[DG-IDoT] Terminology discussion

Ingo Friese ingo.friese at gmail.com
Sat Feb 1 02:31:38 CST 2014


Hi Andrew,
Hi Sal,

I think the terminology is just a pre condition for discussing Identity concepts. If there are already defined and widely terms...lets use them.
I had a Look in different SDOs but I'havent found really good fitting stuff here. Do You know a good Source for terminology?

Ingo

> Am 31.01.2014 um 22:59 schrieb "Salvatore D'Agostino" <sal at idmachines.com>:
> 
> +1 Andrew, 
> 
> https://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/IDoT/Concepts+of+Identity+w
> ithin+the+Internet+of+Things  
> 
> "The purpose of this paper is to describe identity concepts in the Internet
> of Things. Identity mechanisms in the Internet of Things are different from
> those in the classic web. 
> 
> Furthermore this paper proposes a terminology for Identity management in the
> Internet of Things. This should help to facilitate discussions and work in
> this area without the need to define basic terms again."
> 
> Agree we don’t need to propose a terminology.  Trying to wean any
> conversation about terminology out of my existence in fact ;-)
> 
> So maybe we can work on the abstract text before we go any further.
> 
> I like wading into identifiers as Scott has done.   (I just trimmed a
> sentence and would like to talk more about this section).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From: dg-idot-bounces at kantarainitiative.org
> [mailto:dg-idot-bounces at kantarainitiative.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Hughes
> Sent: Friday, January 31, 2014 3:31 PM
> To: Ingo.Friese at telekom.de
> Cc: dg-idot at kantarainitiative.org
> Subject: Re: [DG-IDoT] Terminology discussion
> 
> Hi Ingo - I'm lurking on the list so have probably missed the context if the
> terminology discussion. 
> 
> Having just experienced a couple of drawn out vocabulary working groups, I
> am wondering why IDoT is not attempting to simply adopt a
> vocabulary/ontology/list of terms from any of the IoT specific groups. 
> 
> Then, the focus here could be extensions to deal with the ID aspects...
> 
> Andrew. 
> 
> On Friday, January 31, 2014, <Ingo.Friese at telekom.de> wrote:
> Dear All,
>  
> Jeff started with Sensor, Actuator and Processor. I’d like to extend this
> model a bit. Because I think the processor could be either near to the
> actuator (e.g. the processor in a house regulates the heating because of
> sensor data. 
> This “intelligence” could also be somewhere in the cloud/internet. The
> processor could be a service on a server somewhere or and app on a
> smartphone.
> So I’d like to add an IoT instance in the network.
>  
> A second point are intermediates or gateways (names are to be discussed).
> Because many solutions have one or more instances between sensor/actuator an
> the service in the cloud. Here e.g. several sensors are concentrated.
>  
> What do you think?
>  
> Best,
>                 Ingo
>  
> 
> 
> -- 
> Andrew Hughes CISM CISSP 
> Independent Consultant
> In Turn Information Management Consulting
> +1 250.888.9474
> 1249 Palmer Road,
> Victoria, BC V8P 2H8
> AndrewHughes3000 at gmail.com 
> ca.linkedin.com/pub/andrew-hughes/a/58/682/
> Identity Management | IT Governance | Information Security 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> DG-IDoT mailing list
> DG-IDoT at kantarainitiative.org
> http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/dg-idot


More information about the DG-IDoT mailing list