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

AW: Regular Web of Things call on scripting API

From: Hund, Johannes <johannes.hund@siemens.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2016 08:41:02 +0000
To: "Kis, Zoltan" <zoltan.kis@intel.com>, Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org>
CC: Benjamin Francis <bfrancis@mozilla.com>, "public-wot-ig@w3.org" <public-wot-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <C271054E16F8474D9104E1146C767BF1772B2D@DEFTHW99EK1MSX.ww902.siemens.net>
Hello Dave & Zoltan,

>> 	It isn’t clear to me that we need a REST API though.
> 
> We need to have something, either scripting APIs, or REST APIs, or definition of
> data models and some general directions on how to work with them.

I think there is a valid argument here, and let me state why I think it's not "either-or" but preferably both. 

IMHO it is very good to have a "narrow waist" as base, and for the Web of Things that would be the resource model (comprising resources and CRUDN interactions / primitives on them).

To invoke those interactions on the resource model there are basically two options: remote via a protocol or locally.
For both we need a way to let clients know how to interact with the resources:

- the remote access is described by the thing description which tells you how the REST API works in CRUDN primitives 

- the protocol bindings define how to express the primitives in a protocol 

- the local access is done via the scripting API. This allows us as well to reuse the accessing side (client side) of this API for a script-level access to remote access.

The delta between the existing approaches e.g. from OCF and EVERYTHNG and the current discussion that is based on those is IMO mainly which part is explicitly stated, which part is "well-known", and how far we go with standardizing vs. leaving it open for implementers
Received on Tuesday, 8 November 2016 08:41:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:27:08 UTC