W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wot-ig@w3.org > May 2015

Re: [WoT IG] to converge on WoT architecture

From: Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 19 May 2015 17:01:49 +0100
Cc: "Heuer, Joerg" <Joerg.Heuer@siemens.com>, "public-wot-ig@w3.org" <public-wot-ig@w3.org>
Message-Id: <F8A19A36-123C-468A-94E7-8D0C1D034069@w3.org>
To: Vlad Trifa <vlad@evrythng.com>
The Web of Things goes well with the Internet of Things (one is built on the other) and both terms are well established.

My web page web of things library for browsers is currently limited to proxying things hosted on servers, but in principle, it could be extended to support peer to peer connections with other browsers via WebRTC, or even indirectly via a web of things server, although I am not sure of the use cases for this right now.

Thanks for sharing your proposal. It seems to be limited to HTTP and moreover doesn’t seem to cover the PATCH method which is handy for REST when you only want to change a small part of the state.  Constrained devices may want to use CoAP or MQTT. Pub-sub protocols like XMPP and MQTT are convenient when you have an unlimited number of clients/proxies for a given thing. I wonder why you limit things to the physical world?

Cheers,
  Dave

> On 19 May 2015, at 13:44, Vlad Trifa <vlad@evrythng.com> wrote:
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> How about simply "Web Thing"? Because the Web of Things is made of Things - Web Things. It seems simple enough to be useful & reusable. 
> 
> A Web Thing should automatically imply that it's a server, otherwise it's not accessible over the Web. 
> 
> What might be a useful term though is "Web Thing Client" or "Web of Things Client", which means it can access, read, and control other Web Things, but doesn't expose its services on the Web. 
> 
> This is what we've proposed in our proposal here: bit.ly/wot-label <http://bit.ly/wot-label> --> feedback very welcome!
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> Vlad
> 
>  
> --
> vlad trifa, phd //// 
> co-founder, head of r&d + innovation 
> m +44 750 888 2051 // w evrythng.com <http://evrythng.net/>
> t @vladounet /////// w vladtrifa.com <http://vladtrifa.com/>
>> On 19 May 2015, at 11:52, Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org <mailto:dsr@w3.org>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> On 18 May 2015, at 19:42, Heuer, Joerg <Joerg.Heuer@siemens.com <mailto:Joerg.Heuer@siemens.com>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> So I did the exercise to draft some architecture aspects from my view point and share
>>>  
>>> a)      the attached slides showing those aspects (I assume they are not self explanatory yet, but for sure you have some associations ;-) and
>>> b)      the plantUML source code, so you can edit or augment the figures e.g. with an online editor e.g. [PlantText]
>>>  
>>> In the webconf tomorrow I can give a brief introduction to the slides, but even more important we need to discuss if we can agree to take plantUML for joint editing of these views and understanding. It is my understanding that in parallel Johannes is conducting some experiments to integrate plantUML figure generation into github so we not have to share two documents as done for illustration above but can work on a single one.
>>>  
>>> So please share your ideas on this.
>> 
>> Thanks for sharing this with us.  Any particular reason why the term “wot servient” has been introduced here? For me, Web of Things Server is clearer — it is a web server that hosts things.
>> 
>> My implementation work, and my look at microcontrollers suggests that a critical part of the architecture will be the metadata and the need to cleanly separate descriptions of things, security and communications related aspects.  One example is to cover the possibility that some servers will batch data and even multiplex data from different sensors.
>> 
>> Best regards,
>> 
>> —
>>    Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org <mailto:dsr@w3.org>>
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 

—
   Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org <mailto:dsr@w3.org>>




Received on Tuesday, 19 May 2015 16:02:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:26:33 UTC