ΑΠ: Request for comments: Draft W3C Web of Things Interest Group Charter

Dear Dave, Pablo and all,

 

I would like to share with you a WoT use case that I have recently wrote as a candidate demonstrator for a WoT  that "provides interoperability (at multiple levels), as a global Web-based service, for the automated deployment of any self or third-party application and device in any existing or on-the-fly created smart environment". It might give another dimension to WoT use cases (or even to WoT itself). So here it is (in a draft form):

 

“John is visiting Greece for his summer holidays. He suffers from heart disease and a heart pacemaker is implanted from a University Hospital in US. The hospital uses pacemakers of a particular US vendor, which also provides the hospital the necessary monitoring devices used to monitor pacemakers’ status, heart status, etc. Such a monitoring device couples itself with the receiver/transmitter of the pacemaker (placed over the skin) in order to record medical or system-status information transmitted by the pacemaker. Monitoring device can be used to change the settings of pacemaker according to patients’ needs. Its use is critical for patients with permanent implanted pacemakers. Due to climate/environmental changes (extreme environmental heat), John needs to change the pace of his pacemaker as soon as possible, but a monitoring device of this kind of pacemaker is not available in the island hospital. John’s doctor in US has provided him with a pace transmitter device that is capable of getting information from the pacemaker but it requires an internet connection to transmit the recorded information on the other side i.e. to hospital’s monitoring system. A Web connection is available, the transmitter is plugged and connected, but the remote monitoring system in US is not available (malfunctioned or switched-off). Local doctor decide to look for another monitoring application available on the Web, capable of coupling with John’s transmitter and pacemaker. Through IoT-IaaS (Interoperability as a Service), a match is discovered (from those already registered in the IoT-IaaS registry) and the relative application is deployed in local hospital (doctor’s pc). The coupling of the device (John’s transmitter) and the application (third-party pacemaker monitoring software) is established and the readings from the pacemaker are now displayed on doctor’s monitor. The successful coupling is recorded in IoT-IaaS knowledge base for future reference.” 

 

I would like to get your feedback on this…

 

Best Regards,

 

Konstantinos

 

Konstantinos Kotis, PhD
Post Doctoral Research Scientist
Department of Digital Systems, University of Piraeus.
Head of IT Department
Samos Regional Unit, North Aegean Regional Administration (NARA).

Greece
+30 6974822712
http://gr.linkedin.com/in/kotis

 

 

 

Από: Pablo Chacin [mailto:pchacin@sensefields.com] 
Αποστολή: Πέμπτη, 6 Νοεμβρίου 2014 5:55 μμ
Προς: Dave Raggett
Κοιν.: Ken Blackwell; public-web-of-things@w3.org
Θέμα: Re: Request for comments: Draft W3C Web of Things Interest Group Charter

 

Hi Dave

 

Thanks for sharing the slides. Very informative. Just a brief feedback.

I understand that werable, home automation and metering are much easier to understand as use cases and probably have a more direct (or noticiable) impact on end users, so it makes sense to use them to introduce the concept of IoT.

 

However, I would like to see that other use cases like smart infrastructures and smart traffic (which you mention as application) been also introduced because they bring other requirements, mostly from the management perspective, but also to have close-to-the-sensor processing capabilities.  

 

That is, IoT is not only about smart devices, it also about a smarter, programable environment. 

 

Regards




---------------------------

Pablo Chacin

CTO

SenseFields SL

Tlf (+34) 93 250 45 98

Gran Via 674, principal 1º

08010 Barcelona, Spain

 <http://www.sensefields.com/> http://www.sensefields.com 

 

On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 10:07 PM, Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org <mailto:dsr@w3.org> > wrote:

You may find some useful clarifications in my Mindtrek 2014 talk on the Web of Things, see:

    http://www.w3.org/2014/11/05-dsr-wot.pdf
    http://www.mindtrek.org/2014/

This covers the range of platforms, opportunities for common APIs across them, and much more.

I am very much hoping that you will be able to participate in the Interest Group and help us in the discussions leading towards the deliverables identified in the charter.

Best regards,

    Dave



On 04/11/14 14:31, Ken Blackwell wrote:

I've just finished reviewing the charter and I agree with Jonathan's points below, though I think the first point is already called out in the charter in 2.0 Survey of Existing Practices and Standards.

I'm very involved in Dell's IoT strategy and what I'm taking away from this document is the need to clearly differentiate the interface boundaries between IoT and WoT.  In my mind, at least, they are not the same thing though they are very complimentary.

There is a ton of effort going on right now across the industry to flesh out reference architectures for IoT.  They range from the very simple Thing connected directly via Ip to the internet to multi-tiered architectures with embedded command and control, aggregation layers, and device management and security.

Seems to me one of the big problems that we need to take on is how WoT standards handle the range of IoT architectures being developed.  As an example, the simplest case is some JavaScript running in a browser doing inventory and data collection from Things connected directly to the Internet or local network.  There is very little stuff (practically nothing) in between.  The other extreme is a cloud-based repository of device asset/configuration information, metric store with analytics results, orchestration and workflow engine, etc.  In this world, device access is never going to be directly possible but instead it will go through multiple layers of cloud and probably on-premise services.

So, as a Web developer, how can I write code once that will work in both environments?  Obviously this means abstracting the tiers (maybe 0, maybe dozens) through common programming interfaces such that my web app does not know or care how complex the IoT infrastructure is.  This means abstracting the security infrastructure as well.

Happy to dig deeper if the above needs further explaination.

Ken Blackwell
Chief Architect, Systems Management | Office of the CTO
Dell | Software Group
Ken.Blackwell@software.dell.com <mailto:Ken.Blackwell@software.dell.com> 
Office: +1 203 664 1932 <tel:%2B1%20203%20664%201932> 
Mobile: +1 203-733-5381 <tel:%2B1%20203-733-5381> 

-----Original Message-----
From: 전종홍 [mailto:hollobit@etri.re.kr <mailto:hollobit@etri.re.kr> ]
Sent: Sunday, November 02, 2014 9:16 PM
To: Dave Raggett; public-web-of-things@w3.org <mailto:public-web-of-things@w3.org> 
Subject: RE: Request for comments: Draft W3C Web of Things Interest Group Charter

Dear All,

How about to add these kind of tasks in the task part:
  • Tracking and documenting Web technologies that are particularly relevant on IoT/WoT
  • Definition of requirements that enable Web of Thing technologies to be used to enable the Small-constrained devices and Open Source Hardware.
  • Definition of requirements that enable Web technologies to be used to enable Thing(or device) management.

Best Regards,

--- Jonathan Jeon

-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Raggett [mailto:dsr@w3.org <mailto:dsr@w3.org> ]
Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2014 1:17 AM
To: public-web-of-things@w3.org <mailto:public-web-of-things@w3.org> 
Subject: Request for comments: Draft W3C Web of Things Interest Group Charter

This June we had the Workshop on the Web of Things in Berlin, see:

     http://www.w3.org/2014/02/wot/

The workshop report itself can be found at
http://www.w3.org/2014/02/wot/report.html

As an outcome of that workshop, we are preparing a charter for a Web of
Things Interest Group, following the precedents of the Web & TV and Web
& Mobile Interest Groups.  You can find the draft charter at:

http://www.w3.org/2014/09/wot-ig-charter.html

We would like to hear from a wide range of stakeholders to clarify the
mission and scope for the Interest Group, the target topics and industry
priorities, and opportunities for liaisons with other related standards
development organizations.  We will also be looking for people
interested in championing particular aspects of work, e.g. as task force
leaders, or as Interest Group Note editors. In the meantime, we welcome
suggestions for task force topics.

Please send comments and suggestions for changes to the charter to the
public list <public-wot-charter@w3.org <mailto:public-wot-charter@w3.org> >, or you can send them to the W3C
Staff Contact Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org <mailto:dsr@w3.org> >.

Many thanks for your help and looking forward to your comments.

-- Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org <mailto:dsr@w3.org> > http://www.w3.org/People/Raggett


-- 
Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org <mailto:dsr@w3.org> > http://www.w3.org/People/Raggett