> On 25 Sep 2017, at 09:38, Charpenay, Victor <victor.charpenay@siemens.com> wrote: > > > (By the way, Dave, the first choice you presented has the drawback that non-standard extensions, such as custom HTTP header fields, could not be declared in a TD.) A given standard could allow for that and we could then provide a means for their declaration in the TD as metadata for use with that standard. This is very much simpler than having a fully general declarative machine interpretable description of most standards. I don’t see how a fully general declarative approach can be feasible. Individual standards are sufficiently complex that recasting them as a machine interpretable declarative representation is really tough. Finding a more general declarative representation that covers a broad range of standards will be even tougher. To recap, my recommendation is that the communications metadata identify the standard used to communicate with a thing and any associated metadata. Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org> http://www.w3.org/People/Raggett W3C champion for the Web of things & W3C Data Activity Lead
Received on Monday, 25 September 2017 10:25:10 UTC