[DG-IDoT] starter set of IoT defintions
stollman.j at gmail.com
Thu Feb 13 10:38:06 CST 2014
I appreciate your initiate in working to improve the straw man document. I
agree with some of your suggestions and disagree with others. One key
difference in our thinking is that I view the definitions if "type" as a
logical architecture, while your perspective is that we need to address the
physical architecture. Perhaps we need both. The group will have to
Below is my feedback on your proposed changes:
1. Intro bullet 1 device vs. instance. I can accept that "device"
might be misleading and cause people to only think in terms of hardware. I
understand your point about much of the heavy lifting of a processor being
performed by software, but I believe that the term "instance" is so generic
that it will create more confusion. Whether an application is on a chip, a
dedicated device, a shared device, or a device in the cloud, it must run on
something. The processor is really a combination of the application and
the device it runs on. We might want to change the word "device," but I
am uncomfortable with substituting "instance". Perhaps we should merely
call it a "thing" -- one of many components on the Internet of Things.
But, personally, I think that the word "thing" doesn't sound precise
2. Intro bullet 2 adding the concept of identify relationships to the
discussion of ownership. Identity relationships are important, but I think
that they are "second order" characteristics. Because identity
relationships are likely to be in continuous flux and new roles may arise
for many "things," I don't think that they are as fundamental as type,
ownership, and accessibility. Perhaps they represent a fourth category.
But I don't think that they should be mixed with ownership.
3. Figure. 1 changing the image of processor in Figure 1 to something
more "up-to-date". I have no objection to this recommendation. Have at it.
4. 1.2 Data Processor vs. Data Processor/Processor Application. I
would give the same argument here as for the device issue in #1 above.
Admittedly all processing requires an application, but I don't know that
the distinction is important enough to complicate the picture. Just
because processing takes place in the cloud rather than locally changes the
physical architecture but not the logical architecture.
5. 1.4 Adding gateway as a device type. I see "gateway" as an element
of the network, not of the "things" on the network. The "Internet of
Things" isn't just a collection of things; it is a collection of things
connected by a network infrastructure. I see "gateway" as part of this
network infrastructure, rather than one of the "things" being integrated.
6. 1.5 additions to definition of "combination". Based on my
discussion regarding gateways above, I do not believe that the addition is
7. 2. Relationships description. I don't disagree with any of the
points made about the different relationships described here. I just think
that they are independent of the notion of ownership and should be
addressed separately. The various "relationship" roles all need to be
allocated by the "owner" -- though the owner may choose to delegate some of
8. 3.1 additions to the definition of "discoverable". I have no
objection to the additions
9. 3.2 additional to the definition of "not discoverable". I would
argue that a "thing" not connected to the network is not a member of the
"Internet of Things" and, therefore, falls outside of the scope of the
document. For this reason, I would not support the addition.
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 8:26 AM, <Ingo.Friese at telekom.de> wrote:
> I tried to extend the paper a bit. Let's see if you agree with the
> changes. They are marked with yellow.
> *From:* dg-idot-bounces at kantarainitiative.org [mailto:
> dg-idot-bounces at kantarainitiative.org] *On Behalf Of *j stollman
> *Sent:* Samstag, 11. Januar 2014 18:02
> *To:* dg-idot at kantarainitiative.org
> *Subject:* [DG-IDoT] starter set of IoT defintions
> During our call on Friday 10 JAN, we determined that we needed to begin
> creating some definitions for the IoT space to prevent confusion as we move
> The attached "starter set" is a first draft at trying to define some of
> the concepts for which we need a common understanding in order to have
> fruitful discussions. Not only are these definitions open to modification,
> but the concepts, themselves, may require reconsideration.
> Accordingly, please review the attached document and send me your
> feedback. Once it gains a certain level of consensus I'll publish it to
> the IoT site. (As a matter of version control, I think it is easier to
> consoidate multiple individual comments on the current draft, before
> publishing it to the site.
> Thank you.
> Jeff Stollman
> stollman.j at gmail.com
> 1 202.683.8699
> Truth never triumphs -- its opponents just die out.
> Science advances one funeral at a time.
> Max Planck
stollman.j at gmail.com
Truth never triumphs -- its opponents just die out.
Science advances one funeral at a time.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the DG-IDoT