W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wot-ig@w3.org > April 2015

Re: Here’s the one thing someone needs to invent before the internet of things can take off

From: Dom Guinard <dom@evrythng.com>
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2015 16:34:32 +0100
Message-ID: <55293F08.9040405@evrythng.com>
To: Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org>, Erik Wilde <dret@berkeley.edu>
CC: "Lynn, James (Fortify on Demand Security Services)" <james.lynn@hp.com>, Public Web of Things IG <public-wot-ig@w3.org>, Vlad Trifa <vlad@evrythng.com>
Hi all,
> Erik Wilde <mailto:dret@berkeley.edu>
> 10 April 2015 18:02
> hello.
>
>
>
> well, if the goal is to have a "unified world model of things", which 
> seems to be what dave is suggesting, then step 1 would be to define 
> such a model, in some shape or form.
>
> step 2 then would be to represent that model in some shape or form. 
> that could be based any kind of metamodel that's around, including XML 
> and JSON (and of course RDF as well). the value, though, would be in 
> the shared model, and not in the chosen metamodel.

This is along the line of what Compose would like to contribute to the 
WoT IG. As announced in the last conf, call we will present an early 
version of this in the Face 2 Face in Munich.

The core idea is:

1) A set of REST based patterns and best practices for providing 
services on Web Things (very much along the lines of what we worked on 
together in the past Erik http://webofthings.org/publications/ and what 
Compose further developed)
2) A JSON-based model (with JSON-LD and semantic extensions) .

> to me, the bigger question is whether it's a sensible mission to give 
> ourselves. nobody doubts that if everybody spoke the same language 
> (i.e., used the same conceptual model when talking about the world), 
> then things would be a lot easier. that's true for machines as well 
> as, very generally speaking, for humans.
>
> however, so far we have many lessons of where this approach failed, 
> but admittedly also some where it succeeded. often, the biggest 
> problem is that conceptual models are always contextual and thus 
> cannot be created independent from usage, and that the more users you 
> have, the more contexts you have. another big problem is semantic 
> drift, where concepts change over time in subtle and often 
> unforeseeable ways.
That is unfortunately very true, many many failed and as Dave puts it, 
it might be too far fetched for the WoT IG. On the other hand, the IoT 
might be a bit more ready that before to accept something like that as 
it seems to be the "missing standard" of the IoT. A lot work was done 
along the lines of networking layers, now also a lot about the 
application protocols (REST WoT, MQTT, CoAP) but a lot less about the 
models that these protocols transport, key to a higher level type of 
interoperability.
>
> so, my opinion is that trying to find/invent the "HTML for IoT" might 
> end up being as successful as inventing the "HTML for Services" and 
> the many other places where this has been tried: not very much. only 
> because it would be nice if something existed does not necessarily 
> mean that it is very likely that it will be easy or even possible to 
> create it.

I would suggest we present what we have so far at the F2F in Munich and 
further discuss it in a breakout session.
>
> cheers,
>
> dret.
>

-- 
Dominique Guinard, Ph.D. ////
co-founder & chief technology officer
+44 79 5153 2987 // wevrythng.com <http://evrythng.com/>
t @domguinard // wguinard.org <http://guinard.org/>
bwebofthings.org <http://webofthings.org/>


> Dave Raggett <mailto:dsr@w3.org>
> 10 April 2015 13:51
> XML or JSON aren’t sufficient by themselves.  We need semantics, data 
> formats, and bindings to scripting languages and protocols, e.g. HTTP, 
> Web Sockets, CoAP, MQTT, STOMP and XMPP. We also need a consistent 
> approach to security, for instance, see: Bruce Schneier’s  post: "The 
> Internet of Things is Wildly Insecure — And Often Unpatchable"
>
> https://www.schneier.com/essays/archives/2014/01/the_internet_of_thin.html
>
> — Dave
>
>
> —
>    Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org <mailto:dsr@w3.org>>
>
>
>
> Lynn, James (Fortify on Demand Security Services) 
> <mailto:james.lynn@hp.com>
> 10 April 2015 13:39
>
> Interesting indeed. But isn’t XML sufficient to handle all of these 
> needs. Just splitting hairs perhaps but I think what is really needed 
> is a standard IoT Schema (or set of Schemata) and accompanying semantics.
>
> Jim Lynn
>
> James.Lynn@hp.com <mailto:James.Lynn@hp.com>
>
> *From:*Dave Raggett [mailto:dsr@w3.org]
> *Sent:* Friday, April 10, 2015 8:19 AM
> *To:* Public Web of Things IG
> *Subject:* Here’s the one thing someone needs to invent before the 
> internet of things can take off
>
> Interesting blog post
>
> and a little later
>
> See:
>
> http://qz.com/158782/heres-the-one-thing-someone-needs-to-invent-before-the-internet-of-things-can-take-off/
>
> This is similar to what Intel’s Mike Bell says:
>
> In essence, the IoT is beset by product silos and a plethora of 
> approaches and platforms with very little interoperability.  We’re 
> beginning to see a repeat of the mobile arena with companies vying to 
> own the ecosystems they set up. Most will fail, leaving a few 
> competing and non-interoperable platforms. This fragmentation presents 
> many challenges to developers who want to deliver services across 
> platforms. The solution will be to expose these platforms through the 
> Web with a new class of web servers that provide an open framework for 
> the Web of Things by analogy with the Web of Pages, enabling world 
> wide discovery and interoperability.
>
>
> More specifically, we could have web servers that expose “things” as 
> proxies for physical or abstract entities, and model these in terms of 
> events, properties and actions, with bindings to scripting APIs and to 
> a variety of protocols to support REST communication patterns like 
> push, pull, pub-sub and peer to peer.
>
> A “thing” description language would play the role of HTML, and 
> provide for core metadata and relationships to other things, as a 
> basis for discovery and interoperability through matching both 
> semantics and data formats. Servers could be designed for a wide range 
> of scales from the cloud through to microcontrollers. I am working on 
> a write up with further details, and look forward to presenting this 
> at the upcoming Munich face to face.
>
> If you haven’t already registered and would like to attend the meeting 
> please register as soon as possible so that our hosts are properly 
> prepared.
>
> WoT IG F2F Meeting: 
> https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/F2F_meeting:_20-22_April_2015_in_Munich
>
> Registration form: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/75874/munich15/
>
> Looking forward to seeing you all in Munich!
>
> —
>
>    Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org <mailto:dsr@w3.org>>
>
> Dave Raggett <mailto:dsr@w3.org>
> 10 April 2015 13:19
> Interesting blog post
>
>
> and a little later
>
>
> See:
>
> http://qz.com/158782/heres-the-one-thing-someone-needs-to-invent-before-the-internet-of-things-can-take-off/
>
> This is similar to what Intel’s Mike Bell says:
>
>
> In essence, the IoT is beset by product silos and a plethora of 
> approaches and platforms with very little interoperability.  We’re 
> beginning to see a repeat of the mobile arena with companies vying to 
> own the ecosystems they set up. Most will fail, leaving a few 
> competing and non-interoperable platforms. This fragmentation presents 
> many challenges to developers who want to deliver services across 
> platforms. The solution will be to expose these platforms through the 
> Web with a new class of web servers that provide an open framework for 
> the Web of Things by analogy with the Web of Pages, enabling world 
> wide discovery and interoperability.
>
> More specifically, we could have web servers that expose “things” as 
> proxies for physical or abstract entities, and model these in terms of 
> events, properties and actions, with bindings to scripting APIs and to 
> a variety of protocols to support REST communication patterns like 
> push, pull, pub-sub and peer to peer.
>
> A “thing” description language would play the role of HTML, and 
> provide for core metadata and relationships to other things, as a 
> basis for discovery and interoperability through matching both 
> semantics and data formats. Servers could be designed for a wide range 
> of scales from the cloud through to microcontrollers. I am working on 
> a write up with further details, and look forward to presenting this 
> at the upcoming Munich face to face.
>
> If you haven’t already registered and would like to attend the meeting 
> please register as soon as possible so that our hosts are properly 
> prepared.
>
> WoT IG F2F Meeting: 
> https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/F2F_meeting:_20-22_April_2015_in_Munich
>
> Registration form: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/75874/munich15/
>
> Looking forward to seeing you all in Munich!
> —
>    Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org <mailto:dsr@w3.org>>
>
>
>
Received on Saturday, 11 April 2015 15:35:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:26:28 UTC