Ram, (01)
Just want to support your position. We ran into similar issues with the term
Net-centric 10 years ago in the DoD context. People thought that meant we
believe that the network was the center or focus of activity. On the
contrary, the term net-centric was intended to contrast with the traditional
"system-centric", or "organization/enterprise-centric", or even
"capability-centric" approach. The whole point wasn't about centering or
focusing on the network, but rather on the interactions that the network
enabled among systems, enterprises, people, and, yes, things in ways that
are not possible in the system or enterprise or thing-centered view of the
world. It's really about enabling interactions among entities across system,
cultural, organizational, operational/functional domain, and, yes, device,
boundaries. It's also important to realize that these boundaries don't go
away - which is a major problem with the IOT meme: devices don't exist in
some vacuum and just decide to interact with each other over available
network connections. The issue is how to accomplish things by leveraging
resources that may be owned/controlled by some entity on the other side of
some boundary. It's important to respect and understand the significance of
the boundary in the context of why one is attempting to cross it and use
that resource, while at the same time discovering the availability of that
resource and facilitating/easing the interaction across the boundary.
Semantics and related business model and relationship issues are key to
accomplishing that goal. Pretending these issues don't exist is a sure-fire
way to inhibit achievement of the vision that the IOT advocates proclaim,
even if one confines oneself to the quite narrow vision of device/sensor
interoperability. (02)
Hans (03)
-----Original Message-----
From: ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Sriram, Ram
D.
Sent: Friday, November 7, 2014 11:32 AM
To: Ontology Summit 2011 discussion
Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] Ontology Summit 2015 Theme (04)
Here is the rationale for the title: (05)
Around 4yrs ago we came up with the title Smart Networked Systems and
Societies (or Cyber-Physical Social Systems). The reason for this is
explained in the summit proposal. Since IoT and IoE have become popular
terms, I used IoE with the subtitle SNSS. I used IoE instead of IoT, as most
of the conferences/workshops I attended (recently) on IoT do not deal with
social networks at all (I believe that IoT's roots started at MIT with the
AutoID program). They all focus on sensors and sometimes control. An
alternate title could be Ontological Foundations for Cyber-Physical Social
Systems|Internet of Things|Internet of Everything|Smart Networked Systems
and Societies, where I indicates a choice. (06)
The enclosed attachment provides further clarification on my thoughts on the
terminology. (07)
Ram (08)
Ram D. Sriram
Chief, Software and Systems Division
Information Technology Laboratory
National Institute of Standards and Technology Gaithersburg, MD 20899 Tel.
No: 301-975-3507 ________________________________________
From: ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf of John F Sowa
<sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, November 7, 2014 8:51 AM
To: ontology-summit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] Ontology Summit 2015 Theme (09)
On 7 November 2014 12:29, Mike Dean <mdean@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> I also believe Internet of Things may attract more participation. (010)
I agree. But note the subtitle that was suggested in the telecon: (011)
> Toward Smart Networked Systems and Societies (012)
The word 'everything' includes people, but the word 'things'
usually excludes them. (013)
Just adding one more "thing" to the Internet is trivial.
The really challenging issues are how those things are going to work with
people and societies of people. (014)
One of the most serious issues is what to do about the bad people whose goal
is to hack into everybody's things. (015)
It takes a lot of talent to reverse engineer a smart device.
But it doesn't take much talent to buy an app designed by a smart guy turned
thief. (016)
John (017)
_________________________________________________________________
Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-summit/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontology-summit-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Community Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2015/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog-02.cim3.net/wiki/OntologySummit2015
Community Portal: http://ontolog-02.cim3.net/wiki/ (018)
_________________________________________________________________
Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-summit/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontology-summit-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Community Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2015/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog-02.cim3.net/wiki/OntologySummit2015
Community Portal: http://ontolog-02.cim3.net/wiki/ (019)
|