from the iot to the swot: de nitions, standards and …m. aquin, \modularizing ontologies,"...

$: From the IoT to the SWoT: de nitions, standards and …M. Aquin, \Modularizing ontologies," Ontology engineering in a networked world, vol. Springer B, pp. 9{34, 2012. Interoperability$
Interoperability Standards OM2M architecture The ontologies of the SWoT Requirements Use case : a smart building Enriching, sharing

From the IoT to the SWoT: definitions,standards and perspectives

Semantic Web meets Internet of Things and Web of Things

Nicolas Seydoux

October 2017


Interperability...

Definition

Ability of two systems or more to interact and exchange datasuccessfully [1]


...or interoperabilities

Technical

Interaction at the hardware and protocols level

Syntactical

Interaction at the data scheme level

Semantic

Shared understanding of the meaning of exchanged data


On the road to interoperability

The past...

Standards, default interoperability solution in technologies

Semantics in proofs of concepts

...the present...

Semantization of standards

... and the future

Standards for architectures, semantics for data anddescriptions


Standards, as easy as ABC

Figure: Landscape proposed by AIOTI


oneM2M in a nutshell

A horizontal standard

SDO and industrials consortium

”Umbrella” standard, interoperable with other standards

Internal organisation

Themed working groups

The MAS group deals with semantics


oneM2M main features

Complete spec : http://onem2m.org

http://onem2m.org


Example instanciation


Standard drawbacks

Syntactical interoperability only ensured up to the container

No explicit semantics

Restricted discovery


Semantics-dedicated resources

Semantic descriptor

Describes a resource it is atteched to

Carries an RDF/XML graph

Can redirect to other descriptors

Allows semantic discovery


W3C WoT

Specifications : https://w3c.github.io/wot-architecture/

Figure: Image from the spec.

https://w3c.github.io/wot-architecture/


AIOTI

A recent european consortium

Alliance for Internet of Things Innovation

European association based in Brussels since September 2016

What does it do ?

based on the IoT European Research Cluster ecosystem

Facilitator for european IoT stakeholders interaction


IETF/IRTF

Standards and technologies for the internet

Roughly to the internet what the W3C is to the web (butcontributes to the web as well)

Standardization process

Produces interlinked RFCs

Known RFCs: HTTP, TCP, UDP, IPv6, SMTP, DNS...

Registration of resources to IANA


Eclipse OM2M

Project hosted by Eclipse IoT

Horizontal service platform

REST interface

Implementation open-source deoneM2M

Project page :http://eclipse.org/om2m

Wiki : https:

//wiki.eclipse.org/OM2M/one

Source code :https://git.eclipse.org/r/

om2m/org.eclipse.om2m

http://eclipse.org/om2m

https://wiki.eclipse.org/OM2M/one

https://wiki.eclipse.org/OM2M/one

https://git.eclipse.org/r/om2m/org.eclipse.om2m

https://git.eclipse.org/r/om2m/org.eclipse.om2m


Extensible architecture


OM2M query mechanism


Semantic discovery


Finding the right ontology : the LOV

A reference ontology catalogue

http://lov.okfn.org/

http://lov.okfn.org/


Finding the right ontology

LOV4IoT

http:

//www.sensormeasurement.appspot.com/?p=ontologies

http://www.sensormeasurement.appspot.com/?p=ontologies

http://www.sensormeasurement.appspot.com/?p=ontologies


Requirements-driven ontology design

The NeOn process

Defined by [2]

Different types of requirements

Conceptual requirements

Functional requirements


Conceptual requirements : Identifying IoT core domains

Internetof Things

Actuator andAction

Sensor andObservation

Lifecyclemanagement

Service

Energymanagement

We identified coredomains, horizontalto the IoT

Each domain shouldbe covered by adetailed vocabulary


Functional requirements

Reusability/extensibility

Compliance with the LOV requirements ([3])

Modularity ([4])

Ontology design pattern (ODP)([5, 6])

Alignment to upper ontologies

Need for reasoning

Context-awareness : [7]

Self-configuration : [8]

Service composition : [9]


The ADREAM building

Over 6500 sensors in thebuilding

Small scale deployment inan appartment

A shared research platform


IoT/WoT separation


IoT-O in use: semIoTics

:Temperature auto:isConstrainedBy [

a auto:PropertyConstraint;

a auto:MaximumValue;

dul:value "24".]

Observations:obs a ssn:Observation;

ssn:hasResult "25";

:inRoom :Living.

auto:AboveThresholdProperty

SymptomsAction plan

:act a san:Actuation;

dul:hasValue "on";

san:wasActuationSent :Fan.

Raw observations 25 Raw actions HTTP POST...

Connected devices (via OM2M [?])

semIoTics

M

A P

E

Knowledge base(IoT-O andextensions)

User preference Admin. policies


IoT-O in use: semIoTics

Observations:obs a ssn:Observation;

ssn:hasResult "25";

:inRoom :Living.

auto:AboveThresholdProperty

SymptomsAction plan

:act a san:Actuation;

dul:hasValue "on";

san:wasActuationSent :Fan.

Raw observations 25 Raw actions HTTP POST...

Connected devices (via OM2M [?])

semIoTics

M

A P

E

Knowledge base(IoT-O andextensions)

User preference Admin. policies

Enrichment and Lowering

Driven by user requirements

Behaviour parametrized by admins

Deployed in a “Cloud”


OM2M in the generic architecture


From raw data to shared knowledge


Conclusion

The SWoT is getting traction through standardisation

There are numerous ontologies for the SWoT

Applying SWoT principles to a smart building helps sharingdata


M. Serrano, P. Barnaghi, F. Carrez, P. Cousin, O. Vermesan,and P. Friess, “Internet of Things IoT SemanticInteroperability: Research Challenges, Best Practices,Recommendations and Next Steps EUROPEAN RESEARCHCLUSTER ON THE INTERNET OF THINGS,” 2015.

M. d. C. Suarez de Figueroa Baonza, NeOn methodology forbuilding ontology networks : specification, sheduling andreuse.PhD thesis, 2010.

A. Gyrard, M. Serrano, and G. A. Atemezing, “Semantic webmethodologies, best practices and ontology engineering appliedto Internet of Things,” in 2015 IEEE 2nd World Forum onInternet of Things (WF-IoT), pp. 412–417, IEEE, 2015.

M. Aquin, “Modularizing ontologies,” Ontology engineering ina networked world, vol. Springer B, pp. 9–34, 2012.


A. Gangemi, “Ontology Design Patterns for Semantic WebContent,” History, vol. 3729, no. 4, pp. 262–276, 2005.

F. Scharffe, J. Euzenat, and D. Fensel, “Towards designpatterns for ontology alignment,” in Proceedings of the 2008ACM symposium on Applied computing - SAC ’08, (New York,New York, USA), p. 2321, ACM Press, mar 2008.

C. Henson, A. Sheth, and K. Thirunarayan, “Semanticperception: Converting sensory observations to abstractions,”IEEE Internet Computing, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 26–34, 2012.

I. Chatzigiannakis, H. Hasemann, M. Karnstedt, O. Kleine,A. Kroller, M. Leggieri, D. Pfisterer, K. Romer, and C. Truong,“True Self-Configuration for the loT,” in 3rd InternationalConference on the Internet of Things (IOT), 2012.

S. N. Han, G. M. Lee, and N. Crespi, “Towards AutomatedService Composition Using Policy Ontology in Building


Automation System,” in 2012 IEEE Ninth InternationalConference on Services Computing, pp. 685–686, 2012.

from the iot to the swot: de nitions, standards and …m. aquin, \modularizing ontologies,"...

Documents