[Fiware-ngsi] one further binding question

[Moltchanov Boris]

Sorry, Guys,

I'm losing here something, and, as far as it will have an impact on the Pub/Sub GE, isn't that true that the EntityID is unique (such as fi_ware_id_addressing:24334321), while the name (name=Sensor_A) could be anything and not necessarily unique?
Then the REST resources URI based on the EntityID are not confusing and the Name is only a part of the context data structure.

If under "Name of the EntityID" you mean the value of the EntityID, then uniqueness will depend on the domains and their respective name spaces, where we might have either:
EntityID=<unique_FI-WARE_ID>

or

name_space=IoT
EntityID=A
and
name_space=IT
EntityID=A

or

EntityID=IoT:A
EntityID=IT:A

BR,
B

From: fiware-ngsi-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-ngsi-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] On Behalf Of Bisztray, Denes (NSN - HU/Budapest)
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 10:09 AM
To: ext Tobias Jacobs; fiware-ngsi at lists.fi-ware.eu
Subject: Re: [Fiware-ngsi] one further binding question

Something completely different:
I assumed until now that the Name of the EntityId  in our system has to be unique because of the nature of the RESTful binding. Does that hold?

Best,
Dénes

From: fiware-ngsi-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-ngsi-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] On Behalf Of ext Tobias Jacobs
Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2012 5:51 PM
To: fiware-ngsi at lists.fi-ware.eu
Subject: [Fiware-ngsi] one further binding question

Dear members of the NGSI list,

The binding of NGSI-10 is now as good as finished, see the current version at
https://forge.fi-ware.eu/scmrepos/svn/iot/trunk/documents/Ngsi10-RestfulBinding-Draft.docx

Unfortunately, I have identified another issue I like to discuss with you. Please let me know your opinion.

We previously agreed that a GET on an ../{EntityID} resource results in a list of all available attribute values in only one ContextElement, without attribute domains. We further agreed that a GET on ../{EntityID}/attributeDomains results in the same information, but here the response consists of one ContextElement per attribute domain.

Now here is the problem I see: The possibility to distinguish between these two kind of queries goes beyond the specification of NGSI-10. NGSI-10 only allows a query for all attributes of an entity, and how the returned information is structured is not written in the standard.

My proposal to resolve this is to disallow the GET on ../{EntityID}/attributeDomains, which would mean that this resource becomes one which does not allow any interaction. Additionally, we could leave it to the system if the attributes should be structured by domain or not, like the NGSI-10 spec does.
Martin does not agree with that, his proposal is to accept this slight extension of NGSI-10.

What speaks for Martin is (correct me if I cite you incorrectly, Martin)

-          Allowing a GET on ../{EntityID}/attributeDomains is natural, and users would expect it

-          The functionality is useful
What speaks for my approach is

-          A gap between the functionality of the binding and the functionality of NGSI-spec might cause unforeseen problems, for example when someone has already designed a system according to the NGSI-specs and now wants to put a REST interface on top.

Thanks in advance for letting us know your opinion.
Best
Tobias

Questo messaggio e i suoi allegati sono indirizzati esclusivamente alle persone indicate. La diffusione, copia o qualsiasi altra azione derivante dalla conoscenza di queste informazioni sono rigorosamente vietate. Qualora abbiate ricevuto questo documento per errore siete cortesemente pregati di darne immediata comunicazione al mittente e di provvedere alla sua distruzione, Grazie.

This e-mail and any attachments is confidential and may contain privileged information intended for the addressee(s) only. Dissemination, copying, printing or use by anybody else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this message and any attachments and advise the sender by return e-mail, Thanks.

[cid:00000000000000000000000000000003 at TI.Disclaimer]Rispetta l'ambiente. Non stampare questa mail se non è necessario.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.fiware.org/private/fiware-ngsi/attachments/20120329/e9f9da4f/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: logo Ambiente_foglia2.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 677 bytes
Desc: logo Ambiente_foglia2.jpg
URL: <https://lists.fiware.org/private/fiware-ngsi/attachments/20120329/e9f9da4f/attachment.jpg>