Hi Ingo - I'm lurking on the list so have probably missed the context if the terminology discussion. 

Having just experienced a couple of drawn out vocabulary working groups, I am wondering why IDoT is not attempting to simply adopt a vocabulary/ontology/list of terms from any of the IoT specific groups. 

Then, the focus here could be extensions to deal with the ID aspects...

Andrew. 

On Friday, January 31, 2014, <Ingo.Friese@telekom.de> wrote:

Dear All,

 

Jeff started with Sensor, Actuator and Processor. I’d like to extend this model a bit. Because I think the processor could be either near to the actuator (e.g. the processor in a house regulates the heating because of sensor data.

This “intelligence” could also be somewhere in the cloud/internet. The processor could be a service on a server somewhere or and app on a smartphone.

So I’d like to add an IoT instance in the network.

 

A second point are intermediates or gateways (names are to be discussed). Because many solutions have one or more instances between sensor/actuator an the service in the cloud. Here e.g. several sensors are concentrated.

 

What do you think?

 

Best,

                Ingo

 



--

Andrew Hughes CISM CISSP 
Independent Consultant
In Turn Information Management Consulting

+1 250.888.9474
1249 Palmer Road,
Victoria, BC V8P 2H8
AndrewHughes3000@gmail.com 
ca.linkedin.com/pub/andrew-hughes/a/58/682/
Identity Management | IT Governance | Information Security