MUST be present in the document with
the names defined in the respective types of bindings.
</span>
This allows readers to easily find the required sections. The submitters are encouraged to look at the
existing submissions.
</p>
<p>