Implementing WoT companion specification. #5

jestun · 2023-09-28T11:43:34Z

Added implementation of the WoT specification
Added possibility to map asset properties to predefined nodes in the address space.
Added example cases of mapping to predefined nodes
Added OPC UA properties to the Thing Description model
Added input and output arguments according to the WoT AssetManagement methods
Added support for local nodeset files
Mapped the AssetIds to be available through OPC UA method calls

Modified handling of assets depending on given OPC UA information of asset.

All used nodesets should exist in the cloud lib that is defined.

…assets.

Changed AssetManagement from folder to base object.

Nodesets/Opc.Ua.WoT.Classes.cs

Nodesets/Opc.Ua.WoT.DataTypes.cs

Nodesets/Opc.Ua.WoT.NodeIds.csv

Nodesets/Opc.Ua.WoT.NodeSet.xml

barnstee · 2023-09-28T12:25:55Z

Nodesets/Opc.Ua.WoT.PredefinedNodes.uanodes

This is an intermediate file from model compiler and can be removed.

Currently needed as there are some issues with methods input arguments, while importing a nodeset2.xml. This is probably related to the UA-.NETStandard stack issue: OPCFoundation/UA-.NETStandard#1056

See here for an example on how to define the import arguments: https://github.com/digitaltwinconsortium/ManufacturingOntologies/blob/2f155d8d2f3875b2267a3c7ed355c8d9bcaca641/Tools/FactorySimulation/Station/StationNodeManager.cs#L129

Isn't it a bit against the idea of importing to first define the input/output arguments in the nodeset and then define them again a second time in the node manager?

It is. :-) But we shouldn't wait for the bug to be fixed in the stack.

Nodesets/Opc.Ua.WoT.Types.xsd

barnstee · 2023-09-28T12:28:24Z

Samples/pac4200-predefined-nodes.jsonld

If the difference between configuring the TD to create new nodes vs mapping to existing nodes is clear it can be skipped,
this is just meant as an example for the latter.

UANodeManager.cs

barnstee · 2023-09-28T12:35:38Z

UANodeManager.cs

@@ -312,8 +375,11 @@ private void AddAsset(IList<IReference> references, string file, out ThingDescri
            // generate DTDL content, convert back to WoT TD and compare to original
            string dtdlContent = WoT2DTDLMapper.WoT2DTDL(contents);
            string convertedWoTTDContent = WoT2DTDLMapper.DTDL2WoT(dtdlContent);
-            Debug.Assert(JObject.DeepEquals(JObject.Parse(convertedWoTTDContent), JObject.Parse(contents)));
+            //Debug.Assert(JObject.DeepEquals(JObject.Parse(convertedWoTTDContent), JObject.Parse(contents)));


Please comment back in.

Currently the new fields in the ThingDescription don't have any suitable fields in the DTDL so this compare will always fail.
To support this, the new fields should be added to the DTDL model.

Then you know what to do! :-)

barnstee · 2023-09-28T12:53:07Z

UANodeManager.cs

-                    string contents = File.ReadAllText(file);
-
-                    // check file type (WoT TD or DTDL)
-                    if (contents.Contains("\"@context\": \"dtmi:dtdl:context;2\""))


Please keep the DTDL support.

I think DTDL support isn't needed here since the file is deleted by the assetId in the file name and it doesn't care about the contents at all.

I think, there are multiple strategies possible to check if there is a (valid) TD.

File extension: *.td.json, *.td.jsonld

content type: application/td+json

@context check: https://www.w3.org/2022/wot/td/v1.1 is present

JSON Schema check: apply official TD JSON Schema

Option 4 would be the best solution to be on the safe side in terms of trouble-free parsing.

As the ConfigureAsset method always creates a .jsonld file in the settings folder, I'd say we can safely execute the DeleteAsset method by only referencing the assetId. This means that any kind of checking before removal is unnecessary as long as the assetId matches what should be removed from the settings folder, no?

I think DTDL support isn't needed here since the file is deleted by the assetId in the file name and it doesn't care about the contents at all.

Yes, but we want to keep this here as a code example.

As the ConfigureAsset method always creates a .jsonld file in the settings folder, I'd say we can safely execute the DeleteAsset method by only referencing the assetId. This means that any kind of checking before removal is unnecessary as long as the assetId matches what should be removed from the settings folder, no?

I think Sebastian's point was to make the validation better than it currently is, that's all...

I think DTDL support isn't needed here since the file is deleted by the assetId in the file name and it doesn't care about the contents at all.

Yes, but we want to keep this here as a code example.

Of course I can leave/add DTDL support there (in the DeleteAsset method), but what would it do in this case?
I can't really find any useful example on what to compare the input argument (assetId) to inside the parsed object unless we further change something. Ideas?

Please simply compare the DTDL filename against the asset id and make sure the asset id ends up in the file name.

barnstee · 2023-09-28T12:55:34Z

Have a look here for loading the predefined nodes directly from nodeset2.xml and therefore not requiring the model compiler: https://github.com/digitaltwinconsortium/ManufacturingOntologies/blob/2f155d8d2f3875b2267a3c7ed355c8d9bcaca641/Tools/FactorySimulation/Station/StationNodeManager.cs#L99

jestun · 2023-09-29T05:49:42Z

I've had some problems with the directly imported nodeset, the uanodes binary just works better. For example the input and output arguments are not passed correctly to the method call when using the nodeset, but works with the binary. There is an open issue on the .NET stack repo regarding this, but I haven't had time to dig any deeper into the problem.
The issue: OPCFoundation/UA-.NETStandard#1056

Fixed TD JSON property name.

barnstee · 2023-10-04T07:43:57Z

UANodeManager.cs

+        {
+            if (!_useWotNodesetBinary)
+            {
+                return;


Log an error here.

This should never happen as File.Exists is already checked outside of this method, I think it's better if I just remove it.

barnstee · 2023-10-04T07:45:16Z

UANodeManager.cs

+        {
+            if (!_useWotNodeset)
+            {
+                return;


Log an error here.

This should never happen as File.Exists is already checked outside of this method, I think it's better if I just remove it.

barnstee · 2023-10-04T07:45:43Z

UANodeManager.cs

@@ -173,7 +236,10 @@ public override void CreateAddressSpace(IDictionary<NodeId, IList<IReference>> e
                {
                    externalReferences[ObjectIds.ObjectsFolder] = references = new List<IReference>();
                }
-
+
+                ImportFromXml();


Perhaps put your if (!_useWotNodesetBinary) here?

Yes, I'll add a check to both xml and binary here.

barnstee · 2023-10-04T07:48:27Z

UANodeManager.cs

@@ -34,6 +34,10 @@ public class UANodeManager : CustomNodeManager2

        private readonly string _wotNodeset = Path.Combine(Directory.GetCurrentDirectory(), "Nodesets", "Opc.Ua.WoT.NodeSet2.xml");
        private readonly bool _useWotNodeset = false;
+
+        private readonly string _wotNodesetBinary = Path.Combine(Directory.GetCurrentDirectory(), "Nodesets", "Opc.Ua.WoT.PredefinedNodes.uanodes");


Do we really need to support both binary and nodeset.xml import? If we just support nodeset.xml import, we can remove the dependency on model compiler, which is something I've been asked to do many times before.

Currently yes, importing the NodeSet as xml will currently not map the input and output arguments, but importing the binary will.
If someone can tell me how the input- and outputArguments can be mapped from the xml without too much hassle or
once this issue is fixed in the stack (if ever?), I think we could and should drop the binary as you suggest.

jestun added 8 commits July 31, 2023 17:10

Added example Web of Things information model.

68ea386

Modified handling of assets depending on given OPC UA information of asset.

Modified nodemanager to only use one cloud library again.

3c9fbf5

All used nodesets should exist in the cloud lib that is defined.

Updated WoT nodeset to match the latest CS.

f15405b

Modified NodeManager to store and handle assetIds for the configured …

2af2d01

…assets.

Added predefined node mapping example.

ad52737

Updated TD according to currently known spec for OPC UA.

d3f48d7

Updated nodeset to output list of GUIDs from GetConfiguredAssets.

6338d1b

Fixed deleting by assetId.

e3cea2d

Changed AssetManagement from folder to base object.

barnstee assigned jestun Sep 28, 2023

barnstee added the enhancement New feature or request label Sep 28, 2023

barnstee self-requested a review September 28, 2023 12:07

barnstee requested changes Sep 28, 2023

View reviewed changes

Removed unnecessary files from ModelCompiler.

3d4fff6

jestun added 2 commits September 29, 2023 12:29

Made binary nodeset optional and refactored some methods.

e209799

Fixed TD JSON property name.

Fixed readme description of WoT CS methods.

4891fc7

barnstee requested changes Oct 4, 2023

View reviewed changes

Added DTDL compatibility.

a4ce75a

barnstee approved these changes Oct 9, 2023

View reviewed changes

barnstee merged commit 4a0e42b into OPCFoundation:main Oct 17, 2023
2 checks passed

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Implementing WoT companion specification. #5

Implementing WoT companion specification. #5

jestun commented Sep 28, 2023

barnstee Sep 28, 2023

jestun Sep 29, 2023

barnstee Oct 4, 2023

jestun Oct 4, 2023 •

edited

Loading

barnstee Oct 4, 2023

barnstee Sep 28, 2023

jestun Sep 28, 2023

barnstee Sep 28, 2023

jestun Sep 28, 2023

barnstee Oct 4, 2023

barnstee Sep 28, 2023

jestun Sep 28, 2023

sebastiankb Sep 28, 2023

jestun Sep 28, 2023

barnstee Oct 4, 2023

barnstee Oct 4, 2023

jestun Oct 4, 2023

barnstee Oct 4, 2023

barnstee commented Sep 28, 2023

jestun commented Sep 29, 2023 •

edited

Loading

barnstee Oct 4, 2023

jestun Oct 4, 2023 •

edited

Loading

barnstee Oct 4, 2023

jestun Oct 4, 2023 •

edited

Loading

barnstee Oct 4, 2023

jestun Oct 4, 2023

barnstee Oct 4, 2023

jestun Oct 4, 2023

Implementing WoT companion specification. #5

Implementing WoT companion specification. #5

Conversation

jestun commented Sep 28, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

jestun Oct 4, 2023 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

barnstee commented Sep 28, 2023

jestun commented Sep 29, 2023 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

jestun Oct 4, 2023 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

jestun Oct 4, 2023 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

jestun Oct 4, 2023 •

edited

Loading

jestun commented Sep 29, 2023 •

edited

Loading

jestun Oct 4, 2023 •

edited

Loading

jestun Oct 4, 2023 •

edited

Loading