W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wot-ig@w3.org > December 2016

Re: [Charter]: include both Scripting and REST API

From: Kis, Zoltan <zoltan.kis@intel.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2016 13:32:09 +0200
Message-ID: <CANrNqUdkEQ8Bw-ui522gzseZEC19+UdH_MKdzzqCx+46dmgktw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dominique Guinard <dom@evrythng.com>
Cc: Public Web of Things IG <public-wot-ig@w3.org>
On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 12:41 PM, Dominique Guinard <dom@evrythng.com> wrote:

> Web Things Model https://www.w3.org/Submission/2015/SUBM-wot-
> model-20150824/
>

Thanks Dom! When I started looking into WoT, this submission actually
helped me a lot in understanding what WoT is about. I have found it clear
and useful.

Also, there's been a contribution from Ari Keränen:
https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-keranen-t2trg-rest-iot-03.txt

Our own IoT REST API follows OCF, but could be adapted:
https://github.com/01org/iot-rest-api-server
This is to complement our scripting APIs:
https://github.com/01org/iot-js-api/tree/ocf-1.1.0/api/ocf
(implemented by e.g. https://github.com/otcshare/iotivity-node; there are
other implementations as well).

However, Dave is also right about the need to map Pub-Sub and SSE in WoT.
IMHO this can be solved in a number of ways (architectural recommendations,
by including metadata to topic messages etc) when/where these are not a
limitation. Ari may have input on best possible mappings from resources
(REST) to topics (e.g. MQTT). There are a number of ways this may be done.
The point is we don't need to solve it right now, we just need discussion
and decision about could the WoT WG work on a REST spec as well.

Of course this has implications. The Scripting and the REST APIs would
share the same use cases and requirements. Developers could pick either or
both for their solutions. Also, they need to be tested against each other.

Best regards,
Zoltan
Received on Thursday, 8 December 2016 11:32:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 8 December 2016 11:32:45 UTC