Re: The Physical Web

"Michael[tm] Smith" <[email protected]> Wed, 8 Apr 2015 00:12:24 +0900

Newsgroups	gmane.org.w3c.tag
Message-ID	<[email protected]>

Daniel Appelquist <[email protected]>, 2015-04-07 12:12 +0100:
> Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/[email protected]>
> 
> I have a physical web prototype kit and I’ve been playing around with it
> a bit and thinking how BLE “URI beacons” could be used in web scenarios.
> This feels like the territory of the Web of Things Interest Group,

Yeah, I think it would be if you considered what most people think that
group should have been scoped for, based on that name at least. But the
charter of the group ended up being something pretty different from that.

> but right now I feel like the “architecture” envisioned by the “Physical
> Web”framework is orthogonal to the thinking of the WoT IG.

I think you’re right. Between those two, just speaking personally, I’m a lot
more interested in the relatively focused scope of what’s envisioned by the
Physical Web effort and the general idea of URI beacons that it’s part of.

> I can bring along some physical web BLE beacons to the f2f.
> 
> Possibly of more interest is the idea of “smart” beacons (enabled via the
> Intel Edison controller boards that are shipping with kits) that could
> enable the beacons to do more than just broadcast a static URL (for
> example, they could encode data into the URL based on the output of a
> sensor).

Sure but I think even the basic idea is pretty interesting just on its own—
I mean the idea of being able to passively discover information about
objects in the physical world around you as you move around in it.

  —Mike

-- 
Michael[tm] Smith https://people.w3.org/mike

signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 819 B)