AW: Call for WoT Implementations

Hi bergi,

> I can try to join the next call, if you would like to discuss this topic.

I think that makes most sense. You can find webconf details on
https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/IG_WebConf

Please let me know whether you can join this weeks call and how much time you would need to explain your point of view and we will arrange also time for discussions.

Michael Koster planned to look into Hydra also.

Thanks,

-- Daniel




________________________________
Von: bergi [bergi@axolotlfarm.org]
Gesendet: Dienstag, 16. August 2016 23:10
An: Peintner, Daniel (ext) (CT RDA NEC EMB-DE)
Cc: Hydra; public-wot-ig@w3.org; public-web-of-things@w3.org
Betreff: Re: Call for WoT Implementations

Hi Daniel,

Am 11.08.2016 um 11:23 schrieb Peintner, Daniel (ext):
>> I have seen Hydra was mentioned in some older posts and wiki pages. Now
>> it looks like this group will create a new hypermedia API spec with the
>> Thing Description [3]. I was looking for mail or wiki page that contains
>> the arguments for that decision, but I haven't found anything. Is there
>> something written? Can you give me a link?
>
> Unfortunately I do not recall a discussion and scanning emails didn't
> help either.
> I added your comment under the "technical discussions" topic for the
> next webconf.
>
> Do you want to provide some further feedback or join a webconf to give
> some more insights?
>

Actually, I would like to solve problems one level higher. Because of
the increasing number of things, I expect rules for actuators will be
not be configured or programmed in the near future. Instead, machine
learning will be used. That's the problem I would like to solve. It will
be a generic solution for any RDF data. Therefore I would like to have a
clean separation of RDF data and API description. But the API
description should be defined for the RDF model. In the properties and
actions of the Thing Description [1], names are used for referencing.
That's serialization dependent. Also using the hrefs property requires
to define it for every instance. Hydra defines the operations for RDF
classes and RDF properties. Because of that, the named nodes of the
actual data can be used. For example, I've defined a class "Apartment"
with a property "room" [2]. The triples of the apartment point to the
rooms [3]. So by defining which rooms the apartment has, it also
describes where to call the operations. Hydra was defined for HTTP only.
But I think it would be easy to extend the existing spec for other
protocols or defining a new ontology which extends the Hydra ontology.

I can try to join the next call, if you would like to discuss this topic.

bergi

[1]
http://w3c.github.io/wot/current-practices/wot-practices.html#quick-start-td-samples
[2]
https://github.com/bergos/dark-horse-server/blob/master/public/vocab.ttl#L19
[3] http://dark-horse.bergnet.org/