-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 43
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Two separate layers for the Protocol Binding mechanism #3
Comments
I update Mr.Ashimura's diagram. Please see the diagram blew: I add "WoT Servient World" and "non WoT Servient World". "WoT Servient World" is used to connect other WoT Servient and WoT Client Device. WoT Client Device is devices and sensors that Implements simple WoT Servient functions. I think micro server for WoT Client and WoT Servient does not need to transfer to WoT Servient Internal Data. I think they send JSON messages packed the property of TD. "non WoT Servient World" is used to connect Echonet, BACnet, OCF, oneM2M, etc. Thanks |
From WoT client point of view,
[Body] In the architecture document, I assume this interaction process and draw "run time with scripting API" and "protocol binding" between WoT servients as building blocks according to IG discussion. On the other hand, Echonet lite, OCF, oneM2M and other IoT standards have their own protocol binding policy, mapping methodology and syntax. Both of Kaz-san and Mizushima-san's building block is just same as current architecture document's building block logically. Kaz-san's building block has multiple legacy communication blocks parallel according to each IoT standards as micro service. Mizushima-san's building block treats protocol binding in between WoT servients as one of legacy communication blocks. Then current architecture has covered both of proposals logically, so we can move to discuss
This discussion is directly linked under "Protocol Binding" thread led by Michael Koster-san. |
In current architecture document, "connector" is responsible for the actual communication with other servients. (see Functional Architecture of WoT Servient) I think the "microserver for WoT" in Mizushima-san's diagram is similar to the "connector". Then, I think, "connector" should also be present for other protocols such as Echonet because as Kas mentioned the runtime and Echonet microserver, for example, is based on TD and WoT. |
(We overall have a challenge with quite diverse terminology and often adapt to reach the majority.) Yes, connector and microserver are equivalent. In discussions also the term driver came up, which is probably closest to the view of "legacy communication". This driver approach is also how we implemented Modbus for node-wot. Since we usually want to convert the "legacy devices" (often the are up-to-date devices just from an for us exotic domain) to our TD and interactions model, I prefer the figure here (including the positioning of Echonet) over (the quite old) "Functional Architecture of WoT Servient". We also changed "Resource Model" to "Interaction Model" since there are some platforms that are not resource-oriented -- the WoT interactions with the initial patterns Property, Action, and Event will still hold in such a case. |
OK, I agree that Mathias's document. Especially, TD does not go through protocol binding is correct. |
Merge Toru's PR: Imported terminology to index.html
Update connected-building-queries.md
As I mentioned during the TD call on June 2 and the WoT main call on June 7, I think it would be clearer to have the two separate layers for Protocol Binding:
"Protocol Binding" could be the combination of (1) getting/extracting device properties based on the each device's features and (2) packing the extracted properties into TD for interoperable connection. Probably each device vendor should provide concrete micro server implementation for the "propery extraction" part and we W3C WoT group could provide "how to pack the property into TD" as the "Binding Template".
Please see also the diagram below:
Note that the "Servient Internal Data Transfer" within the above diagram should be the standard WoT mechanism, e.g., TD and REST.
I'd suggest we update the WoT Architecture document, e.g., its section "4.3 Binding Templates" with the above idea.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: