Re: Physical web project

My preliminary findings on health IT  and networks for linking DNA based entities like humans, pets, livestock, wild animals,vegetative cover coral reefs, rainforest and very large ecosystems thru intermediary devices indicate that a universal interface is not possible.

If you look more closely at the issue of interfaces, there are three general categories H2H, H2M, M2M and if you introduce intermediary devices as in the cases of H2H and H2M issues become even more complex.

For generalization of H2H we must introduce E2E, SE2SE, CE2CE and TE2TE where E=entity (DNA based), S=sentient, C=cognitive and T=technological.

With these generalizations we are able to categorize DNA based living things, e.g. coral reefs and rainforests are E, livestock, pets and primates are SE, primates, rats, pigs, elephants, cetaceans are CE and humans are TE. Thus on Earth TE=H.


The physical web as intended by Google is thus conceptually speaking a superset of the M2M but not equivalent to the union of H2M and M2M.

For management and care and monitoring of livestock, agriculture, aquaculture, fisheries E2M, SE2M and SE2SE and H2SE are important.

I hope to have made abundantly clear that the physical web is a complicated thing if we include living things and objects (including devices).

 
Milton Ponson
GSM: +297 747 8280
PO Box 1154, Oranjestad
Aruba, Dutch Caribbean
Project Paradigm: A structured approach to bringing the tools for sustainable development to all stakeholders worldwide by creating ICT tools for NGOs worldwide and: providing online access to web sites and repositories of data and information for sustainable development

This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail.



On Tuesday, October 21, 2014 5:14 AM, Paola Di Maio <paola.dimaio@gmail.com> wrote:
 


Scott
thanks for reply. My view only:  the question you pose brings up the
issue of multiple, often orthogonal perspectives as to what the
semantic web is. Most web scientist are happy to discuss these.
The reply may depend on what you mean by semantic web, which can be
more or less narrowly defined. From where I come from, the semantic
web consist of explicitly represented semantic relations between URIs.

We havent built anything yet from this side, and  what we are aiming
at (once our charter is tightened up a bit to confirm this) some kind
of high level  specification for a general functional interface for
the semantic web.

>From what I read so far, what you are doing fits in

we could be helping the physical web project by working towards a
universal interface to access, query and manage the network of devices
and related datasets

What would help us here is some idea of what your system looks like
(in design terms), so that we could, in principle, include any
requirements you may have in our work

A question in return:  is the physical web already thinking what kind
of interface is it going to have,  and would you benefit from input
from this community (bearing in mind that we are a collection of
individuals with different views on things),

Cheers

PDM



On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 3:45 AM, Scott Jenson <scott@jenson.org> wrote:
> Hello, sorry for my late reply, the public interest in the Physical Web has
> been very strong and we're very busy here. I'm happy to talk to you more and
> of course, happy to help.
>
> I do have a question about the semantic web as it relates to the Physical
> Web. We are trying very hard to make the functionality of the Physical Web
> very focused: it is primarily a discovery service that connects URIs in the
> physical world to your phone (tablet, etc) We are thrilled that so many
> people want to build on top of it but usually we find they can do so without
> changing what the Physical web is trying to do. So my first question to you
> would be "Could you continue your work on SWISIG on top of the Physical Web
> or do you think there needs to be changes deep down?"
>
> Scott
>
> On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 2:55 AM, Paola Di Maio <paola.dimaio@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> Dear Scott
>>
>> cc Iain Dickinson, Danbri (who also also follow you on twitter)
>> Martin Voigt, W3C SWISI community co-chair
>> SWISIg PUBLIC mailing list
>>
>>
>> I read with interest about your project here
>> https://github.com/google/physical-web
>>
>> and learn about a proposed requirement of a 'standard' to support such
>> a universal interface
>>
>>  I am happy to see work done in this direction,  there is a need for it
>> :-)
>>
>> I develop universal systems interfaces,  writing a paper on the subject
>>
>> together with fellow practitioners  2012   started a W3C commjunity  SWISI
>> http://www.w3.org/community/swisig/
>>
>> here is a summary of our members activities in this space
>> http://www.w3.org/community/swisig/preliminary-report-april-2014/
>>
>> one of our goals is to start  work (brainstorming, analysis of the
>> field, requirements gathering etc)  toward such a standard
>>
>> your projects resonates with many of us
>>
>>  we would welcome your input and contribution at any level
>>
>> - What can this community do to support the vision for your project?
>>
>> - What input can you provide to stimulate our community  to
>> consolidate  vision of such a standard?
>>
>> Please consider joining this community, or give us a remnote talk (a
>> short video or research note) addressing the community   with
>> suggestions/idea of how to go forward,
>>
>>
>> Hope to connect soon
>>
>> Best regards
>>
>> Paola Di Maio,
>> Chair W3C SWISIG
>
>