Re: [T2TRG] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-robles-t2trg-functionalitydescription-00.txt

[Ines Robles <[e-mail]>]

Hi Alex,

Thank you very much for your feedback, please find the answer in-line


On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 9:02 PM <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
> Hi,
>
> I've read this draft and I have one comment/question.
>
> Indeed, I believe that a terminology section is very important.
>
> <quote>
>
> An IoT device can be considered to be semantically composed as a set of
> objects, with each object being a set of resources. The resource is an
> atomic piece of device information that can be managed. This document
> presents three level of functionalities as shown in Figure 1: Device
> Functionality, Object Functionality, Resource Functionality, that together
> delineate the complete functionality of the device. (TODO provides specific
> definition for each one)
>
> </quote>
>
>
> I assume that "IoT device" and "device" in this context means the same.
>
> In this context, my definition of device is an artifact that mediates
> between the physical and the digital world; typically, a device is a sensor
> or an actuator.
>

<ines>



we understand that a device can be also a set of sensors and actuators. A
device can be physical or virtual.

Constrained devices are classified in different classes. [1]



[1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bormann-lwig-7228bis-04#section-3



</ines>


> My definition of Resource is a software component that provides data from
> or is used in the actuation of a physical entity.
>
> Resources can be on-device or not (in the second case, let's call them
> Network Resources).
>
> Technically, a Device hosts an on-device resource, which is associated to
> a virtual entity that is the "digital twin" (or representation) of a
> physical entity related to the device.
>



<ines>


we are aligned with these definitions of resource :



   -

   “ Any information that can be named can be a resource: a document or
   image, a temporal service (e.g. “today’s weather in Los Angeles”), a
   collection of other resources, a non-virtual object (e.g. a person), and so
   on. In other words, any concept that might be the target of an author’s
   hypertext reference must fit within the definition of a resource.” [2]
   -

   “Any component, function, enabler, or application that can send,
   receive, or process requests” [3]
   -

   “the term "resource" is used in a general sense for whatever might be
   identified by a URI” [4]





[2] Fielding, R., "Architectural Styles and the Design of Network-based
Software Architectures", Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California,
Irvine, 2000, <http://www.ics.uci.edu/~fielding/pubs/dissertation/
fielding_dissertation.pdf>. [ Section 5.2.1.1 ]



[3] Dictionary for OMA Specifications
http://openmobilealliance.org/documents/dictionary/OMA-ORG-Dictionary-V2_9-20120626-A.pdf



[4] RFC 3986: Uniform Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax



</ines>


> For a practical example, a Physical Entity is a cow. A Device is a cow's
> collar with a GPS sensor. A Resource is a positioning software for the
> collar. (A Service, in this case, would be a system that sends a signal to
> a cow if she is standing too long in front of the food or water, so she
> would move away and the other cows can eat or drink as well). BTW, from a
> Service point of view, it is quite irrelevant if the Resource is on-device
> or in the Network: what it needs to know is the position of the cow.
>
> Given the above, I have no clue what an object is in the quoted text.
>
<ines>

We understand, that  “ Resources are logically organized into Objects”
([5]-page 9- Figure 1).

For example in the context of IPSO Objects, for your use case I would use
the IPSO Location Object, having latitud and longitud as the resources
[6][7].



[5]
http://openmobilealliance.org/documents/whitepapers/OMA-ORG-Guidelines_Creation_Registration_LwM2M_Objects_Resources-V1_0_1-20190115-A.pdf


[6] http://www.openmobilealliance.org/tech/profiles/lwm2m/3336.xml

[7] http://openmobilealliance.org/wp/OMNA/LwM2M/LwM2MRegistry.html



</ines>


> Furthermore, Functionalities of a system can be grouped and depend on a
> specific view: we can have communication functionalities, or security, or
> management, or ... In the example in the text (the fire one), it seems to
> me that the functionality is related to the Virtual Entity: the physical
> entity is the fire and a thermometer OR a video share the same capability
> (let's simplify here) to understand that a fire is going on, and therefore
> are semantically comparable.
>
> Now, neither of them can dim a light - that would be a service that is
> using different resources on different devices. To fulfil your goal (alert
> in case of fire) you would actually need two set of resources that have
> nothing in common (a fire detector and a light).
>
> I see the point in making the thermometer and the video semantically close
> in case of detecting a fire, as they can both be fire detectors, but
> <brainstorming mode> somehow this sounds "almost" like applying fuzzy logic
> to UML notations (a video IS A "kind-of" fire detector, a thermometer IS A
> fire detector ... ) </brainstorming>
>
<ines>

We don't depict the light-bulb as a fire detector, but as an alarm device.
It could be used to alert the user in an emergency case, for example,
(having configured the lightbulb to turn red when there is fire), if the
smart home manager entity is aware that there is fire somewhere, and the
fire alarm device is not able to alert the user, it would send a message to
the light bulb to turn it red.



We understand functionality as a function/goal that a device/resource can
perform to fulfill a task. A device can present different functionalities,
for example, some can be defined by the manufacturer, some can be defined
by the end user. ( we are working to improve this definition ).



</ines>




> Anyway, could you please give your definitions of "device", "object" and
> "resource", and what is a "functionality"?
>
<ines>

We define them above, hope it helps to clarify your doubts

</ines>



> thanks!
>
<ines> Thank you very much for your feedback!

Ines

> --alex
> On 27. 03. 19 9:51, Ines Robles wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
> We present in the following draft a way to describe the different
> functionalities (from manufacturer and the ones defined by the user) that
> an IoT device can present. Additionally, we present a metric to determinate
> similar functionalities between devices.
>
> We are trying to figure out a way to define the different functionalities
> inside the data-model.
>
> Comments welcome,
>
> Ines and Bill
> ------------------------------
> *From:* [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 26, 2019 4:18:12 PM
> *To:* Bilhanan Silverajan; Robles Maria; Robles Maria; Bill Silverajan
> *Subject:* New Version Notification for
> draft-robles-t2trg-functionalitydescription-00.txt
>
>
> A new version of I-D, draft-robles-t2trg-functionalitydescription-00.txt
> has been successfully submitted by Maria Ines Robles and posted to the
> IETF repository.
>
> Name:           draft-robles-t2trg-functionalitydescription
> Revision:       00
> Title:          IoT Semantic Functionality Description
> Document date:  2019-03-26
> Group:          Individual Submission
> Pages:          8
> URL:
> https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-robles-t2trg-functionalitydescription-00.txt
> Status:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-robles-t2trg-functionalitydescription/
> Htmlized:
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-robles-t2trg-functionalitydescription-00
> <https://tools.ietf..org/html/draft-robles-t2trg-functionalitydescription-00>
> Htmlized:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-robles-t2trg-functionalitydescription
>
>
> Abstract:
>    This document defines firstly functionality levels for IoT devices
>    that describe the device capabilities at the granularity of devices,
>    objects and resources.  It additionally presents a metric to measure
>    the functional similarity between the manageable properties of any
>    two IoT devices, called Functionality Distance (FD), which is defined
>    as the indication of the extent to which one device can be
>    substituted for the other.
>
>
>
>
>
> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of
> submission
> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
>
> The IETF Secretariat
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> T2TRG mailing [e-mail]://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/t2trg
>
> _______________________________________________
> T2TRG mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/t2trg
>