RE: [Charter]: include both Scripting and REST API

For a clearer discussion, could you maybe specify your assumptions of a REST API? Due to the different backgrounds of the group members, we need to be careful with wording...

Do you expect a specification how people have to name their resources, what request has to be sent, and what responses are to be expected?

Once this is clear, how does a Thing Description that has a common vocabulary to annotate links, encode forms, and provides a schema to enrich reusable representation formats not provide for a REST API?

Best regards
Matthias



Sent from my phone, limitations might apply.

-----Original Message-----
From: Kis, Zoltan [zoltan.kis@intel.com]
Received: Thursday, 08 Dec 2016, 13:11
To: Dave Raggett [dsr@w3.org]
CC: Dominique Guinard [dom@evrythng.com]; Public Web of Things IG [public-wot-ig@w3.org]
Subject: Re: [Charter]: include both Scripting and REST API

[We'd need to set the WoT github repo to send emails on issue comments...]

On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 1:36 PM, Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org<mailto:dsr@w3.org>> wrote:
Just to point out that W3C already has a standard API for REST as part of the Open Web Platform, so we would need to justify why a new API is needed.


That's a good point. Which one did you mean? I have found these:
https://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/charter (expired), general spec here: https://www.w3.org/TR/ldp/
https://www.w3.org/community/hydra/ (http://www.hydra-cg.com/spec/latest/core/ )

The above are good input for WoT REST. The latter is a special application, with specific use cases (which are shared with the WoT Scripting API). We can't expect to work on a WoT REST API in that WG/CG, right? For instance Thing Descriptions are not discussed there, either.

We can discuss and then embrace, drop or transfer REST API work, but the point is, can we arrive to this in the WoT WG, and does the WoT WG charter allow working on that.

Thanks,
Zoltan