Re: 3. WoT Thing needs to have meta Band

For the record, I never proposed the computers should declare themselves as
heaters, only that they could. For further information, contact the "Down
Jackets for Freezing CS Students Because Of Cloud Computing Society, University
of Karlsruhe"

The nice thing with flexible modelling languages and metadata is one can
add novel information in the future if it proves to be useful in reality.

D.

On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 1:14 PM, Hasan Derhamy <hasan.derhamy@ltu.se> wrote:

> Hi,
>
>
>
> Two cents:
>
> A)     A “Thing” can produce heat, and so it this can be described in its
> metadata.
>
> B)      A “Thing” is functionally a heater.
>
> If a thing is functionally not a heater but a computer then it should not
> declare itself as such. But if it produces heat, then having this as a
> searchable property sounds like potential for pretty smart algorithms.
>
>
>
> -Hasan
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* T2TRG [mailto:t2trg-bounces@irtf.org] *On Behalf Of *Lynn, James
> (Application Defender / Fortify on Demand)
> *Sent:* den 27 januari 2016 17:30
> *To:* David Janes; Carsten Bormann
> *Cc:* public-wot-ig@w3.org; t2trg@irtf.org
> *Subject:* Re: [T2TRG] 3. WoT Thing needs to have meta Band
>
>
>
> Can you clarify something regarding this example?
>
>
>
> A ‘real’ heater typically has a thermostat which can be set to some value.
> A computer, etc. does not. So they are different ‘types’ of heaters. One
> proposal seems to be saying it is useful to know that a computer can be
> used as a heater but not necessary. Another is that ‘things do what they
> say they do’. Are we proposing that a computer may declare that it is a
> heater? Or would your approach suggest that some other property lets us
> know that it generates heat, in which case I’m guessing that the lack of a
> thermostat property and/or the absence of a setTemperature property allows
> us to differentiate between ‘real’ heaters and devices that may be used as
> a heater?
>
>
>
> Or perhaps the view is that it really doesn’t matter, it’s outside the
> spec?
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> J Lynn
>
>
>
> *From:* davidjanes@gmail.com [mailto:davidjanes@gmail.com
> <davidjanes@gmail.com>] *On Behalf Of *David Janes
> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 27, 2016 5:18 AM
> *To:* Carsten Bormann
> *Cc:* t2trg@irtf.org; public-wot-ig@w3.org
> *Subject:* Re: 3. WoT Thing needs to have meta Band
>
>
>
> So this gets into one of the principals I'd like to promote, that:
>
>    - things do what they say they do
>    - things are what they say they are
>
> So if you have an old Pentium in the basement that you'd like to heat the
> room (or the student's computer pool room at Karlsruhe), you can add
> "iot-facet:climate.heating" to the metadata facets. When some client wants
> to heat up the room, they introspect the environment, find that there's a
> device that (says its) a heater and turn it on.
>
>
>
> D.
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 5:08 AM, Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> wrote:
>
> > "iot-facet:climate.heating",
>
> But maybe I don't need to know that something was sold as a heating?
> Switching on the computer may heat my room fine.
>
> Most people who build computers won't think of the fact that it also can
> serve as a 200 W heater.  Or TVs, lamps; ...
>
> Knowing the purpose of a thing certainly is useful, but knowing the
> actual effect may be more useful.
>
> (But maybe you can make those facets fine-granular enough that they are
> useful for searching for a particular effect.)
>
> Grüße, Carsten
>
>
>

Received on Wednesday, 27 January 2016 20:10:49 UTC