urn:micasaverde-com vs urn:upnp-org

Does anyone know the difference between these two urns? For some reason the door sensor in the following scene only works if I use the micasaverde urn, and I was just curious as to why?


local lounge = luup.variable_get(“urn:upnp-org:serviceId:SwitchPower1”, “Status”, 51)
local preamp = luup.variable_get(“urn:upnp-org:serviceId:SwitchPower1”, “Status”, 145)
local occupied = luup.variable_get(“urn:upnp-org:serviceId:VSwitch1”, “Status”, 291)
local door = luup.variable_get(“urn:micasaverde-com:serviceId:SecuritySensor1”, “Tripped”, 139)

if ((lounge == “0”) and (preamp == “0”) and (occupied == “0”) and (door == “0”))
return true
else return false

[quote=“guessed, post:4, topic:177141”]b) You’ll want an Isolated namespace, not “upnp-org” for your ServiceID’s.
The oldest plugins used to do that, but it was a bad habit. Newer plugins all put their code in a non “UPNP” namespace, since its’ not ours to pollute.[/quote]

Thanks for the quick response. How do I find the non-upnp name for the rest of the devices? Or doesn’t it really matter, as long as it’s non-upnp?


It definitely matters. These are very specific serviceIds. You can always find them out by looking at the variables under the Advanced tab of the device and hovering the cursor over the variable name. A tool-tip pop-up will display the serviceId.

You can also find it by drilling into the device utilising lu_invoke function. It will eventually display the service ID and actions available for the selected device.


There is also some very good examples and info provided by @RexBeckett which also contains an attachment of the more commonly used.


Who Defines UPnP?
The Universal Plug and Play Forum defines UPnP Device and Descriptions. The Universal Plug and Play Forum is a group of companies and individuals across the industry that intend to play a leading role in the authoring of specifications for UPnP devices and services. Formed on October 18, 1999, it is an association of more than 200 vendors who are industry leaders in consumer electronics, computing, home automation and security, home appliances, computer networking, and mobile devices.

The goals of the Forum are to enable the emergence of easily connected devices and to simplify the implementation of networks in the home and corporate environments. The Forum will achieve this by defining and publishing UPnP device and service descriptions built on open, Internet-based communication standards.

The Forum’s web site, http://upnp.org/, is the central repository for schema that has been developed and standardized by the Forum. In addition, the site includes the device architecture document, templates for device and service descriptions, and guidelines for device and service description design. UPnP.org also distributes information about the Forum’s activities and progress.

And also the wiki, for the official/MiOS ones (i.e. either UPnP defined (in upnp-org namespace), or MCV’s own creations (in micasaverde-com namespace)).

Thank you all. Very informative.

I’ve been looking at the standard implementations on the site and Vera devices do not appear to conform to the standard! e.g. for BinaryLight ([url=http://upnp.org/specs/ha/UPnP-ha-BinaryLight-v1-Device.pdf]http://upnp.org/specs/ha/UPnP-ha-BinaryLight-v1-Device.pdf[/url]) the service identifier (serviceId) is indicated as urn:upnp-org:serviceId:SwitchPower:1, and not urn:upnp-org:serviceId:SwitchPower1 as specified in Vera devices. Are UPnP control points expected to always use the serviceId as specified in the device file? This would make sense as it is really the service types that identify the device, and this is correct.