Workshop on the Web of Things (original) (raw)

Workshop Report

W3C held a two day workshop on the Web of Things in Berlin on 25-26 June 2014, hosted by Siemens. The Web of Things is expected to have broad and sweeping economic and societal impact. Open standards will be critical to enabling exponential growth of the kind we experienced with the early days of the Web.

There was broad agreement at Workshop of the problems that currently face the Internet of Things. Until now, the focus has been on the devices and communications technologies. There is a growing awareness that the business opportunities will be centered on the associated services, moreover, the current situation is one of fragmentation with products being developed in isolation due to a plethora of IoT protocols and a lack of a shared approach to services.

Rather than focusing on the IoT layer, it is now critical to focus on what is needed to open up the markets for applications and services that sit on top of the IoT. The workshop attendees showed strong support for W3C to initiate new standards work to help realize the huge potential for the Web of Things as a web scale layer sitting above the IoT.

The workshop examined the opportunities for open Web standards for service platforms in the network edge (e.g. home gateways) and the cloud, along with the challenges for security, privacy and the integration with the Web of data.

The call for papers, agenda and raw minutes for 25th June and 26th June are available separately.

Table of Contents

Opening Session

The workshop was opened by our host and co-chair Jörg Heuer (see slides). He explained Siemens interest in the Web of Things and desribed how Siemens is structured in four sectors: industry, energy, health care, infrastructure and cities. We need to think across the verticals, as the Web of things activity is a lot about crossing domains. We need to "understand the elephant called web of thing" (in reference to the cartoon in the slides). We'd like to exchange our perspectives and uses of the term.

Jörg was followed by a presentation by Dave Raggett, the co-chair from W3C. Dave introduced the mission of the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) to lead the Web to its full potential, and gave some details about the structure of W3C and how it works. The focus is on creating open standards that are associted withr a royalty free patent policy designed to encourage implementations. The Web is now 25 years old and is the most interoperable platform today, and available on many devices and operating systems. This has enabled global access to information and transformed the World. There is a huge global community of developers. Dave briefly covered the fragmentation issue facing the Internet of Things and the need to work together to define open standards and marketplaces! He said that the workshop is an opportunity to discuss:

Dave finished by introducing the structure planned for the the two days of the workshop with talks, panel sessions, break-out sessions and demos, and ending with a session on conclusions and next steps.

Talks

We planned for 20 talks, each with 15 minutes including questions and answers. The presenters were selected based upon review of their submissions by the program committee.

Sharing experiences, use cases and requirements
From things to the Web of Things
Security, trust, privacy, provenance, access control and policies
Semantics, linked data, vocabularies and best practices

Breakout Sessions

The workshop included time on both days for breakout sessions. Participants were invited to submit these to a public wiki page in advance of the meeting. We asked workshop participants for a show of hands to gauge the level of interest in each proposal as a basis for room assignments. In one case, we merged two sessions: Scripting in the Web of Things, Andreas Harth and Application runtime for “things,” Ricardo Morin. We invited each session to provide a brief summary to the full workshop. The following provides a brief summary for each breakout, for more details see the full minutes.

Demonstrations

We had demonstrations of web of things technologies on both days of the workshop. The following descriptions were provided by the demonstrators.

Panel Sessions

The workshop included three panel sessions.

Panel session on core technologies

Jörg noted that this panel is about asking what are the core technologies, and what will enable these technologies? He then introduced the panelists and invited them to state their positions.

Charampalos talked about how to bridge the Web and the IoT, citing work in the Compose project. W3C could work on standards for service platforms. Matthias would like the Web of Things to begin at the device level.

Markus is interested in the interaction between Web clients and constrained smart objects. The CoAP protocol looks very promising. Could W3C work on browser API for web apps to access devices via CoAP?

Milan focused on reuse based upon core technologies like LTE (mobile networks) and consistency of data sets across use cases, as well as the role of gateways. Security and privacy are important, but should not be a barrier to innovation.

Charles discussed the need for communications between applications and the underlying network to attain the desired performance goals, and to allow applications to adapt to changing networking conditions.

Charles noted that the ability to monetize web applications will be a driver. The ability to mash data and services from different sources is key, according to Milan, who sees opportunities in health, sports, disability, smart energy and so forth.

Markus noted that there is a lack of open standards in industry right now - too many silos. The ability to combine data from different vendors will be important for valued added services. Matthias added that a lot of people have already noticed that silos don't work, and cited work by the OMA on M2M standards that build on top of CoAP as a reaction to this observation.

What is your definition of the Web of Things?

Matthias responded that the Web is the application layer for the Internet, and the Web of Things plays the same role for the IoT. The other panelists agreed, Milan said that the Web of Things will add value to the IoT. Charalampos added that the Web of Things is using technologies that browsers can communicate with.

Where do you see balance between API and protocol technology?

Jörg then observed that many of us agree that APIs are needed to attract developers, whilst others emphasize protocols -- where do you see balance between API and protocol technology? Markus replied that the Web has worked with just a few protocols, but for constrained devices, we may need to add further protocols such as CoAP to the Web platform. Wolfgang Dorst noted the importance of response time in relation to sensors and actuators. Charles added that this is why he had mentioned network constraints. Some things are time critical, whilst others can be handled more leisurely. Charalampos noted that some decisions need to be made close to the device (at the network edge).

What technologies do you see as the part of the Web of Things?

Charalampos noted current work on semantic descriptions of sensors as a basis for reuse of services. Matthias commented that we can learn from the Web, e.g. easy ways to discover using linking, many ways to describe services (microformats, schema.org, etc.). We'ved talked a lot about data, but things can have embed logic as well. This relates to work on constrained versions of scripting languages for low powered devices and the means to upload scripts to devices. Charles talked about passing data to the cloud for scalable services.

What is the granularity of things?

It was agreed that things can be composed as needed, at the same time allowing you to drill down to the lowest sensor.

What are the expectations in regards to W3C?

Matthias said the Web grew thanks to interoperability of core components like HTML. We need the equivalent for the Web of Things - good representations & Internet media types that are reusable across many domains, not just for each domain. A CoAPI API would be worth considering.

Markus added that there is a lot of relevant work already under way, e.g. WebSockets for asynchronous communication, WebRTC for peer to peer and real-time, and CoAP for constrained devices. A new area of work would be for describing services and resources.

Milan suggested W3C survey technologies to see what the Web of Things can reuse, or which need adaption to use them. Charles added that he hoped that W3C didn't work on creating a whole bunch of new protocols. W3C should instead focus on APIs, data models and push mechanisms to replace inefficient polling. Charalampos would like to see W3C organizing more events like this one, that are open to developers as it is critical to listen to their needs.

Panel session on who is doing what (IoT projects and standardization bodies)

What standards are needed and how to drive them? Which standards organizations are doing what and recommendations for how W3C should collaborate with them.

Each of the panelists introduced themselves with a single slide. Richard presented a long list of relevant organizations. He cited reducing food waste in supply chains, and energy use in transport as use cases for the Web of Things in connection to the Industrial Internet Forum. He added:

Eric introduced GS1 which focuses on standards and solutions for supply and demand chains, globally and across sectors. GS1 has a very large data model and interested in semantic markup and URIs for product codes. GS1 is involved in W3C work on data on the web best practices.

Mike introduced the CEA (Consumer Electronics Association) which focuses on devices in the home and other consumer specific locations, adding that the CEA work at the device level not at the cloud level. He says: as an example, we are working on sleep monitoring wearables. We are also looking at XML and EXI as a starting point as it is so well supported. We have a great interest in cyber security for IoT devices. We're active in IPv6 deployment including profiles of hosts and routers. We are primarily US based but expanding globally. We are interested in the meeting zone between devices and the web of things.

Ingo introduces the Kantara initiative which focuses on identity management for things. Different kinds of devices have different kinds of identifiers. We've set up a identities of things discussion group as part of Kantara, which itself grew out of the Liberty Alliance and work on single sign-on. His slide has three levels from discovery at the bottom, then control and finally at the top, coordination. This is mirrored with object identifiers, discovery, authentication, authorization, policies and identity management. Ingo discusses the relation to OAuth. He says: we're looking at possibilities for registries, etc. We intend to feed our ideas into existing standards organizations. The Kantara initiative is open to companies and individual membership.

Istvan introduces the relationship of the GSMA to the web of things, including what we're calling connected living, which focuses on helping network operators to get the best out of M2M. We held a recent meeting in Shanghai on a number of application areas. The GSMA is focusing on 4 main topics: connection efficiency, future IoT what does this mean to operators, remote M2M provisioning, and business enablers. Concrete discussions around SIMs for M2M and how operators can create new ecosystems and business. G&D and Gemalto have a big interest. Standardization around storage, security, and embedded SIM.

Nick stated: I've been involved in a number of industry associations and research projects. A couple of observations - we should use existing standards where possible (assuming they are royalty free). Second, there are 2 camps with data and functional perspectives. We need to define a way to name objects that will be applicable to devices with and without IP addresses. This impacts on URI naming, can we enable URIs that are independent of the IoT technologies, e.g. whether the device is accessed over WiFi, BLuetooth, 6LoPAN, or is locally attached to the hub, etc.?

In regards to security, we need focus on explicit consumer centric models, and a hub/gateway is a natural way to approach this. I very much support open source implementations that precede standardization. Specific suggestions: URI schema that can resolve to non IP devices; discovery API; sensor APIs that embed the domain semantics for use cases; and a data base API for storing data for access to historical values. We need good enough security appropriate to the distributed model. Nick shows a slide (Wot is the Scope?) that has a script that receives IoT data. What is the context in which this executes? We need to support legacy devices, so drivers are key and can run on the hub. What is in scope for W3C, e.g. the details of how devices can talk to one another.

What are your views on the roles of different standardization organizations, and the idea that W3C focuses on the application layer and web technologies?

Richard noted that there several pub-sub protocols, and this is likely to continue given that they address different needs. W3C's job should be to bridge the gaps where good solutions are missing. He noted that GS1 has been effective with standards for identification (Parties and Product), but ISO's work on legal identifiers for organizations by contrast looks likely to fail. Standards work needs to be solidly based on real world implementation experience. Eric added that interoperability is an area where different orgs have a shared interest to collaborate.

Mike said everything is getting connected, and the IoT is encroaching on everyone's domains. We're looking at how to partner. Thomas added the question is also about acceptance by the target communities. If standards are perceived as too heavy they won't be accepted. Istvan responded it is all about collaboration with other SDO's. We've recently signed a liaison agreement with W3C and are proud about that. We want to bridge SIMs to web services and applications. Nick said anything W3C does needs to work with existing and well established standards, e.g. MQTT and CoAP. I am not sure that W3C can help much with device management.

Claes invites questions from the audience.

What can we say about the architecture, and what we can standardize?

For example the role of a gateway/hub to proxy for the actual device. This avoids the need for W3C to deal with constrained devices, right or wrong? Mike responded Zigbee, Z-wave or Bluetooth all have well defined profiles, enabling higher level abstractions involving simple data models. One of the challenges is moving away from the few really large companies who currently deal with this and opening it up. Richard added the reality is that there will be multiple architectures that address different needs.

There are billions of devices. will standardization succeed? (Kemal Delic, HP)

Richard replied that global standards have proven to be very effective, e.g. the number power connectors across the world is relatively few.

Claes asks Eric to elaborate about how interoperability relates to semantics? Eric replied that some guidelines will help to encourage interoperability. Richard added that this will help but won't make the problem go away.

What about Nick's proposal that URIs be extended to support non IP devices -- any suggestions?

Claes then asked about the challenge of identifiers and authentication. Nick said that practically, if I want to address something in my house, the closest is my router's IP adress which changes regularly. We need a scheme that is persistent.

Mike added that privacy always comes up in regards to this subject. Nick where do you see this fitting in? Nick replied that it is a matter of how can obtain these URIs and gain access to them. Having the address isn't enough to get the data. Richard then said that there may be devices that you don't want the rest of the world to know about. This is a very hard problem particularly in regions like the EU with strong privacy laws. Concern about identifiers being handed off to 3rd parties with a resulting loss of privacy. Nick responded that it is essential that there be role based access control in place. Thomas added XRIs are cool as you can embed domains within them (talks about books and libraries).

Eric said we're looking at the URI approach with GS1 GTIN+ on the Web Work Group. I assume Nick is talking about a specific instance of a TV, right [yes]. Jeff Jaffe (W3C) said I'm familiar with the problem of forum shopping. There are real challenges for interoperability. I see a lot of technical clutter getting in the way.

How do we stop the competing so called standards with an answer other than you don't?

Richard replied that is only possible within a single company. We should address this by focusing on bridges and cross SDO coordination. We've been successfully doing this for cloud related standards, but it is a significant effort. Nick added that SDO staff may be rewarded for covering new areas, which is a potential problem. The way to stop this is to move forward quickly. It is common to see companies coming together to promote something rather than actually working on standards.

Richard added that companies want to promote their own approach to reduce their costs. Charalampos said public URIs are subject to DDOS. Nick added I want to be able to ask which of the devices in my house support a given service. Phil Archer (W3C) stated that whether a URI is for a product or a service is a matter of design. There are good and bad identifiers. Is the cultural expectation that a URI is a web page a barrier? Richard responded no, most people aren't even aware of the term.

Panel on conclusions and next steps

The session started with a presentation by Philipp Hoschka, Deputy Director of W3C. W3C's standards (W3C Recommendations) are produced in Working Groups. He introduced the distinction between Working Groups, Interest Groups and Community Groups and proposed the formation of a Web of Things Interest Group, citing the existing Web and TV Interest Group as a model. The Interest Group establishes requirements, and hands these off to existing Working Groups or to new Working Groups as appropriate. The Web and TV Interest Group consists of several Task Forces for different topics, and with different Task Force leads. Interest Groups have minimal IPR requirements making it easier for companies to get approval to join and participate in their work. If collaborative work on specifications is to be done prior to launching a Working Group, then this could be done in narrowly scoped Community Groups. The requirements for an Interest Group include:

What are your thoughts on what is the key to breaking free from product silos?

Dominique answered that you need to make it as simple as possible but not too simple. You need to make things simple to use, select the right tools etc.

What are you suggestions for how to bridge the gap between different cultures of stakeholders, e.g. Web hackers, linked data community etc.?

Laurent suggested that JSON-LD was a step in the right direction. Dave wondered if one way to approach this is via task forces focusing on different areas. Milan Patel said that you need to identify the use cases where the communities need to interact with them. Milan Milenkovic added that you need test beds to inform standards work based upon practical experience, but you can also benefit by learning from the academic community. Ryuichi noted that we should collect opinions from device manufacturers.

What are your priorities for W3C to tackle the WoT?

Milan Milenkovic responded that this workshop has met my expectations, what seems to be needed etc. I am trying to practice what I preach, deploy some actual prototypes etc. informing the thinking as you go. The field is so broad, defining the standards is really hard. Milan Patel emphasized the need to identify some use cases where you can understand the commonalities between industries. You need to identify what we already have that can be used, as this is more important than creating new standards. Yesterday we emphasized that whatever we do we need to do it fast. The W3C should issue some Best Practices. These are the technologies that can be used for the WoT, with guidance for how to use them.

Laurent agreed, adding what is the real focus of the community - that needs to be found. We should scout for what is already there. We could have a Task Force on data modeling, another on service modeling etc. I'd also like the ensure that the user is in the loop, as we shouldn't forget that we have machine to person communication. We should aim to link worlds. including security and privacy.

Ryuichi said the definition of the "Things" is important. We need to established a shared view of the whole architecture.

Dominique added that he would like to see a mix of what everyone has said. A set of guidelines and BPs would be useful: We published a White paper on that in 2008 (further publications). It was downloaded many times. There is a need for something simple to explain the core. We have a lot of people in the room who could do that. We need to react very quickly as it will happen with or without W3C. The standardization method is more for going beyond the current, into a sustainable future.

Dave asked for opinions from the audience.

Redouane Boumghar responds I led a session on robots. We didn't talk too much about modeling actuators, only services. Shadi Abou-Zahra (W3C) said: excellent workshop, congratulations. I do think that the work should be at W3C for its high commitment to accessibility, internationalization etc. We're here to help you create the data, the vocabs, the services etc including accessibility use cases, helping establish requirements to make sure Web is available to everyone.

Jörg Heuer said: the diversity of people here is amazing. There are a lot of perspectives. We need to pay attention to structure to talk about the same topic. It's important to discuss the different backgrounds and applications to make sure we're talking about the same thing. Dave finished by thanking everyone for coming and participating. Thanks to especially to Siemens and Jörg for hosting us!

Next Steps

This section describes proposals for next steps and follows on from the discussions in the closing Panel on conclusions and next steps.

The Web of Things is expected to develop into a huge market of services, and W3C is well positioned to develop open standards around service platforms, security, privacy, and integration with the Web of data for a Web of services. This positions W3C to define standards at the service and application layer, complementing the role of other standards development organizations and industry fora that are focusing on the device layer and the array of communication technologies for accessing sensors and actuators, that form the Internet of Things.

The workshop gave a strong message of support for W3C to initiate work on standardization for the Web of Things. The foundations include RESTful HTTP and pub-sub protocols, but the detailed requirements vary across the use cases, e.g. for latency, throughput, transactional robustness and so forth. Building upon these foundations, the workshop identified the need for standards for Web APIs that abstract away from the protocols, including the wide range of IoT technologies used at the network edge to connect to sensors and actuators. Through standardization, we can encourage re-use of APIs and data models.

The closing session of the workshop raised a proposal to launch a W3C Interest Group. The existing W3C Web and TV Interest Group provides a model for what we can expect for the Web of Things Interest Group. It has established requirements and handed work off to existing Working Groups or launched new Working Groups where appropriate. The Interest Group consists of several tasks forces for different topics with different leads for each. W3C Interest Groups work on gathering use cases and requirements, surveying existing work, and identifying gaps, general introductions and best practices. There are no intellectual property commitments as a precondition of participation. A consequence of this is that Interest Groups can't work on specifications. However, Interest Groups can produce charters for specification work in W3C Working Groups.

The proposed Web of Things Interest Group will require:

The W3C staff will drive the process of chartering the Interest Group through reaching out to a wide range of interested stakeholders. This consultation will seek to clarify the mission for the Interest Group, the target topics and industry priorities, and opportunities for liaisons with other related standards development organizations.

Some of the potential topics for task forces include:

The W3C welcomes feedback on this report, which should be sent to Dave Raggett dsr@w3.org

Participation

There were 119 registered participants.

The following shows the different categories of organizations who provided submissions to the workshop.

Companies
Startups
Universities
Research Institutes
Standards Organizations, Industry Associations, and Government Institutions etc.
Nationalities

Based upon the registration data we have the following distribution of nationalities:

Note: that in hindsight we should have asked for country of residence rather than nationality!