Re: [Iotsi] interactive vs. programmatic IoT

[Clarke Stevens <[e-mail]>]

For a start, maybe we can look at it in this way:

A human should be able to control things in real time in a logical way through some UI (e.g. push a button on a smart phone to turn on a light).
A human should be able to specify automated rules in a logical way through some UI (e.g. set a rule to turn on the porch light when I get home).
Semantic interoperability should take care of most other tasks (e.g. How do I recognize a light? How do I make functionally similar lights from multiple manufacturers and ecosystem all look like logical lights? How do I recognize when the user is home?)

There is a lot of functionality that is left out here, but I think this is plenty difficult as a starting goal.

-Clarke

> On Mar 24, 2016, at 2:36 PM, Michel Kohanim <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Andy,
>  
> Thanks for the clarifications. My question to you is: would the human want your modular software make those decisions for him/her? i.e. I very much prefer having my wake up tone (to which I am familiar) and if, one day, my phone decided to play radio instead of my wake up tone on its own, I would be quite mad. I would probably even throw away my phone.
>  
> Anecdote from  Amazon Echo: Amazon decided that the completion prompt should be a tone instead of “OK”. They had such a huge backlash that they had to put the “OK” back and now they are dealing with backlash from those who liked the tone. So, they have finally decided to make it configuration: i.e. human intervention.
>  
> All and all, I do very much like the concept of autonomy but we do need to find a boundary between what humans constitute as infringing on their free-will vs. those that they would welcome. 
>  
> With kind regards,
>  
> ******************************
>   Michel Kohanim
>   CEO
>  
>   (p) 818.631.0333
>   (f)  818.436.0702
>   http://www.universal-devices.com <http://www.universal-devices.com/>
> ******************************
>  
> From: Andy Bierman [mailto:[e-mail]] 
> Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2016 12:57 PM
> To: Michel Kohanim <[e-mail]>
> Cc: Kreuzer, Kai <[e-mail]>; Subramaniam, Ravi <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [Iotsi] interactive vs. programmatic IoT
>  
> Hi,
>  
> Most of the ontology stuff looked like simple codepoints to me,
> that needed to be coded by hand by somebody who understands the semantics.
> This is not fatal flaw though.
>  
> In our terminology, if I have code that understands certain atoms well enough,
> can new molecules be supported from known atoms?  This seems easier with
> human interaction, but it might be possible to some degree with non-interactive clients
> as well.
>  
> In other terms, if my modular software knows about setting the
> alarm on the clock, can it learn to set "wake to music"
> when the "radio" module is added to the "alarm-clock" module?
> (Note that wake-to-music is NOT a function built into a radio.
> It only exists when a radio is combined with an alarm clock.).
> If "wake-to-music" can be learned, is it learned for just radios or also MP3 players?
>  
>  
> Andy
>  
>  
>  
> On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 10:10 AM, Michel Kohanim <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> Hi Andy,
>  
> Thank you and precisely my point.
>  
> With kind regards,
>  
> ******************************
>   Michel Kohanim
>   CEO
>  
>   (p) 818.631.0333
>   (f)  818.436.0702
>   http://www.universal-devices.com <http://www.universal-devices.com/>
> ******************************
>  
> From: Andy Bierman [mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>] 
> Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2016 10:00 AM
> To: Michel Kohanim <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> Cc: Kreuzer, Kai <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>; Subramaniam, Ravi <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>;[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: [Iotsi] interactive vs. programmatic IoT
>  
>  
>  
> On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 9:01 AM, Michel Kohanim <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> Ummm …. Where does one draw the boundary between what must be relegated to the user vs. the machine?  If we expect the machine to make all the decisions, then:
> 1.       The machine must know everything a priori … this means, for every change in the semantic world, there needs to be a change in the machine world
> 
> 2.       Or, the machine has to learn … this means that we would have to use some AI techniques. Are we up for it? If so, which AI paradigm are we going to use?
> 
>  
>  
> (1)
>  
> Typically new functionality only shows up when new firmware or new devices are added.
> This is true for SNMP and NETCONF devices that use SMIv2 or YANG modules
> to define the functionality.  The client is typically hard-coded to utilize specific
> revisions of specific modules.  Any new managed device simply advertises
> known modules and the client works.
>  
> Perhaps IoT devices can do better.
>  
>  
>  
> With kind regards,
>  
> ******************************
>   Michel Kohanim
>  
>  
> Andy
>  
>   CEO
>  
>   (p) 818.631.0333
>   (f)  818.436.0702
>   http://www.universal-devices.com <http://www.universal-devices.com/>
> ******************************
>  
> From: Iotsi [mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>] On Behalf Of Kreuzer, Kai
> Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2016 8:37 AM
> To: Subramaniam, Ravi <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>; Andy Bierman <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>;[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: [Iotsi] interactive vs. programmatic IoT
>  
> Hi,
>  
> I fully second Ravi on this – the ultimate goal is that algorithms can make “sense” out of the services that they find. Being able to only operate through UIs pushes the semantic knowledge” onto the user, so I would not even talk about semantic interoperability, but rather “only” about technical interoperability (see also the second half of my blog post here <http://kaikreuzer.blogspot.de/2016/03/semantic-interoperability-in-internet.html>).
>  
> > HATEOAS doesn't really help here
>  
> I do not agree on this. The idea of having the links on the resources is to make them self-descriptive and navigatable. So algorithms should be able to dynamically “discover” what the service is about and use it adequately without any prior knowledge. But Matthias is probably the best person to comment on this.
>  
> Best regards,
> Kai
>  
> Von: Iotsi [mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>] Im Auftrag von Subramaniam, Ravi
> Gesendet: Dienstag, 22. März 2016 18:49
> An: Andy Bierman; [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> Betreff: Re: [Iotsi] interactive vs. programmatic IoT
>  
> Hi Andy,
>  
> IMHO, for IOT to be successful it would be primarily (what you are calling) “programmatic clients” – most *useful* IOT systems would tend to be relatively or fully autonomous with human interactions at the “periphery” of such systems.
>  
> OCF has called out that it is “declarative and late binding” because the expectation is that a “human” would declare “what” they wanted the system to be and its objectives and the rest is done by autonomous interactions of “programmatic participants” (well… at this stage, OCF spec is in the “crawl” stage so this ‘vision’ is hard to see but the basic concepts support this direction J )
>  
> Ravi
>  
>  <>From: Iotsi [mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>] On Behalf Of Andy Bierman
> Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2016 10:29 AM
> To: [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> Subject: [Iotsi] interactive vs. programmatic IoT
>  
> Hi,
>  
> It seems to me that the use-cases discussed at the meeting
> assume there is a human with access to UI driving the client.
>  
> Does this mean use-cases which do not assume any human interrupts
> are possible are not IoT, but something else? In this environment
> everything is usually programmed in advance. HATEOAS doesn't
> really help here.  It is not likely the client can make decisions
> about code-points it has never seen before.
>  
> Are there any expectations that IoT includes programmatic clients
> or is it just for interactive clients?
>  
>  
> Andy
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
> _______________________________________________
> Iotsi mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/iotsi