AW: thing descriptions

Hi Dave,

that’s a good point. On the other hand we can just simple rely on an existing standard. I think, this is also an interesting discussion for the breakout session in 2 weeks.

Best wishes
Sebastian

Von: Dave Raggett [mailto:dsr@w3.org]
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 15. Juli 2015 20:44
An: Kaebisch, Sebastian
Cc: public-wot-ig@w3.org
Betreff: Re: thing descriptions


On 15 Jul 2015, at 17:11, Kaebisch, Sebastian <sebastian.kaebisch@siemens.com<mailto:sebastian.kaebisch@siemens.com>> wrote:

typically, RDF data relies on a type system coming from XSD declarations. Using this, we can declare and use data types which are mainly relevant for highly resource constrained devices such as byte, short, enums, etc..

Hi Sebastian,

Right, and we can take advantage of this. However, it will be worth looking for a way to minimise the overheads in simple data models. Can we avoid having to give namespace prefixes by using the default context to bind common terms to the full URI, e.g. can we say “boolean” rather than “xsd:boolean".  I believe that it will be very important to listen to web developers, who want simple notations and who in the past have shown low tolerance for name space prefixes (e.g. in HTML). Another issue is the verbosity of XSD data types, e.g. “unsignedInt” compared to “uint32”.  Long strings are costly for constrained devices and protocols with short packet sizes.

Best regards,
—
   Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org<mailto:dsr@w3.org>>