W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wot-ig@w3.org > May 2016

Re: application facing lifecycle, data and interaction model for things

From: Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 14:15:53 +0100
Cc: "Peintner, Daniel (ext)" <daniel.peintner.ext@siemens.com>, "public-wot-ig@w3.org" <public-wot-ig@w3.org>
Message-Id: <0A7BEED6-31DE-4E0E-9996-6EAD3579EDD7@w3.org>
To: "Charpenay, Victor" <victor.charpenay@siemens.com>

> On 3 May 2016, at 13:50, Charpenay, Victor <victor.charpenay@siemens.com> wrote:
>  
> > I cannot send a thing along in a message, so I don't know what that would mean.  (A reference to a thing can be, and we have URIs for that in the Web.)
>  
> I am also skeptical about the idea of including “Things” as data types…

This is possible since the Web of Things exposes things to applications as local software objects and manages the messaging needed to keep these object in synch with the things they stand for. 

I believe that having things as values is essential and have shown this in a number of presentations where an agent for a hotel room coordinates the room’s door lock and light. I implemented this a year ago for my NodeJS web of things server.

From the application perspective a “thing” is just a software object with the interface corresponding to the thing’s description. When a thing is passed to an application script as a response to an action, the abstract message conveys the URI for the thing’s description. The platform uses this to create a software object as a proxy for that thing, and passes that object to the application handler for the action’s responses, having initialised its property values before doing so.

This is quite straightforward in practice since it uses the same code as needed to set up proxies for things from their thing description.

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




Received on Tuesday, 3 May 2016 13:16:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:27:03 UTC