On Fri, May 4, 2018, 3:47 PM Scott King <[email protected]> wrote:
> Greg, > > > > You were on the right track by calling out the W3C because their > web-of-things architecture is addressing the issues that you raised, and > there’s already an iotivity integration for it, however it appears to be > inactive. I think you’ll find these links quite useful/informative. > Thank you for the links. > https://w3c.github.io/wot-architecture/#sec-building-blocks > > https://w3c.github.io/wot-architecture/#sec-servient-architecture > (weeping) "servient" architecture? Could someone just shoot me now? I have once again lost the will to live. Invention of bogus "technical" terminology is a sure sign of intellectual impoverishment. > https://w3c.github.io/wot-scripting-api/ > > > https://www.theinternetofthings.eu/michael-koster-i-am-building-wot-servient-based-iotivity-ocf-open-connectivity-foiundation-resource > No offense intended but as far as I can see WoT is a complete waste of time. Kinda like W3C? RDF, anybody? Semantic web? Didn't think so. Gregg >
_______________________________________________ iotivity-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.iotivity.org/mailman/listinfo/iotivity-dev
