Open sebastiankb opened 7 years ago
From @danielpeintner on March 29, 2017 13:16
I would be very interested in seeing those measurements.
Also, I am not sure why those binary formats must be "alternatives". I think the same content is just represented differently (see XML & EXI or JSON & EXI4JSON/CBOR)..
From @draggett on March 29, 2017 14:40
They are alternatives in the sense of encodings for serialisations, but may also vary in the data types that can be used.
for me is not clear if this issue addressing the topic around TD serialization. In that case, we should move this issue to the TD repository: https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description
From @draggett on March 31, 2017 13:56
It relates to both the serialisation of thing descriptions and to the protocol bindings. I would be happy it we were to track the issue in the TD repository as you suggest. Can you move it across?
@danielpeintner @cabo are there any new evaluation results that can be presented for the Prague f2f?
The latest test results from Burlingame can be found here https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/blob/master/test-bed/reports/binary-comparison-2017-11-27.csv. Note: This measurements are produced by simply applying the various serialization formats without looking at more sophisticated features that each candidate provides.
Updates with the new TD serialialization can be generated once the TDs for the Prague PlugFest have been collected.
From @draggett on February 24, 2017 17:37
It looks like there is an increasing variety of binary alternatives to JSON, and it would make sense for the Interest Group to review their respective strengths and weaknesses with regards to both constrained devices and high performance streaming in the cloud. I found the following article interesting
Copied from original issue: w3c/wot#307