WIP: swap securtiy and securityDefinition in context file

[sebastiankb]

This PR will fix the bug #915.

There some open questions:

• Why do we have two context files, td-context-1.1.jsonld and td-context.jsonld?
• There seems no definition for td:securityDefinitions, nor in validation or security ttl file:

@vcharpenay may I ask you to check this.

[sebastiankb]

From today's TD telko we should check if this is just a typo: td:securityDefinitions --> td:security ?

@sebastiankb will check this

[danielpeintner]

I believe that the file context/td-context-1.1.jsonld is a merge from several other files like context/td-context.jsonld

[sebastiankb]

from today's TD call:

• it turned out that the context deinition is correct, however, it is uncompleted
• @vcharpenay will have look and will complete the security / securityDefinition in the contex
• there is a related PR: WIP: Simplified inline security definitions #945

[mmccool]

I see there were a lot of changes to these definitions as part of the render script (PR #951) as well. Do we have to rebase this now, and/or has the issue been dealt with already?

[sebastiankb]

from today's TD call:

• not ready to merge
• @vcharpenay how much time do you need to fix this issue (if possible)?

[mmccool]

So I'm trying to understand what's going on here. It looks like the definitions for "security" and "securityDefinitions" got munged together somehow. Right now, in the rendered spec, there is only "security", and its description is correct, but the type is wrong, it should be array of strings (or one string). And "securityDefinitions" is missing, but should be "Map of SecurityScheme". The thing is... the published spec at https://www.w3.org/TR/wot-thing-description/#thing is correct. So something broke it along the way.

BTW I wanted to based my "additionalSchemas" proposal for "additionalResults" on the setup for "securityDefinitions" but...

[mmccool]

Also, I don't think the PR fixes the problem, the definitions under "ontology" and elsewhere seem to have gone AWOL. Although the PR may fix a problem.

[sebastiankb]

From today's TD call:

• we need a round trip for security definitions
• @vcharpenay will provide a PR
• @mmccool will have a 1:1 meeting with @vcharpenay

[sebastiankb]

form today's TD call: @vcharpenay is this PR still relevant or can we close it?

[sebastiankb]

from today's TD call, PR is not relevant anymore.