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 17:20:30 +0200
Message-ID: <CANrNqUfZOxkSXE5ZLqna731Z-Q5ukOFB=dr1HNLZiUaqCnWESA@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Kovatsch, Matthias" <matthias.kovatsch@siemens.com>
Cc: "dsr@w3.org" <dsr@w3.org>, "public-wot-ig@w3.org" <public-wot-ig@w3.org>, "dom@evrythng.com" <dom@evrythng.com>
Hi Matthias,

I agree with all your points, but I don't see how do they relate to this
discussion.
We need to specify _how_ are we using REST for our use cases.
That work is better carried out in the WoT WG.
I don't understand what is not clear about the request.
Also, the proposal @domguinard mentioned defines the context quite well:
https://www.w3.org/Submission/2015/SUBM-wot-model-20150824/

I try to understand/reformulate your concern: are you saying WoT does not
need to standardize any REST API at all, _because_ a Scripting API is a
better abstraction?

If that is the concern, then we have a divergent view on this in the group.
Some members say REST API is enough and they are not even interested in
Scripting API, some say Scripting API is enough and let's not do REST at
all, some (like me) say we need both.

What about letting people choose what they need? Is it a problem if the WG
would be working on both a REST and a Scripting API?

Best regards,
Zoltan


On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 2:27 PM, Kovatsch, Matthias <
matthias.kovatsch@siemens.com> wrote:

> For a clearer discussion, could you maybe specify your assumptions of a
> REST API? Due to the different backgrounds of the group members, we need to
> be careful with wording...
>
> Do you expect a specification how people have to name their resources,
> what request has to be sent, and what responses are to be expected?
>
> Once this is clear, how does a Thing Description that has a common
> vocabulary to annotate links, encode forms, and provides a schema to enrich
> reusable representation formats not provide for a REST API?
>
> Best regards
> Matthias
>
>
>
> Sent from my phone, limitations might apply.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> *From:* Kis, Zoltan [zoltan.kis@intel.com]
> *Received:* Thursday, 08 Dec 2016, 13:11
> *To:* Dave Raggett [dsr@w3.org]
> *CC:* Dominique Guinard [dom@evrythng.com]; Public Web of Things IG [
> public-wot-ig@w3.org]
> *Subject:* Re: [Charter]: include both Scripting and REST API
>
> [We'd need to set the WoT github repo to send emails on issue comments...]
>
> On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 1:36 PM, Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org> wrote:
>
>> Just to point out that W3C already has a standard API for REST as part of
>> the Open Web Platform, so we would need to justify why a new API is needed.
>>
>>
> That's a good point. Which one did you mean? I have found these:
> https://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/charter (expired), general spec here:
> https://www.w3.org/TR/ldp/
> https://www.w3.org/community/hydra/ (http://www.hydra-cg.com/spec/
> latest/core/ )
>
> The above are good input for WoT REST. The latter is a special
> application, with specific use cases (which are shared with the WoT
> Scripting API). We can't expect to work on a WoT REST API in that WG/CG,
> right? For instance Thing Descriptions are not discussed there, either.
>
> We can discuss and then embrace, drop or transfer REST API work, but the
> point is, can we arrive to this in the WoT WG, and does the WoT WG charter
> allow working on that.
>
> Thanks,
> Zoltan
>
>
Received on Thursday, 8 December 2016 15:21:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 8 December 2016 15:21:11 UTC