Re: [sensors] added TPAC brainstorming topic for 'Web API for Health Care Sensors' - pls review, add your name/ideas

Basically we have health devices using:

Bluetooth Serial Port Profile (SPP)
Bluetooth Heatlh Device Profile (HDP)
Bluetooth Low Energy 4.0 (BLE)
USB
ZigBee
NFC

Continua guidelines recomend the use of:
*) Bluetooth HDP with IEEE 11073 standard over it.
*) Bluetooth low energy GATT profiles that are able to be mapped (or
transcoded) to IEEE 11073 infrastructure.
*) USB using PHDC and IEEE 11073.
*) NFC using a specific profile defined by NFC-Forum and IEEE 11073.
*) ZigBee using something that I can´t remember.

The main reason to choose IEEE 11073 standard, is to have a common
specification to represent/model personal health devices (eg. how to
represent a blood pressure device?).
That´s why even though BLE GATT provides health profiles, Continua
recommends to use a miniminum set of attributes and precision to make
possible "map" them to IEEE 11073 structures.

Besides Continua's guidelines, some manufacturers  define and use their own
protocols over Bluetooth SPP. So, they do not follow any standard for
that...


2014-09-25 11:41 GMT-03:00 Marcos Caceres <marcos@marcosc.com>:

>
>
>
>
> On September 24, 2014 at 8:07:19 PM, Mats Wichmann (m.wichmann@samsung.com)
> wrote:
> > On 09/19/14 07:04, Frederick Hirsch wrote:
> > > I have added the 'Web API for Health Care Sensors’ topic to the
> brainstorm topic list
> > for TPAC Wednesday session:
> > >
> > >
> https://www.w3.org/wiki/TPAC2014/SessionIdeas#Web_API_for_Health_Care_Sensors
> > >
> > > Feel free to provide improvements or add your name to the list of
> attendees (by adding
> > to the wiki a new attendees line)
> >
> > Is there a really good argument for attending this in person (like, a
> > LOT of the DAG will be there)? I, and other folk from my org, are
> > certainly keenly interested in the topic, but none are in the Bay Area.
> > I've got a miserable travel schedule around then, in Germany week 42 for
> > a conference and in China week 43 for another, so yet another trip week
> > 44 is, ummm, not firing me up exactly :)
>
> Question I have still is if this stuff is built around some particular
> protocol (usb, bluetooth). If health care sensor are just USB or BlueTooth
> devices, then enabling the lower-level stack might allow addressing all the
> use cases in a manner that is not [health care] domain specific.
>
> Can anyone provide more info?
>



-- 
 -------------------------------------------------------------
Marcos Fábio Pereira