Skip to content
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

no vacabulary defintion for CoAP and MQTT yet #61

Closed
sebastiankb opened this issue Jun 27, 2019 · 8 comments
Closed

no vacabulary defintion for CoAP and MQTT yet #61

sebastiankb opened this issue Jun 27, 2019 · 8 comments
Assignees
Labels

Comments

@sebastiankb
Copy link
Contributor

in section section 3.3 we should clarify that CoAP and MQTT has no standardized RDF representation yet like for http

@egekorkan
Copy link
Contributor

it is fixed now, @sebastiankb could you review it and close it if it is OK

@takuki
Copy link

takuki commented Jul 18, 2019

In TD spec, vocabulary terms are listed in tables with columns "Description", "Assignment" and "Type".

The columns used in section 4 Vocabulary are different.
In particular, "Mandatory" used in this document should be changed to "Assignment" as used in TD spec.

Protocol Vocabulary are considered extension to TD vocabulary, therefore, should be described in a consistent way.

I plan to create another issue for this.
(Please go ahead to close this)

@sebastiankb
Copy link
Contributor Author

thanks @takuki, this was also my first thought. The presentation of the tables should be similar as you can find in the TD spec. I think, the tables are quite clear in understanding what have to be used.

@egekorkan where does the MQTT codeNumbers (3, 8, and 10) come from?

@egekorkan
Copy link
Contributor

I will rearrange the vocabularies as @takuki and @sebastiankb mentinoed.

@egekorkan where does the MQTT codeNumbers (3, 8, and 10) come from?

They come from the MQTT specification. All the possible values are documented here

@sebastiankb
Copy link
Contributor Author

sebastiankb commented Jul 22, 2019

They come from the MQTT specification. All the possible values are documented here

To increase the MQTT recognition I would prefer to rely on the same term usage as you can find in the MQTT specification. That means I would prefer to use the term controlPacketTypeValue or short controlPacketValue instead commandCode.

@takuki
Copy link

takuki commented Jul 23, 2019

The table in Section 4.3.3 MQTT Vocabulary, there is a row describing mqv:options member.

The example used in mqv:options is quoted below.

[ { "cov:optionNumber": 6, "cov:optionValue": 49 } ]

I think the above example was copied from coap section.
It should use mqv prefix instead of cov prefix.

@egekorkan
Copy link
Contributor

@mjkoster could you comment why the term commandCode was chosen in the beginning and also why the integer values were used instead of the English words, i.e. why 8 instead of SUBSCRIBE?

@egekorkan
Copy link
Contributor

I think that this issue has two different issues in it, both that don't match the title. I have created issues #72 and #73 .
Additionally, mqv:options is fixed in PR #71

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants