- From: Kovatsch, Matthias <matthias.kovatsch@siemens.com>
- Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2016 10:02:10 +0000
- To: "dsr@w3.org" <dsr@w3.org>, "Soumya-Kanti.Datta@eurecom.fr" <Soumya-Kanti.Datta@eurecom.fr>
- CC: "public-wot-ig@w3.org" <public-wot-ig@w3.org>
Could you please attach this doc? The lifetime is a standard RD mechanism. I have been pushing for using the RD interface for our TD repo, since it solves most of our problems there. Michael already outlined how we envision the combination of RD and TD repo. Best regards Matthias Sent from my Android phone using Symantec TouchDown (www.symantec.com) -----Original Message----- From: Soumya Kanti Datta [Soumya-Kanti.Datta@eurecom.fr] Received: Friday, 22 Apr 2016, 11:27 To: Kovatsch, Matthias [matthias.kovatsch@siemens.com]; dsr@w3.org [dsr@w3.org] CC: public-wot-ig@w3.org [public-wot-ig@w3.org] Subject: Re: thing description question Hi Matthias, Check the IPSO Alliance doc, it mentions using CoRE Link Format for thing description. For LwM2M - the spec defines a "Lifetime" attribute (consider it as a time period T sec) which enables "automatic" management. Things connected to a LwM2M server must announce itself to the server once every T sec otherwise the server will remove its TD. Soumya Research Engineer, EURECOM, France | +33658194342 | @skdatta2010 | https://sites.google.com/site/skdunfolded | Skype id: soumyakantidatta On 22-04-2016 01:23, Kovatsch, Matthias wrote: > Hi Soumya > > Could you elaborate a bit more what you mean by "use CoRE Link Format for TD"? > > LWM2M uses it pretty straight-forward as intended in the RFC and RD draft. There nothing in there that would enable "automatic management" (at least for what I would understand under automatic). > > Best regards > Matthias > > > > Sent from my Android phone using Symantec TouchDown (www.symantec.com<http://www.symantec.com>) > > -----Original Message----- > From: Dave Raggett [dsr@w3.org] > Received: Thursday, 21 Apr 2016, 19:11 > To: Soumya Kanti Datta [Soumya-Kanti.Datta@eurecom.fr] > CC: public-wot-ig@w3.org [public-wot-ig@w3.org] > Subject: Re: thing description question > > > On 21 Apr 2016, at 10:42, Soumya Kanti Datta <Soumya-Kanti.Datta@eurecom.fr<mailto:Soumya-Kanti.Datta@eurecom.fr>> wrote: > > With the semantic based TD, how can we use it for automatic management of things? If you see IPSO alliance or OMA LwM2M - they provide guidelines on how to use CoRE Link Format for TD and utilize that for management. > > Did someone from TF-TD alrady investigate into this. > > Can you expand on what kind of management capabilities you’re thinking of? > > Off the top of my head, some ideas include: transfer of ownership, transfer of service provider, software/security updates, changes to metadata, e.g. to switch protocols or communication patterns, or for the discovery mechanisms used by devices, for access to logs, and the ability to clear logs. > > Do we want to make management capabilities an explicit area of study in the new Interest Group charter? > > — > Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org<mailto:dsr@w3.org>> > > >
Received on Friday, 22 April 2016 10:02:44 UTC