Re: Call for WoT Implementations

Hi Daniel,

yes, I can join. I think explaining would take about 5min, depending on 
how many questions you have, 10-15min for this topic should be OK.

bergi

Am 22.08.2016 um 13:53 schrieb Peintner, Daniel (ext):
> 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/

Received on Tuesday, 23 August 2016 09:37:22 UTC