[DG-IDoT] starter set of IoT defintions

j stollman 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
   his authority.
   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:

> Hi,
> I tried to extend the paper a bit. Let's see if you agree with the
> changes. They are marked with yellow.
> Best,
>                 Ingo
> *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
> along.
> 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
> --
> 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

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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kantarainitiative.org/pipermail/dg-idot/attachments/20140213/042bbd6f/attachment.html>

More information about the DG-IDoT mailing list