[IOT] Semantic searches in registry

Cramer, E.R. (Eelco) Eelco.Cramer at tno.nl
Thu Feb 5 13:19:38 UTC 2015


Hey guys,

I've tried to get more grip on the 'semantic registry' idea I've posted on before.

I did not finalise my ideas but I am sending this in an early stage to get your feedback.

What I did was put together a new proposal (if you like) of the XEP-0347 document that kind of describes which way I would like to see this go. You can check this document on: https://servicelab.github.io/iot-discovery.html

About this document I would really like to get some feedback on:

- What do you guys think of the concept of using 'semantic searches / linked data' in the registry?
- What do you think of the way I've written this down?
- Is this something to investigate further?

Reading guidelines:

Major changes are in 3.6 (registering), 3.15 (searching) and 5.2 (meta-information) but I've tried to make things consistent over the whole document (so also changed the other register chapters, updating and the XML schema).

3.6 - I've tried to make data types less relevant and made it possible to link to object instances that are defined elsewhere.

3.15 - I've tried to make it possible to define more complex queries to take advantage of computing power and indexes that are in the registry's backend. I've also added the possibility to execute functions remotely (just 2 for now but this can be extended).

5.2 - I've made 2 RDF schema's. 1 containing an ontology for basic XMPP things (all optional and mandatory stuff for addressing) and another ontology that holds the common meta-information tags that were already defined in the document.

What I do not like yet is:

- What is still missing is some way to 'discover' the ontology that is supported by the registry.
- That there is a 'default' namespace for properties that cannot be set by the sender of the message. I would probably like to have a way that a 'default' can be provided by the sender. Maybe an attribute 'defaultns' in the parent elements or something like that.

I understand that what I am proposing is not backwards compatible with the current state of the document but I believe it is a nice step forwards and opens up some great new possibilities in the future!

Thanks,
Eelco

This message may contain information that is not intended for you. If you are not the addressee or if this message was sent to you by mistake, you are requested to inform the sender and delete the message. TNO accepts no liability for the content of this e-mail, for the manner in which you use it and for damage of any kind resulting from the risks inherent to the electronic transmission of messages.



More information about the IOT mailing list