Is the @type ThingID defined anywhere?

[benfrancis]

I note that in the (normative) Thing Model used in the API specification for the Directory Service API uses semantic annotations to explain to a Consumer that certain URI variables are Thing IDs. E.g.

"retrieveThing": {
            "description": "Retrieve a Thing Description",
            "uriVariables": {
                "id": {
                    "@type": "ThingID",
                    "title": "Thing Description ID",
                    "type": "string",
                    "format": "iri-reference"
                }
            },
            "output": {
                "description": "The schema is implied by the content type",
                "type": "object"
            },
            "safe": true,
            "idempotent": true,
            "forms": [
                {
                    "href": "/things/{id}",
                    "htv:methodName": "GET",
                    "response": {
                        "description": "Success response",
                        "htv:statusCodeValue": 200,
                        "contentType": "application/td+json"
                    },
                    "additionalResponses": [
                        {
                            "description": "TD with the given id not found",
                            "contentType": "application/problem+json",
                            "htv:statusCodeValue": 404
                        }
                    ]
                }
            ]
        },

I really like this approach of helping a Consumer to understand dynamic resources, but I can't find the term "ThingID" specified anywhere. In particular, I can't see it specified in the discovery context linked to at the top of the Thing Model (https://www.w3.org/2022/wot/discovery).

Have I missed something, or is this an oversight?

[JKRhb]

Have I missed something, or is this an oversight?

Partly because the term expands to https://www.w3.org/2019/wot/td#ThingID when using a JSON-LD processor while not being present in the TD ontology, this definitely seems like an oversight to me :/ Because of the IRI pointing to the TD ontology, I am wondering, though, whether this term should be defined there or rather in the discovery ontology.