..and this one... http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/secure.htm From: colin_wallis@hotmail.com To: ingo.friese@gmail.com; sal@idmachines.com CC: dg-idot@kantarainitiative.org Subject: RE: [DG-IDoT] Terminology discussion Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2014 07:32:22 +1200 This is where I start... https://www.iso.org/obp Cheers Colin
From: ingo.friese@gmail.com Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2014 09:31:31 +0100 To: sal@idmachines.com CC: dg-idot@kantarainitiative.org Subject: Re: [DG-IDoT] Terminology discussion
Hi Andrew, Hi Sal,
I think the terminology is just a pre condition for discussing Identity concepts. If there are already defined and widely terms...lets use them. I had a Look in different SDOs but I'havent found really good fitting stuff here. Do You know a good Source for terminology?
Ingo
Am 31.01.2014 um 22:59 schrieb "Salvatore D'Agostino" <sal@idmachines.com>:
+1 Andrew,
https://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/IDoT/Concepts+of+Identity+w ithin+the+Internet+of+Things
"The purpose of this paper is to describe identity concepts in the Internet of Things. Identity mechanisms in the Internet of Things are different from those in the classic web.
Furthermore this paper proposes a terminology for Identity management in the Internet of Things. This should help to facilitate discussions and work in this area without the need to define basic terms again."
Agree we don’t need to propose a terminology. Trying to wean any conversation about terminology out of my existence in fact ;-)
So maybe we can work on the abstract text before we go any further.
I like wading into identifiers as Scott has done. (I just trimmed a sentence and would like to talk more about this section).
From: dg-idot-bounces@kantarainitiative.org [mailto:dg-idot-bounces@kantarainitiative.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Hughes Sent: Friday, January 31, 2014 3:31 PM To: Ingo.Friese@telekom.de Cc: dg-idot@kantarainitiative.org Subject: Re: [DG-IDoT] Terminology discussion
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
_______________________________________________ DG-IDoT mailing list DG-IDoT@kantarainitiative.org http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/dg-idot
DG-IDoT mailing list DG-IDoT@kantarainitiative.org http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/dg-idot