Changes to draft charter

[egekorkan]

Feedback for https://w3c.github.io/wot/charters/wot-wg-2025-draft.html from my personal point of view.

Note: These can be moved to separate issues.

• remove such as Digital Twins and integration with edge and cloud systems. as these are not use cases in my point of view
• Thus, the WG will define core binding and profiling mechanisms. The binding mechanism has been defined so I would at least reword it. I don't want to give an impression that we need fresh work here.
• Remove architecture from normative deliverables
• Remove Discovery from normative deliverables unless we have new PR-making contributors in the next 3 weeks. This can be moved to tentative deliverables
• Adjust the deliverable of Profile -> Do we want a registry? In that case, profiles are not normative, thus the Profile (Update) needs to be adjusted. I would also say that without Ben's funding, there is no one to work on the spec (or specs if we go for a registry), so I would put it under tentative.
• Add WoT Binding Registry to normative deliverables
• Change the Binding Registry to manage specific protocols, Payloads and Ecosystems (W3C Registry) to WoT Bindings

[benfrancis]

+1 to all of these points, with one comment on Profiles:

Adjust the deliverable of Profile -> Do we want a registry? In that case, profiles are not normative, thus the Profile (Update) needs to be adjusted. I would also say that without Ben's funding, there is no one to work on the spec (or specs if we go for a registry), so I would put it under tentative.

My current personal preference would be for a WoT Profiles 2.0 specification to be a Recommendation track document which defines a (refined) Profiling Mechanism and Profile Registry - including a registry definition and embedded registry table. The actual Profile specifications could be Group Notes.

I would also be open to the profiling mechanism being defined in the Thing Description specification and having the Profile Registry as a standalone Registry track document to mirror the model used for Bindings, but that might be a lot of extra text to add to the TD spec.

Resources could certainly be a problem for writing the Profiles specification (possibly for other specifications too), but I think we have demonstrated significant interest from multiple implementors.