- From: Hund, Johannes <johannes.hund@siemens.com>
- Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2016 08:24:32 +0000
- To: Scott Jenson <scottj@google.com>, Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org>
- CC: ??? <hollobit@etri.re.kr>, "public-wot-ig@w3.org" <public-wot-ig@w3.org>
Hello Scott, > Apple is doing much more than just "metadata description and discovery": > • A *limited* set of device categories > • Clear and *limited* functional schema for each category > • A fairly limited app to find and control these devices > We need to appreciate interoperability comes from hard decisions: by having a strong, if limited set of devices and functions. I realize this is a more business strategy comment than an engineering one. However, I'm fearful we're just > going to recreate another "32 Bluetooth profiles" mess all over again. > Is there any proposal to have the concept of a required base set of functionality? There can also be an optional set but taking a hard stand on required, as Apple as done, goes a long way in providing interoperability. exactly a good point – I can answer by paraphrasing my viewpoint of the current state of discussion and specification: -> The limitation of complexity is rather on the level of functionalities than on the level of device types. Meaning: rather having a BT GATT approach than having 32 profiles or relying on REST rather than a plethora of message types. -> We agreed that you can model the things using a limited set of “interactions”: properties, actions and events – we might add something like collections and maybe more, but in I general there will be well-known set of interactions. -> Those interactions are expressed as resources with a limited set of verbs that can be applied to resources. These verbs make it easy to map them against an protocol. Best regards, Johannes
Received on Tuesday, 28 June 2016 08:25:18 UTC