W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xg-ssn@w3.org > February 2012

Re: Fwd: Re: [via Web of Sensors Community Group]

From: Manfred Hauswirth <manfred.hauswirth@deri.org>
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 15:26:57 +0000
Message-ID: <4F450941.5020406@deri.org>
To: Myriam Leggieri <myriam.leggieri@deri.org>
CC: Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>, public-sensorweb@w3.org, public-xg-ssn@w3.org, "Hausenblas, Michael" <michael.hausenblas@deri.org>
Marcos,

such an API (RESTful interfaces down to the sensor level) is being 
developed in the SPITFIRE project (http://spitfire-project.eu/) using 
the ontologies developed in the SSN-XG, SSN-CG (SPITFIRE is an active 
contributor to these groups). APIs without proper semantic data / 
platform / etc. descriptions are insufficient, as are ontologies / data 
without APIs.

Also there are a number of upcoming de-facto standards for APIs: CoAP 
(Constraint Application Protocal - "HTTP for sensors") and CORE ("RDF 
for sensors") - both IETF and with major backing in the sensor world 
(both industrial and academic). It will be hard to find a meaningful 
niche between what the OCG has done already and what the IETF is about 
to standardize. Along with the upcoming networking standards (6LowPAN 
and the self-org stuff), this will set the agenda. This is the route 
which a number of initiatives and projects are taking (e.g., SPITFIRE 
uses some of the most advanced 6LowPAN, COAP, etc. implementations done 
by the project partners and uses RESTful interfaces and SSN down to the 
hardware level - and we have demoed this already).

Best regards,

Manfred

On 22/02/2012 13:46, Myriam Leggieri wrote:
> Hi Marcos,
>
> On 22/02/2012 13:05, Marcos Caceres wrote:
>
>  > Hi Art,
>  >
>  > On Wednesday, February 22, 2012 at 12:49 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
>  >
>  >
>  >> What is the difference between the Web of Sensors CG and the
> Semantic Sensor
>  >> Networks CG http://www.w3.org/community/ssn-cg/ ?
>  >>
>  > Aside from being better looking, we will, when we (ever) start, look
> at how to make APIs that integrate with the web platform. The Semantic
> Sensor group seems to be focusing on "defining and using ontologies and
> mappings for querying" sensors (which does not strike me as a good
> starting point, when we don't even have a simple sensor API or a means
> to communicate with a sensor network… let alone communicating with a kit
> like an Arduino).
>
> a mean to communicate with a sensor network / platform / node is exactly
> what is addressed by describing the information involved, using Semantic
> Technologies. Such technologies ease the data communication since they
> ease the understanding and integration by not relying on ad-hoc schemas
> or top-down imposed standards (often not covering all the particular
> needs and having low uptake). That's why ontologies, RDF, Linked Data
> are important technologies / principles.
>
> I'm very interested in a discussion about this (as, I guess, many
> others), since it would be nice if the Sensor Web and the Semantic
> Sensor Web [1] could cooperate and unify their efforts.
>
> Best regards,
> Myriam
>
> [1]http://wiki.knoesis.org/index.php/SSW
>
>
>
>
>  > As a starting point, this group should define a means of
> communicating with things like a networked Arduino (or similar kit,
> directly). Or even looking at how to make Web Actuators (switching on
> LEDs, motors, fans, and controlling little monochrome displays, etc).
>  >
>  > Once we have that… then it would be worth while to move into areas
> like "defining and using ontologies and mappings for querying". But that
> is a few years away, I would imagine (if ever, given the reliance on
> "ontologies").
>  >
>  > Hope that helps!
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 22 February 2012 15:27:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 22 February 2012 15:27:33 GMT