Re: [use cases] IERC Report for IoT use cases

On 14/03/15 05:14, Dave Raggett wrote:
>
>> On 14 Mar 2015, at 06:26, Ari Keränen <ari.keranen@ericsson.com
>> <mailto:ari.keranen@ericsson.com>> wrote:
>>
>> The European Research Cluster on the Internet of Things has a report
>> that contains many potentially relevant IoT use cases:
>> http://www.internet-of-things-research.eu/pdf/IERC_Cluster_Book_2014_Ch.3_SRIA_WEB.pdf
>
> Thanks for the pointer, I have added it to the wiki page on uses cases
> and application domains. It has lots of useful material.  Different
> groups are using slightly different terms, so it is worth devoting some
> effort to clarifying which terms we want to use for classifying use
> cases and to define what we mean by those terms.
>
> In the IERC report Figure 3.5 lists the following domains:
>
>    * Smart Cities
>    * Smart Transport
>    * Smart Buildings
>    * Smart Energy
>    * Smart Industry
>    * Smart Health
>    * Smart Living
>
> But it is interesting in how the report covers the areas:
>
> Smart Cities
> Smart Energy & Smart Grid
> Smart Mobility & Transport
> Smart Homes, Smart Buildings & Infrastructure
> Smart Smart Factory & Smart Manufacturing
> Smart Health
> Smart Environment: Food and Water monitoring and Security
> Participatory Sensing
> Smart Logistics & Retail
>
> “Wearables” isn’t mentioned, and “Home automation” only appears once.
>
> I am unsure what is the scope for "Smart Cities” and how it relates to
> other terms.  I think it can be used as an umbrella term that includes
> many other more specific areas such as Smart Energy, Smart Mobility and
> Smart Homes.  There is a clear distinction between a focus on mobility
> for people and for goods, but the terms are less clear. Logistics is
> clearly related to transporting goods, warehouses and stock management
> in retail stores, but overlaps with "Smart Transport”. I am sure that I
> am not the only one who is a little confused as to the distinction
> between some of the categories.
>
> This sounds like something we should discuss!

Yes, a common problem with this area is that "almost anything goes" and 
having a coherent but comprehensive classification is not easy. But 
let's discuss more tomorrow and see how far we can get.


Cheers,
Ari

Received on Monday, 16 March 2015 23:00:06 UTC