Subject: [T2TRG] Reusable Components - multiplication, duplication and exaggeration problem

From: Padmakumar Subramani <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2018 14:54:34 +0530

Hi all

In the LwM2M & IPSO discussions this week the group came across a problem,
which I believe would be more interesting for this group to reflect upon.

In the reusable resources registered, their were needs of same resource
name but having ability to differentiate units and range depending on the
need to integrate them across different objects.

For example , a speed reusable resource with definition of m/s and a
certain range can be extended to a km/hr with different range needs.

My queries are as follows
- reusable components and how reusable it needs to be made in T2T
- does this group already come across such issues of multiplicative or
duplication or exaggeration of common definitions ?

Regards
Padhu

---

From: Ari Keränen <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2018 17:32:37 +0000

Hi,

Thank you for raising this issue Padhu! I agree this must be a recurring 
challenge in the area of IoT data/info models and having re-usable 
solutions and guidelines to this sounds very useful.

Adding to your first question: what (level) should the atomic, re-usable 
pieces be in a "good" data model? At the first IoTSI workshop [1] we 
discussed quite a bit atoms, molecules, and quarks of data models. 
Should probably dig out the details notes from there.

Re-usability is usually a trade-off: the more generic the more re-usable 
the atoms are but OTOH the less you can tell useful things about a 
specific case. Where is/are the sweet spot(s)?

For example, OCF must have had lots of similar considerations. I wonder 
if there are design guidelines documented on that? How about other 
protocols?

Cheers,
Ari

[1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8477

On 13/12/2018 11.25, Padmakumar Subramani wrote:
> Hi all
> 
> In the LwM2M & IPSO discussions this week the group came across a 
> problem, which I believe would be more interesting for this group to 
> reflect upon.
> 
> name but having ability to differentiate units and range depending on 
> the need to integrate them across different objects.
>