Re: Another view on architecture

looks good..

perhaps,

modalities that relate moreover to solutions such as SoLiD[1] whereby the
human has some sort of high-availability cloud-storage platform (TimBL has
often noted 'socially aware cloud storage' but these sorts of use-cases
also highlight their utility for things) that provides for independent
operation of the thing to the purchase event (and related MFG
considerations)) may need to be more clearly defined / differentiated?

[1] http://crosscloud.org/2016/www-mansour-pdf.pdf

On Wed, 11 Jan 2017 at 03:44 Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org> wrote:

> I have attached a diagram created by Antonio Kung (trialogic) based upon
> a diagram (also attached) that I drew to explain how W3C's work relates
> to other IoT alliances and SDOs.  W3C's work focuses on what I am
> calling application contracts between applications and things. This
> covers the information models (properties, actions, events, metadata),
> semantic models (the kinds of things and their relationships), privacy
> and terms and conditions, etc. The IoT platform contracts are the
> responsibility of the various IoT platforms. Antonio took my diagram
> added in the set of actors involved in the thing lifecycle including
> supply, procurement and operation.  My discussions with companies at CES
> showed the importance of providing more business oriented accounts of
> the Web of things.  Your comments are welcomed!
>
> p.s. Antonio and I are part of a new European Coordination and Support
> Action called Create-Net, and intended to support the EU's large scale
> IoT pilots. I will lead the work package on pre-normative activities and
> standardization.
>
> --
> Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org> http://www.w3.org/People/Raggett
> W3C lead for the Web of things
>
>