On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 7:45 AM, Advait Jain <advaitjain@gmail.com> wrote:
> I agree with Shaun.
>
> My personal preference is for the message name to reflect the message data
> type as opposed to what the message is used for.
>
> The topic name can then tell us whether the message is being used for
> humidity or pressure.

While that approach can make it easier to develop certain tools, it
runs contrary to what we've been trying to do with standard message
formats.  The message definition tells you as much about the semantics
of the data as it does about the syntax.  I think that we're better
off using semantically typed messages wherever possible.

    brian.