> 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