New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Support discussion of Internet of Things (IoT)-related applications of schema.org #1272

Open
danbri opened this Issue Aug 1, 2016 · 34 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
@danbri
Contributor

danbri commented Aug 1, 2016

There have been a variety of conversations around schema.org-meets-IoT and they would benefit from having a home closer to the project as well as an integrated entry point (for which I suggest iot.schema.org).

Given 1.) that there is already a large (in fact the largest) W3C Community Group devoted to (the highly related idea of) "Web of Things" ) 2.) this is a topic that relates strongly to parties beyond the W3C environment e.g. IAB/IETF, I have taken the liberty of setting up a simple ad-hoc public mailing list, sdo-iot-sync@googlegroups.com, rather than our usual practice of initiating a new W3C Community Group. I suggest that we accompany this with a simple entry point at iot.schema.org and will proceed in that direction unless anyone flags a concern. More focussed and tightly-scoped collaborative activities might happen in dedicated (e.g. community) groups at W3C or elsewhere, but for now there is no simple place for discussion of "schema.org meets the Internet of Things". I'd like to fix that ASAP.

IoT-related applications are incredibly diverse and are highly inter-related with other application themes such as health-lifesci, e-commerce, geospatial, datasets, sensors etc. Many existing schema.org schemas are also highly relevant to IoT applications. To make the most of this potential, and to provide a place where IoT-oriented schema proposals, extensions and implementations can be discovered, let's create a simple one page gateway via a "stub" hosted extension, iot.schema.org. It remains to be seen whether actually hosting schemas there, rather than by adding to the core vocabulary or externally, is the right path. Quite likely we may do a little of each. For now I am concerned primarily with surfacing ad-hoc conversations in a way that allows more visibility and wider collaboration amongst those enthused about semantic interoperability for the Internet of Things.

Copying schema.org steering group for info / advice / sanity check: @rvguha @shankarnat @chaals @vholland @scor @mfhepp.

@thadguidry

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@thadguidry

thadguidry Aug 1, 2016

@danbri let us know when the mailing list is up and running. I plan to contribute highly in this Domain. Thanks.

@danbri let us know when the mailing list is up and running. I plan to contribute highly in this Domain. Thanks.

@danbri

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@danbri

danbri Aug 1, 2016

Contributor

Mailing list is up but give us a few days for "running". There's a short "getting started" doc in the works too that might help give things a little direction.

Contributor

danbri commented Aug 1, 2016

Mailing list is up but give us a few days for "running". There's a short "getting started" doc in the works too that might help give things a little direction.

@vholland

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@vholland

vholland Aug 2, 2016

Contributor

Joining the larger W3C discussion seems like the best approach. I'd hate for the groups to be building train tracks from opposite coasts and then fail to meet in the middle.

Contributor

vholland commented Aug 2, 2016

Joining the larger W3C discussion seems like the best approach. I'd hate for the groups to be building train tracks from opposite coasts and then fail to meet in the middle.

@ghost

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@ghost

ghost Aug 3, 2016

the Web of Things [1] group seems like an appropriate place to make
enquiries.

[1] https://www.w3.org/WoT/

On Wed, 3 Aug 2016 at 04:07 vholland notifications@github.com wrote:

Joining the larger W3C discussion seems like the best approach. I'd hate
for the groups to be building train tracks from opposite coasts and then
fail to meet in the middle.


You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
#1272 (comment),
or mute the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AFdABhD_DEUlUE8o_uRcNrljxwCq1DMJks5qb4dzgaJpZM4JZii1
.

ghost commented Aug 3, 2016

the Web of Things [1] group seems like an appropriate place to make
enquiries.

[1] https://www.w3.org/WoT/

On Wed, 3 Aug 2016 at 04:07 vholland notifications@github.com wrote:

Joining the larger W3C discussion seems like the best approach. I'd hate
for the groups to be building train tracks from opposite coasts and then
fail to meet in the middle.


You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
#1272 (comment),
or mute the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AFdABhD_DEUlUE8o_uRcNrljxwCq1DMJks5qb4dzgaJpZM4JZii1
.

@danbri

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@danbri

danbri Aug 3, 2016

Contributor

Regarding "surfacing discussions", amongst others I've had a very encouraging chat with W3C's Dave Raggett (@draggett) who leads the W3C work (community group + interest group + plans for a working group), and with Phil Archer (@philarcher1, also of W3C) regarding possible mechanisms for W3C REC-track work to normatively cite community-based schemas such as ours. I don't believe there is a 1:1 relationship between "schema.org meets IoT/WoT" and any other group; it is rather that various aspects of schemas and various aspects of IoT will intersect over time, hence the suggestion to use an "sdo-iot-sync" list.

Contributor

danbri commented Aug 3, 2016

Regarding "surfacing discussions", amongst others I've had a very encouraging chat with W3C's Dave Raggett (@draggett) who leads the W3C work (community group + interest group + plans for a working group), and with Phil Archer (@philarcher1, also of W3C) regarding possible mechanisms for W3C REC-track work to normatively cite community-based schemas such as ours. I don't believe there is a 1:1 relationship between "schema.org meets IoT/WoT" and any other group; it is rather that various aspects of schemas and various aspects of IoT will intersect over time, hence the suggestion to use an "sdo-iot-sync" list.

@danbri

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@danbri

danbri Aug 19, 2016

Contributor

@shankarnat @chaals @nicolastorzec @scor @mfhepp et al, my suggestion for next steps is that we include a 1-page iot.schema.org in our next release, and its role will be to channel discussions towards mailing list + github. We shouldn't rush into any specific schemas but it would be great to pull together some otherwise scattered conversations about IoT schemas and semantic interoperability.

Contributor

danbri commented Aug 19, 2016

@shankarnat @chaals @nicolastorzec @scor @mfhepp et al, my suggestion for next steps is that we include a 1-page iot.schema.org in our next release, and its role will be to channel discussions towards mailing list + github. We shouldn't rush into any specific schemas but it would be great to pull together some otherwise scattered conversations about IoT schemas and semantic interoperability.

@tmarshbing

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@tmarshbing

tmarshbing Aug 25, 2016

@danbri, your proposal and next steps make sense to me. Looking forward to watching this progress.

@danbri, your proposal and next steps make sense to me. Looking forward to watching this progress.

@danbri

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@danbri

danbri Aug 30, 2016

Contributor

I have made some updates.

  1. our "work in progress" branch for next schema.org release (sdo-callisto aka version 3.2) now has a stub IoT section. This can be (pre)viewed at http://iot.webschemas.org/ and if we proceed as proposed here will eventually constitute http://iot.schema.org/
    (it links to this issue, the mailing list, and to a discussion document).
  2. There's a discussion document towards getting started with IoT + schema.org in the repo and on the draft site, see http://iot.webschemas.org/docs/iot-gettingstarted.html for (somewhat simple) HTML. Original was in google docs and is probably the best place to refine specifics of that text or its successors. I suggest Github and email for bigger picture discussions.
  3. I've sent a kickoff mail to the sdo-iot-sync@googlegroups.com mailing list mentioned above, and cc:'d our steering group. Please join the group; for now I have set it to being postable by the world but we'll want to restrict posts to members only soon for better spam filtering.

/cc @chaals @nicolastorzec @vholland @mfhepp @rvguha @tmarshbing @shankarnat @scor

Contributor

danbri commented Aug 30, 2016

I have made some updates.

  1. our "work in progress" branch for next schema.org release (sdo-callisto aka version 3.2) now has a stub IoT section. This can be (pre)viewed at http://iot.webschemas.org/ and if we proceed as proposed here will eventually constitute http://iot.schema.org/
    (it links to this issue, the mailing list, and to a discussion document).
  2. There's a discussion document towards getting started with IoT + schema.org in the repo and on the draft site, see http://iot.webschemas.org/docs/iot-gettingstarted.html for (somewhat simple) HTML. Original was in google docs and is probably the best place to refine specifics of that text or its successors. I suggest Github and email for bigger picture discussions.
  3. I've sent a kickoff mail to the sdo-iot-sync@googlegroups.com mailing list mentioned above, and cc:'d our steering group. Please join the group; for now I have set it to being postable by the world but we'll want to restrict posts to members only soon for better spam filtering.

/cc @chaals @nicolastorzec @vholland @mfhepp @rvguha @tmarshbing @shankarnat @scor

@scor

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@scor

scor Aug 30, 2016

Contributor

👍

Contributor

scor commented Aug 30, 2016

👍

@mfhepp

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@mfhepp

mfhepp Aug 30, 2016

Contributor

+1

Contributor

mfhepp commented Aug 30, 2016

+1

@danbri

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
Contributor

danbri commented Aug 30, 2016

@thadguidry

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@thadguidry

thadguidry Aug 30, 2016

@danbri Emailed our mailing list to start on a TODO list (along with a quick primer on middle-layers and players)

@danbri Emailed our mailing list to start on a TODO list (along with a quick primer on middle-layers and players)

@rvguha

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@rvguha

rvguha Aug 31, 2016

Contributor

This sounds like a great idea.

guha

On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 5:38 AM, Dan Brickley notifications@github.com
wrote:

There have been a variety of conversations around schema.org-meets-IoT and
they would benefit from having a home closer to the project as well as an
integrated entry point (for which I suggest iot.schema.org).

Given 1.) that there is already a large (in fact the largest) W3C
Community Group devoted to (the highly related idea of )"Web of Things
https://www.w3.org/community/wot/" ) 2.) this is a topic that relates
strongly to parties beyond the W3C environment e.g. IAB
https://www.iab.org/activities/workshops/iotsi//IETF, I have taken the
liberty of setting up a simple ad-hoc public mailing list, sdo-
iot-sync@googlegroups.com
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/sdo-iot-sync, rather than our
usual practice of initiating a new W3C Community Group. I suggest that we
accompany this with a simple entry point at iot.schema.org and will
proceed in that direction unless anyone flags a concern. More focussed and
tightly-scoped collaborative activities might happen in dedicated (e.g.
community) groups at W3C or elsewhere, but for now there is no simple place
for discussion of "schema.org meets the Internet of Things". I'd like to
fix that ASAP.

IoT-related applications are incredibly diverse and are highly
inter-related with other application themes such as health-lifesci,
e-commerce, geospatial, datasets, sensors etc. Many existing schema.org
schemas are also highly relevant to IoT applications. To make the most of
this potential, and to provide a place where IoT-oriented schema proposals,
extensions and implementations can be discovered, let's create a simple one
page gateway via a "stub" hosted extension, iot.schema.org. It remains to
be seen whether actually hosting schemas there, rather than by adding to
the core vocabulary or externally, is the right path. Quite likely we may
do a little of each. For now I am concerned primarily with surfacing ad-hoc
conversations in a way that allows more visibility and wider collaboration
amongst those enthused about semantic interoperability for the Internet of
Things.

Copying schema.org steering group for info / advice / sanity check:
@rvguha https://github.com/rvguha @shankarnat
https://github.com/shankarnat @chaals https://github.com/chaals
@vholland https://github.com/vholland @scor https://github.com/scor
@mfhepp https://github.com/mfhepp.


You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
#1272, or mute the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AFAlCjGGr_NVv5CvHGwZS9DsL5Ez9Zbuks5qbejJgaJpZM4JZii1
.

Contributor

rvguha commented Aug 31, 2016

This sounds like a great idea.

guha

On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 5:38 AM, Dan Brickley notifications@github.com
wrote:

There have been a variety of conversations around schema.org-meets-IoT and
they would benefit from having a home closer to the project as well as an
integrated entry point (for which I suggest iot.schema.org).

Given 1.) that there is already a large (in fact the largest) W3C
Community Group devoted to (the highly related idea of )"Web of Things
https://www.w3.org/community/wot/" ) 2.) this is a topic that relates
strongly to parties beyond the W3C environment e.g. IAB
https://www.iab.org/activities/workshops/iotsi//IETF, I have taken the
liberty of setting up a simple ad-hoc public mailing list, sdo-
iot-sync@googlegroups.com
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/sdo-iot-sync, rather than our
usual practice of initiating a new W3C Community Group. I suggest that we
accompany this with a simple entry point at iot.schema.org and will
proceed in that direction unless anyone flags a concern. More focussed and
tightly-scoped collaborative activities might happen in dedicated (e.g.
community) groups at W3C or elsewhere, but for now there is no simple place
for discussion of "schema.org meets the Internet of Things". I'd like to
fix that ASAP.

IoT-related applications are incredibly diverse and are highly
inter-related with other application themes such as health-lifesci,
e-commerce, geospatial, datasets, sensors etc. Many existing schema.org
schemas are also highly relevant to IoT applications. To make the most of
this potential, and to provide a place where IoT-oriented schema proposals,
extensions and implementations can be discovered, let's create a simple one
page gateway via a "stub" hosted extension, iot.schema.org. It remains to
be seen whether actually hosting schemas there, rather than by adding to
the core vocabulary or externally, is the right path. Quite likely we may
do a little of each. For now I am concerned primarily with surfacing ad-hoc
conversations in a way that allows more visibility and wider collaboration
amongst those enthused about semantic interoperability for the Internet of
Things.

Copying schema.org steering group for info / advice / sanity check:
@rvguha https://github.com/rvguha @shankarnat
https://github.com/shankarnat @chaals https://github.com/chaals
@vholland https://github.com/vholland @scor https://github.com/scor
@mfhepp https://github.com/mfhepp.


You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
#1272, or mute the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AFAlCjGGr_NVv5CvHGwZS9DsL5Ez9Zbuks5qbejJgaJpZM4JZii1
.

danbri added a commit that referenced this issue Oct 5, 2016

danbri added a commit that referenced this issue Oct 5, 2016

@thadguidry

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@thadguidry

thadguidry Oct 5, 2016

Add #1286 as a TODO for this issue. It will be useful and is needed for IOT vendors and publishers and subscribers.

Add #1286 as a TODO for this issue. It will be useful and is needed for IOT vendors and publishers and subscribers.

@danbri

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@danbri

danbri Oct 7, 2016

Contributor

The Inter-IoT project is aiming at the design and implementation of, and experimentation with, an open cross-layer framework and associated methodology, to provide voluntary interoperability among heterogeneous Internet of Things (IoT) platforms. The project is initially driven by uses cases from two domains: (e/m) Health and transportation and logistics in a port environment. While the Inter-IoT will provide interoperability across the software stack, here, we focus our attention on the semantic interoperability. In this context, we present a concise overview of existing IoT-related semantic approaches, which might either be directly applicable to, or serve as a source of inspiration for, the Inter-IoT applications.

I can't see a free-to-read copy of the article, sadly. But http://plasma.dimes.unical.it/events/I4T2016/PDF/PawlowskiIoTSemantics.pdf seems to be a related presentation.

Contributor

danbri commented Oct 7, 2016

The Inter-IoT project is aiming at the design and implementation of, and experimentation with, an open cross-layer framework and associated methodology, to provide voluntary interoperability among heterogeneous Internet of Things (IoT) platforms. The project is initially driven by uses cases from two domains: (e/m) Health and transportation and logistics in a port environment. While the Inter-IoT will provide interoperability across the software stack, here, we focus our attention on the semantic interoperability. In this context, we present a concise overview of existing IoT-related semantic approaches, which might either be directly applicable to, or serve as a source of inspiration for, the Inter-IoT applications.

I can't see a free-to-read copy of the article, sadly. But http://plasma.dimes.unical.it/events/I4T2016/PDF/PawlowskiIoTSemantics.pdf seems to be a related presentation.

@thadguidry

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@thadguidry

thadguidry Oct 7, 2016

@3gpp standards already has 1-5 year view of IoT with use cases and MIoT Massive Internet of Things. (that's how we roll in the ICT industry) This is one of just many practical studies
http://www.3gpp.org/ftp//Specs/archive/22_series/22.861/22861-e10.zip

I don't want to overload Schema.org with 3GPP but want to let folks know that Communications side of IoT is covered within it. And I am here along with other Ericsson employees to help build bridges where/if need be.

IoT is not about Things or Devices, but rather its about Communications and Data Exchange...where Things and Devices happen to play a Role. Luckily, our efforts here on Schema.org and IoT alignment are fairly easy compared to the humongous efforts needed within ICT and 3GPP to make it all work seamlessly without breaking a sweat for us here.

thadguidry commented Oct 7, 2016

@3gpp standards already has 1-5 year view of IoT with use cases and MIoT Massive Internet of Things. (that's how we roll in the ICT industry) This is one of just many practical studies
http://www.3gpp.org/ftp//Specs/archive/22_series/22.861/22861-e10.zip

I don't want to overload Schema.org with 3GPP but want to let folks know that Communications side of IoT is covered within it. And I am here along with other Ericsson employees to help build bridges where/if need be.

IoT is not about Things or Devices, but rather its about Communications and Data Exchange...where Things and Devices happen to play a Role. Luckily, our efforts here on Schema.org and IoT alignment are fairly easy compared to the humongous efforts needed within ICT and 3GPP to make it all work seamlessly without breaking a sweat for us here.

@thadguidry

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@thadguidry

thadguidry Oct 19, 2016

SCADA is another similar forerunner to IoT dealing with Data and Interoperability. Currently there are some ISO standards around SCADA communications. We'll want at least 1 person from the SCADA community to help our plans. But I don't know of anyone myself.

SCADA is another similar forerunner to IoT dealing with Data and Interoperability. Currently there are some ISO standards around SCADA communications. We'll want at least 1 person from the SCADA community to help our plans. But I don't know of anyone myself.

@danbri

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@danbri

danbri Dec 7, 2016

Contributor

https://twitter.com/godanSec/status/802230005770096642 gives a good glimpse of the real scope of IoT - in this case as applied to agriculture. It is important that we don't take one central stereotype (the smart lightbulb) as proxying for the entire diverse set of IoT scenarios.

Contributor

danbri commented Dec 7, 2016

https://twitter.com/godanSec/status/802230005770096642 gives a good glimpse of the real scope of IoT - in this case as applied to agriculture. It is important that we don't take one central stereotype (the smart lightbulb) as proxying for the entire diverse set of IoT scenarios.

@danbri

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@danbri

danbri Jan 20, 2017

Contributor

See https://swit.smartsdk.eu/news/ for papers and presentations from a recent semweb-meets-iot workshop.

Contributor

danbri commented Jan 20, 2017

See https://swit.smartsdk.eu/news/ for papers and presentations from a recent semweb-meets-iot workshop.

@danbri

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@danbri

danbri Jan 30, 2017

Contributor

Please take a look: http://w3c.github.io/sdw/ssn/#TheSOSAontology http://w3c.github.io/sdw/ssn/#TheSSNontology

  • Classes: | Actuation | Actuator | FeatureOfInterest | ObservableProperty | Observation | Platform | Procedure | Result | Sample | Sensor |
  • Properties: | hasFeatureOfInterest | hasResult | hasSample | hasValue | hostedBy | hosts | invokedBy | invokes | isFeatureOfInterestOf | isObservedBy | isResultOf | isSampleOf | madeObservation | observedProperty | observes | phenomenonTime | resultTime | usedProcedure |

(this is part of the work being done in the W3C Spatial Data on the Web group...)

Contributor

danbri commented Jan 30, 2017

Please take a look: http://w3c.github.io/sdw/ssn/#TheSOSAontology http://w3c.github.io/sdw/ssn/#TheSSNontology

  • Classes: | Actuation | Actuator | FeatureOfInterest | ObservableProperty | Observation | Platform | Procedure | Result | Sample | Sensor |
  • Properties: | hasFeatureOfInterest | hasResult | hasSample | hasValue | hostedBy | hosts | invokedBy | invokes | isFeatureOfInterestOf | isObservedBy | isResultOf | isSampleOf | madeObservation | observedProperty | observes | phenomenonTime | resultTime | usedProcedure |

(this is part of the work being done in the W3C Spatial Data on the Web group...)

@chicco785

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@chicco785

chicco785 Feb 2, 2017

Hi all,
discussing with the FIWARE guys working on https://github.com/Fiware/dataModels there is a certain interest to link existing json schema to schema.org (which of course implies adding the needed "semantics") - given that one of the next steps in NGSI is the introduction of support for JSON-LD.

The work they have done so far on data models is based on GSMA harmonized data models work: http://www.gsma.com/connectedliving/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/CLP.26-v1.0.pdf

The data models are used in different smart city scenarios.

If @danbri or anyonelse is interested in liaising, let me know.

Hi all,
discussing with the FIWARE guys working on https://github.com/Fiware/dataModels there is a certain interest to link existing json schema to schema.org (which of course implies adding the needed "semantics") - given that one of the next steps in NGSI is the introduction of support for JSON-LD.

The work they have done so far on data models is based on GSMA harmonized data models work: http://www.gsma.com/connectedliving/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/CLP.26-v1.0.pdf

The data models are used in different smart city scenarios.

If @danbri or anyonelse is interested in liaising, let me know.

@RichardWallis

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@RichardWallis

RichardWallis Feb 2, 2017

Contributor

@chicco785 Thanks for sharing this.

Taking a quick (airport gate) scan of the GSMA harmonized data models work document from a Schema.org point of view I have an immediate suggestion that I believe would improve the linking to Schema.org.

Following the Schema.org approach each entity type described in the Generic Entity Data Model section (eg. AgriParcel) could benefit from being a subtype of an appropriately named generic type (DataThing?), which contains all the properties (currently captured under the Generic Attributes section). That generic type itself being a subtype of Schema Thing.

The resultant inheritance hierarchy looking like this:
Thing > DataThing > AgriParcel or Thing > DataThing > AgriCrop etc.
The initial ramifications of such a move would be:

  • The id property used in all the generic attributes would be superseded by the identifier property inherited from Thing (here I am referencing the definition of Thing from the upcoming next release of Schema.org - currently visible at webschemas.org )
  • The generically useful properties such as name, alternateName, description, etc. would become available for all subtypes.
  • The IoT relevant entity types referenced would all share a common supertype enabling consistant future maintenance and enhancement.

As in all serialisations of data supported by Schema.org (Microdata, RDFa, JSON-LD) require the the the Type to be stated (eg. "@type": "AgriCrop",) I question the need for the required type property defined in the Generic Attributes definitions.

~Richard.

Contributor

RichardWallis commented Feb 2, 2017

@chicco785 Thanks for sharing this.

Taking a quick (airport gate) scan of the GSMA harmonized data models work document from a Schema.org point of view I have an immediate suggestion that I believe would improve the linking to Schema.org.

Following the Schema.org approach each entity type described in the Generic Entity Data Model section (eg. AgriParcel) could benefit from being a subtype of an appropriately named generic type (DataThing?), which contains all the properties (currently captured under the Generic Attributes section). That generic type itself being a subtype of Schema Thing.

The resultant inheritance hierarchy looking like this:
Thing > DataThing > AgriParcel or Thing > DataThing > AgriCrop etc.
The initial ramifications of such a move would be:

  • The id property used in all the generic attributes would be superseded by the identifier property inherited from Thing (here I am referencing the definition of Thing from the upcoming next release of Schema.org - currently visible at webschemas.org )
  • The generically useful properties such as name, alternateName, description, etc. would become available for all subtypes.
  • The IoT relevant entity types referenced would all share a common supertype enabling consistant future maintenance and enhancement.

As in all serialisations of data supported by Schema.org (Microdata, RDFa, JSON-LD) require the the the Type to be stated (eg. "@type": "AgriCrop",) I question the need for the required type property defined in the Generic Attributes definitions.

~Richard.

@danbri

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@dpjanes

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@dpjanes

dpjanes Feb 17, 2017

dpjanes commented Feb 17, 2017

@dpjanes

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@dpjanes

dpjanes Feb 17, 2017

dpjanes commented Feb 17, 2017

@danbri

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@danbri

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@danbri

danbri Jul 15, 2017

Contributor

Placeholder: discussed (c) statements in https://oneiota.org/revisions/2417 at Wishi workshop.

Contributor

danbri commented Jul 15, 2017

Placeholder: discussed (c) statements in https://oneiota.org/revisions/2417 at Wishi workshop.

@danbri

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@danbri

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@danbri

danbri Jul 16, 2017

Contributor

I've created a quick Google Custom Search engine configured with a bunch of URLs of IoT/WoT sites, repos etc. at https://cse.google.com/cse/publicurl?cx=013484121852858951051:iccg_nifbxi --- I've shared access with Michael Koster (who I'm sat next to at a workshop) and others, we can easily add more sites. I don't see any easy way of sharing the current list of URLs but will figure something out.

What does this mean?

Basically you can go to:

https://cse.google.com/cse/publicurl?cx=013484121852858951051:iccg_nifbxi  

... and search for 'cbor', 'thermostat', 'json schema', 'carbon monoxide' or whatever and find work across a range of initiatives, projects, ecosystems.

The following (somewhat arbitrary) list of URLs are those in there currently:

www.eclipse.org/vorto/*
lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-of-things/*
lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wot/*
iot.mozilla.org/*
hacks.mozilla.org/2017/06/building-the-web-of-things/*
github.com/openT2T*
www.opentranslatorstothings.org/*
github.com/w3c/wot/*
mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/search/?email_list=yot*
www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yot*
www.fairhair-alliance.org/*
openmobilealliance.org/iot*
www.ipso-alliance.org/*
iot.schema.org/*
github.com/t2trg/*
www.w3.org/WoT/*
w3c.github.io/sdw/ssn/*
ontology.tno.nl/saref/*
www.onem2m.org/*
*.openconnectivity.org/*
*.project-haystack.org/*
*.oneiota.org/*
homepages.cwi.nl/~steven/Talks/2017/06-10-iot/*
Contributor

danbri commented Jul 16, 2017

I've created a quick Google Custom Search engine configured with a bunch of URLs of IoT/WoT sites, repos etc. at https://cse.google.com/cse/publicurl?cx=013484121852858951051:iccg_nifbxi --- I've shared access with Michael Koster (who I'm sat next to at a workshop) and others, we can easily add more sites. I don't see any easy way of sharing the current list of URLs but will figure something out.

What does this mean?

Basically you can go to:

https://cse.google.com/cse/publicurl?cx=013484121852858951051:iccg_nifbxi  

... and search for 'cbor', 'thermostat', 'json schema', 'carbon monoxide' or whatever and find work across a range of initiatives, projects, ecosystems.

The following (somewhat arbitrary) list of URLs are those in there currently:

www.eclipse.org/vorto/*
lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-of-things/*
lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wot/*
iot.mozilla.org/*
hacks.mozilla.org/2017/06/building-the-web-of-things/*
github.com/openT2T*
www.opentranslatorstothings.org/*
github.com/w3c/wot/*
mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/search/?email_list=yot*
www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yot*
www.fairhair-alliance.org/*
openmobilealliance.org/iot*
www.ipso-alliance.org/*
iot.schema.org/*
github.com/t2trg/*
www.w3.org/WoT/*
w3c.github.io/sdw/ssn/*
ontology.tno.nl/saref/*
www.onem2m.org/*
*.openconnectivity.org/*
*.project-haystack.org/*
*.oneiota.org/*
homepages.cwi.nl/~steven/Talks/2017/06-10-iot/*
@rvguha

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@rvguha

rvguha Jul 16, 2017

Contributor
Contributor

rvguha commented Jul 16, 2017

@danbri

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@danbri

danbri Jul 22, 2017

Contributor

https://twitter.com/s3works/status/888682104938278912

https://arxiv.org/abs/1707.00112

"""A study of existing Ontologies in the IoT-domain
Garvita Bajaj, Rachit Agarwal, Pushpendra Singh, Nikolaos Georgantas, Valerie Issarny
(Submitted on 1 Jul 2017)
Several domains have adopted the increasing use of IoT-based devices to collect sensor data for generating abstractions and perceptions of the real world. This sensor data is multi-modal and heterogeneous in nature. This heterogeneity induces interoperability issues while developing cross-domain applications, thereby restricting the possibility of reusing sensor data to develop new applications. As a solution to this, semantic approaches have been proposed in the literature to tackle problems related to interoperability of sensor data. Several ontologies have been proposed to handle different aspects of IoT-based sensor data collection, ranging from discovering the IoT sensors for data collection to applying reasoning on the collected sensor data for drawing inferences. In this paper, we survey these existing semantic ontologies to provide an overview of the recent developments in this field. We highlight the fundamental ontological concepts (e.g., sensor-capabilities and context-awareness) required for an IoT-based application, and survey the existing ontologies which include these concepts. Based on our study, we also identify the shortcomings of currently available ontologies, which serves as a stepping stone to state the need for a common unified ontology for the IoT domain.
Comments: Submitted to Elsevier JWS SI on Web semantics for the Internet/Web of Things
Subjects: Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)
Cite as: arXiv:1707.00112 [cs.AI]
(or arXiv:1707.00112v1 [cs.AI] for this version)"""

Contributor

danbri commented Jul 22, 2017

https://twitter.com/s3works/status/888682104938278912

https://arxiv.org/abs/1707.00112

"""A study of existing Ontologies in the IoT-domain
Garvita Bajaj, Rachit Agarwal, Pushpendra Singh, Nikolaos Georgantas, Valerie Issarny
(Submitted on 1 Jul 2017)
Several domains have adopted the increasing use of IoT-based devices to collect sensor data for generating abstractions and perceptions of the real world. This sensor data is multi-modal and heterogeneous in nature. This heterogeneity induces interoperability issues while developing cross-domain applications, thereby restricting the possibility of reusing sensor data to develop new applications. As a solution to this, semantic approaches have been proposed in the literature to tackle problems related to interoperability of sensor data. Several ontologies have been proposed to handle different aspects of IoT-based sensor data collection, ranging from discovering the IoT sensors for data collection to applying reasoning on the collected sensor data for drawing inferences. In this paper, we survey these existing semantic ontologies to provide an overview of the recent developments in this field. We highlight the fundamental ontological concepts (e.g., sensor-capabilities and context-awareness) required for an IoT-based application, and survey the existing ontologies which include these concepts. Based on our study, we also identify the shortcomings of currently available ontologies, which serves as a stepping stone to state the need for a common unified ontology for the IoT domain.
Comments: Submitted to Elsevier JWS SI on Web semantics for the Internet/Web of Things
Subjects: Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)
Cite as: arXiv:1707.00112 [cs.AI]
(or arXiv:1707.00112v1 [cs.AI] for this version)"""

@jaimejim

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment

Hi Dan, you might want to add the following URLs to the search:

https://github.com/IPSO-Alliance/*
https://github.com/core-wg/*
https://tools.ietf.org/wg/core/*

@bobvanluijt

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@bobvanluijt

bobvanluijt Sep 3, 2017

Hi all!

I'm also working on Semantic IoT concepts. I've also started a Semantic Internet of Things platform on Github.

Blogpost with the concept: https://bob.wtf/semantic-internet-of-things-42811e1ca7a7
Github repo with Semantic IoT project: https://github.com/weaviate/weaviate

Looking forward to your feedback :-)

Hi all!

I'm also working on Semantic IoT concepts. I've also started a Semantic Internet of Things platform on Github.

Blogpost with the concept: https://bob.wtf/semantic-internet-of-things-42811e1ca7a7
Github repo with Semantic IoT project: https://github.com/weaviate/weaviate

Looking forward to your feedback :-)

@gyrard

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@gyrard

gyrard Sep 28, 2017

IoT ontology catalogues would be relevant to build IoT schema.org.

Ontology Catalogue comparison:
Reusing and Unifying Background Knowledge for Internet of Things with LOV4IoT
https://www.insight-centre.org/sites/default/files/publications/ficloud-2016-lov4iot_paper22_ficloud_pdfprinted.pdf
-> see section II state of the art

gyrard commented Sep 28, 2017

IoT ontology catalogues would be relevant to build IoT schema.org.

Ontology Catalogue comparison:
Reusing and Unifying Background Knowledge for Internet of Things with LOV4IoT
https://www.insight-centre.org/sites/default/files/publications/ficloud-2016-lov4iot_paper22_ficloud_pdfprinted.pdf
-> see section II state of the art

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment