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

AW: [wot-ig/wg] minutes - 26 April 2017

From: Peintner, Daniel <daniel.peintner.ext@siemens.com>
Date: Tue, 2 May 2017 12:29:28 +0000
To: Peter Saint-Andre - Filament <peter@filament.com>, Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org>, Public Web of Things IG <public-wot-ig@w3.org>, "public-wot-wg@w3.org" <public-wot-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <D94F68A44EB1954A91DE4AE9659C5A98100440D5@DEFTHW99EH1MSX.ww902.siemens.net>
Hi Peter,

Thank for your pointer.

JSCN (ore respectively CBOR) is definitely one candidate.

Having said that, there are other formats we might want to look at (Smile, EXI4JSON, ...).

I looked at results/examples referenced in JSCN [1] which show JSON (318 bytes) to JSCN (187 bytes). I checked EXI4JSON which gets down to 139 bytes (see demo at [2]).

So size is one aspect but there are many more aspects we should take into account.

-- Daniel

[1] https://quartzjer.github.io/JSCN/draft-miller-json-constrained-notation-00.html#rfc.section.6
[2] http://exificient.github.io/javascript/demo/processJSON.html




________________________________
Von: Peter Saint-Andre - Filament [peter@filament.com]
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 27. April 2017 23:16
An: Kazuyuki Ashimura; Public Web of Things IG; public-wot-wg@w3.org
Betreff: Re: [wot-ig/wg] minutes - 26 April 2017

On 4/27/17 1:40 AM, Kazuyuki Ashimura wrote:

<snip/>

>    should start activity to look at concise descriptions for TD

Regarding concise descriptions, you might want to look at some work my
colleague Jeremie Miller is doing on JSON Constrained Notation:

https://github.com/quartzjer/JSCN

We're intending to begin standardization of this soon.

Peter

--
Peter Saint-Andre
https://filament.com/
Received on Tuesday, 2 May 2017 12:30:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:27:47 UTC