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

Along these lines, you might look at some of the content we’ve had during Ontology Summit 2015, i.e., 3 months of virtual sessions, culminating with the face-to-face Symposium at NSF, Ballston, VA, this Mon-Tues, Apr. 13-14:

Work pages:
http://ontolog-02.cim3.net/wiki/OntologySummit2015#Ontology_Summit_2015_:_Internet_of_Things:_Toward_Smart_Networked_Systems_and_Societies.


Pretty page: http://ontolog.cim3.net/OntologySummit/2015/.


Thanks,
Leo

From: Dom Guinard [mailto:dom@evrythng.com]
Sent: Saturday, April 11, 2015 11:35 AM
To: Dave Raggett; Erik Wilde
Cc: Lynn, James (Fortify on Demand Security Services); Public Web of Things IG; Vlad Trifa
Subject: Re: Here’s the one thing someone needs to invent before the internet of things can take off

Hi all,

[cid:image001.jpg@01D0745C.82D8BD80]
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 // w evrythng.com<http://evrythng.com/>
t @domguinard // w guinard.org<http://guinard.org/>
b webofthings.org<http://webofthings.org/>



[cid:image002.jpg@01D0745C.82D8BD80]
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>>



[cid:image003.jpg@01D0745C.82D8BD80]
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>>



[cid:image002.jpg@01D0745C.82D8BD80]
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>>