Web of Things Workshop Breakout Sessions

From W3C Wiki

This page is intended to collect ideas for breakout sessions at the W3C Workshop on the Web of Things, Berlin, 25-26 June 2014. For each session we would like the name of the proposer, a title, and a brief explanation. To add your suggestion, you will need to log in with your W3C user name and password. If you don't already have an account, you can get register for a new account.

Note that each session will be expected to provide a summary for the minutes. We have 15 minutes before the breakouts to present the proposals and gauge the degree of interest, and a further 30 minutes after the breakouts when we will get back together in the auditorium to hear brief summaries from each session, along with questions and answers from the audience.

  • Scripting in the Web of Things, Andreas Harth (Day 2, Room: Siemens)

The Web of Things will consist of many components that provide access to individual sensors and actuators. The topic of the breakout session is scripting languages for combining such atomic components to provide elaborate functionality.

  • Service Descriptions for the Web of Things, Dave Raggett (Day 1, Room: Rostock)

A lot of the value creation for the Web of Things will be provided by services that combine and transform data for use by other services or applications. This session will look at the potential for standards for describing services as a basis for an open market of services. (Also see my submission and my slides).

  • Interaction Models for the Web of Things, Erik Wilde (Day 1, Room: Siemens)

Many scenarios need basic interaction capabilities so that "thing events" can be published, consumed, aggregated, filtered, and re-published. This session is looking at existing standards such as Atom and emerging/evolving standards such as Activity Streams and is asking how these existing models can be used. (Also see our submission and our presentation.)

  • Business Models for the Web of Things, Alessio Gugliotta (Day 1, Room: Düsseldorf (hijacked))

Platforms for sharing and interconnecting IoT devices are already available on the Web/Market, and more (with added-value services) will most-likely appear in the short-mid term. Are they really sustainable? What is the actual value that will make them profitable? Is the Developer-Pays Business Model the only possible? Or should other stakeholders (e.g. hardware vendors, cities, large industry) pay for sustaining an open platform?

  • Digital Object Memories for the Web of Things, Jens Haupert (Day 1, Room: Bremen)

Based on the idea of the internet of things each physical artifact can have a virtual counterpart. Giving such objects a digital memory they can store all relevant information about themselves along the entire life-cycle chain. With OMM we proposed a structuring object memory model and successfully passed a W3C incubator group. To leverage this approach of a cross-domain model we are interested in improving and enhancing the model to support multiple platforms, different domains and scenarios and additional object-memory related services like querying/filtering data, like privacy and access control policies and many more. For further information please see W3C OMM-XG Homepage with final report and the workshop submission.

  • The Web of Things Friendly Label, Dominique Guinard; (Day 1, Room: Leipzig (hijacked) )

After a brief report on the last 5 years in all things WoT (see Web of Things community blog), in this session we would like to discuss the "Web of Things Friendly" label. The idea of the WoT label is not to become a standard but a set of simple guidelines. The main goal of these guidelines is to ensure that new or existing IoT devices and services are designed with interoperability at the Web level in mind.

Cutting short years of (slightly unfruitful) discussions to find a single holy-grail IoT standard, the Web of Things’ simple goal, we believe, should be about promoting the use of existing Web standards and fostering the research on new ones for building an inter-operable and human-friendly Internet of Things.

The idea is that a smart device or smart service will be allowed to be labeled as "WoT friendly" if it respects a number of simple guidelines that we will propose and discuss at the workshop. A WoT friendly smart device will then be called a WoT Device, a WoT friendly cloud service, a WoT Service. Our proposal is that WoT Devices and WoT Services devices and services should not solely use Internet and Web standards at all levels. Actually, for many use-cases this does not make sense. What it simply means is that they must at least offer, at some level, access to their data and functionality through Web standards with underlying Internet connectivity. Access can be provided either natively, via a Gateway or via an open cloud service.

Our idea is to present our vision of the WoT label both in theoretical and practical terms (with demonstrators) but more interestingly get your input on what standards/tools it should foster in particular in the 4 areas (inspired from WoT Architecture): accessiblity (REST, Pub/sub, etc.), findability (lightweight semantics, microdata, schema.org, swagger, etc.), sharing and security (social networks, oauth, Web security, etc.) and composability (physical mashups, etc.)

The ultimate goal being the boostrap of a community label that helps selecting the right standards and tools to achieve interoperability. More on WoT Publications.

  • The Web of Data We Want, Phil Archer (Day 2, Room: Bremen)

The Web of Things combines the Web of Services with the Web of Data. What should that Web of data look like? What's already available, what's coming? Where are the gaps? Data dumps? Vocabularies? APIs? What's with this Hypermedia thing, isn't that just HTTP (yes, but, you know, marketing and all that). In this breakout session, I'd like to explore what the W3C Data Activity should be doing to support the Web of Things.

  • Application Layer Protocols and Data Encoding for Constrained Devices, Hauke Petersen (Day 2, Room: Köln)

The vast majority of machines intended to run standard protocols for Internet of Things & Web of Things are expected to be very constrained in terms of memory and power capacity (see RFC 7228 for instance). In particular, generic data encoding and request-response protocols used in this context must fit these constraints. Thus, alternatives to XML, JSON and HTTP are desired. The idea of this session is to have an open discussion on available alternatives that would fit constrained devices, including, but not limited to, combinations of protocols such as CoAP, CBOR, EXI etc.

  • Privacy in the Web of Things, John Mattsson (Day 1, Room: Köln)

How do we protect end user privacy in the Web of Things? This will be an extremely important issue. Even now data from a smart power meter reveals a large amount of privacy sensitive information: when did the family awake, when did they go to bed, when are they on vacation, how many people are home, etc. What happens when we have sensors everywhere? Some privacy issues can be solved by cryptography, but most cannot. Privacy policies will come from individual persons, from enterprises, and from regulators. How do we handle them in a secure and standardized way?

  • Think Robot, the next smart object, Red Boumghar (Robotics PhD.) (Day 2, Room: Düsseldorf)

The robot can be seen as a set of objects that are connected by its own operating system. When a robot has to interact with its environment and with humans we hit issues equivalent to those of the Web of Things. These robots will take different forms; autonomous car, home majordomo, the museum guide, your cart at the supermarket...

A short review of robot platforms and operating systems will give an idea of what has been done so far in terms of how things are connected. I'd like to show and discuss the different kind of data robots exchange. The data can look very different to what is mostly imagined for connected objects but models can be mutualized.

Working on multi-robot cooperation, I think the robotics world and the Web world should be interacting more closely. This is a discussion about what may be a far future but it is always good to start building the present with the future in mind.

  • Application runtime for “things,” Ricardo Morin (Day 2, Room: Siemens)

The WoT will benefit greatly from defining a common application execution engine standard, utilizing Web programming languages such as ECMAScript, and a set of standardized APIs. A good example of this kind of runtime is the Node.js framework , which has already being proposed for supporting WoT applications. The work in this area may include defining standard profiles to cover APIs for various device categories (e.g., bare sensors, constrained microcontrollers, edge gateways, anchor devices). The application runtime will also need to define a standardized security model as well as user interaction approaches for constrained devices (e.g., control panels, dashboards). In this area, there seems to be a high synergy potential with the Web Applications (WebApps) Working Group that should be pursued. Due to the close synergy with browser technology, it seems very appropriate for W3C to address the need for standardization in this area.