W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wot-ig@w3.org > May 2017

protocol binding use cases for iotivity-node integration with node-wot

From: Michael Koster <michael.koster@smartthings.com>
Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 08:38:31 -0700
Message-Id: <3E1DEE7F-0480-4BE7-A260-CE84778BFBC2@smartthings.com>
Cc: Public Web of Things IG <public-wot-ig@w3.org>
To: "Hund, Johannes" <johannes.hund@siemens.com>, Michael Mccool <michael.mccool@intel.com>, "Kis, Zoltan" <zoltan.kis@intel.com>, "Nimura, Kazuaki" <kazuaki.nimura@jp.fujitsu.com>, Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@mit.edu>, Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org>

I revised my previous diagrams showing the two integration patterns based on using CoAP only for the OCF device network, slide 4.

Note that the same protocol binding template can be used to adapt the WoT Consumed ThIng API to the iotivity-node client (forward proxy), as well as adapt the WoT Exposed Thing API to iotivity-node (reverse proxy) to re-expose OCF things as WoT things on a network.

In the forward proxy case, the protocol binding adapts a WoT client to an OCF client, and lives on the client.

In the reverse proxy case, the protocol binding lives on the server, and the client sees a standard WoT thing on the network.

Do these 2 cases make sense? Are there other arrangements we need to look at?

I don't seem to be on the scripting mailing list, if there is one. Forwarding to the public list; please excuse the interruption if you aren't interested.

Best regards,


Received on Monday, 29 May 2017 15:39:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:27:12 UTC