Re: [WoT IG] to converge on WoT architecture

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> 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>>
> 
> 
>