W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-device-apis@w3.org > February 2010

Re: Sensors simplified (or not)

From: Max Froumentin <maxfro@opera.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 17:00:27 +0100
Message-ID: <4B74299B.5090401@opera.com>
To: "Nilsson, Claes1" <Claes1.Nilsson@sonyericsson.com>
CC: "public-device-apis@w3.org" <public-device-apis@w3.org>
Hi Claes,

On 11/02/2010 16:01, Nilsson, Claes1 wrote:
> Hi Max,
> I like this idea. It is more generic and provides possibilities for
> extensions. Assume we need some sensor discovery method?

To me, the best way would be to use the extensibility mechanism built 
into SysInfo. The specification defines a finite number of properties 
("CPU", short for "http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/sysinfo/CPU", "Battery", 
"AmbientNoise, etc.), among which the 5 sensor types currently in the 

If someone wishes to add an extra property not defined in the 
specification, then they use their own URIs, e.g.
but without short names.

Therefore, there's no discovery. DAP currently defines 5 sensor APIs, 
which a conforming implementation must support if it has the 
corresponding sensors. Outside of that, it's not DAP's problem.

Adding a discovery mechanism on top wouldn't provide the semantics of 
discovered sensors. If my webapp discovers a list of sensors, how will 
it know which one is a sphygmomanometer?

Received on Thursday, 11 February 2010 16:01:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:45:57 UTC