New objects Measurement Metadata and Vendor Specific Measurement Quality Reason #670
Conversation
|
@dirtyha Object 10379.xml failed validation. The file is not well-formed and valid. |
Co-authored-by: Ari Keränen <ari.keranen@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Ari Keränen <ari.keranen@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Ari Keränen <ari.keranen@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Ari Keränen <ari.keranen@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Ari Keränen <ari.keranen@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Ari Keränen <ari.keranen@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Ari Keränen <ari.keranen@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Ari Keränen <ari.keranen@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Ari Keränen <ari.keranen@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Ari Keränen <ari.keranen@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Ari Keränen <ari.keranen@gmail.com>
10379.xml
Outdated
| <Name>Measurement Metadata</Name> | ||
| <Description1>This object contains measurement metadata for sensor objects. The corresponding sensor is identified with an object link. If the LwM2M Client provides measurement quality information both inside the sensor objects and in the Measurement Metadata object, it MUST ensure that identical data is reported in corresponding object instances. The LwM2M Server SHOULD use the data from the Measurement Metadata object if both are available. The LwM2M Client also MUST ensure that no two Measurement Metadata object instances link to the same sensor object instance. If the LwM2M Server receives such non-conforming data, the Measurement Metadata object instance with largest Instance ID SHOULD be used. | ||
| </Description1> | ||
| <ObjectID>10379</ObjectID> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Late comment, but just realized wouldn't it make sense to have these objects in the IPSO range instead of vendor range?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm fine if we decide to move them into ext-label range together with IPSO objects, but perhaps that requires more feedback from the workgroup.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We discussed this in the DMSE&IPSO weekly and decided to relocate the objects into IPSO id space, respectively ids 509 and 510. I have now done this relocation and it passed validation, @jpradocueva can you check that I managed to get the license statement and DDF changes right?
As requested during 2022_05_03 DMSE/IPSO WGs conference call.
Update 509.xml & 510.xml headers
|
group agrees to merge to prod 5/10/22 |
This is a demo pr that contains new objects described by "option-3" in Vaisala presentation in IPSO-DMSE meeting 2022-04-12.