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

AW: [TF-TD] Next web meeting

From: Charpenay, Victor (ext) <victor.charpenay@siemens.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2015 13:50:42 +0000
To: "dsr@w3.org" <dsr@w3.org>
CC: "public-wot-ig@w3.org" <public-wot-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <6E3FA85ED8C35E42B0F7DE1E44FD0C9FF21965@DENBGAT9EL5MSX.ww902.siemens.net>
Indeed, thanks.

This is even an additional motivation to reuse existing vocabularies (here, Hydra for the definition of REST interfaces) if more than one interaction model have to be defined.

Von: Dave Raggett [mailto:dsr@w3.org]
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 17. September 2015 15:01
An: Charpenay, Victor (ext)
Cc: public-wot-ig@w3.org
Betreff: Re: [TF-TD] Next web meeting

   On 17 Sep 2015, at 13:32, Charpenay, Victor (ext) <victor.charpenay@siemens.com<mailto:victor.charpenay@siemens.com>> wrote:

   I guess there is a large consensus in this group that using HATEOAS is the best option for  a WoT interaction model.

   I think that is a little premature.  We need to gather the views of broader communities of stakeholders and actively seek out the views of people from different backgrounds and perspectives. For instance, web developers focusing on scripting, people interested in pub-sub protocols like MQTT and XMPP, as well as those focusing on REST and HATEOAS.

   My suggestion would be for the Interest Group to collect a variety of different approaches and gain implementation experience with them, and see which ones have the broadest appeal across the respective communities.


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

Received on Thursday, 17 September 2015 13:51:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:26:45 UTC