- From: Drasko DRASKOVIC <drasko.draskovic@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2015 09:21:07 +0200
- To: "Anicic, Darko" <darko.anicic@siemens.com>
- Cc: Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org>, "Bassbouss, Louay" <louay.bassbouss@fokus.fraunhofer.de>, Public Web of Things IG <public-wot-ig@w3.org>, michaeljohnkoster@gmail.com
Hi Dave, On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 9:02 AM, Anicic, Darko <darko.anicic@siemens.com> wrote: > Hi Dave, > > > > Von: Dave Raggett [mailto:dsr@w3.org] > Gesendet: Donnerstag, 1. Oktober 2015 13:47 > An: Bassbouss, Louay > Cc: Public Web of Things IG > Betreff: [tf-td] WoT metadata > When it comes to how to represent thing data models, it is no longer clear > to me that JSON-LD is a particularly good fit, as a result I am now looking > at alternatives. Some stakeholders are committed to XML, whilst Web > developers will prefer very lean JSON based representations. RDF as the > formal underpinning is important for scalability, but this shouldn’t be a > burden on application developers, especially Web developers. +1 for JSON. oneM2M started with XML, but I think it is more cruft of telecom operators (more inertion). All modern IoT platforms I have seen so far use JSON for data serialization. >From perspective of embedded engineer, what we should look at is CBOR: http://cbor.io/, a standardized binary representation that you would prefer using on your constrained devices. Maybe Michael Koster tell us more, but I think that there are already big efforts in including CBOR in new version of LwM2M (which AFAIK does not even support XML). Probably oneM2M will follow. Json2cbor mapping can be achieved relatively easy, which is one more reason of sticking to JSON. BR, Drasko
Received on Sunday, 4 October 2015 16:44:23 UTC