Web 3.0 & io t (en)

Web 3.0 & IoTThe future of Internet

Callenge for 2020 1(2)

http://www.ericsson.com/news/110214_more_than_50_billion_244188811_c

Challenge for 2020 2(2)

Web 1.0Publication

Web 2.0 InteractionAutomatization

Web 3.0 Interoperation IoTSmart City

Evolution

Publication of papers.HTML / HTTP / TCP / IP

Links between publications.URI

Consumption by humans.Browsers

Static information.The publisher provides the information.Centralized.

Web 1.0

NewspapersPortalsHome PagesBritannica Online

Examples of web 1.0

Dynamic information.Users provide the information.XML, XML Schema, XSLT, XHR (Ajax).

New interfaces for humansApps (10’ interfaces)

Web Services.SOAP, WSDLREST, WADLSyndication (RSS, ATOM, Podcasts, etc.)

Web 2.0

Social networks FB, Twitter, LinkedIn, Flickr, YT, etc. Comments, tagging, voting, liking, blogging.

On-line databasesWikipedia, Google Earth, OSM, etc.

StoreseBay, Amazon, etc.

Content Management SystemsDrupal, Mediawiki, etc.

Examples of web 2.0

Examples of web 2.0

Apps IPhone, Android, IP-TV, etc.

“Web as a platform”CloudGoogle: Docs, Gmail, Calendar, etc.Hotmail, MS Web Apps

Programmable webMashups (6809 en www.programmableweb.com)APIs (7677 en www.programmableweb.com)

Web 3.0

Publication of data.RDF / HTTP, XMPP / TCPv6 / IPv6

Links between data.URI

Consumption by machines.M2M, WSN

Federated information.Created for multitude of entities.Decentralized.

Semantic WebUniversal abstraction of information.Meaning of información.Standardized question languagesStandardized rule languagesArtificial intelligence.

Internet of Things (IoT)Wireless sensor networks WSN (IPv6 / WiFi)Grid Computing (federation)Security, peer-to-peer (XMPP)

Web 3.0 Technologies

http://linkeddata.org/

http://www.w3.org/standards/semanticweb/data

Linked Data

Semantic TriplesSubject Predicate Object (S, P, O)Can describe all information that exists.S & P are URI’sO can be an URI or a LITERALLiterals can have or lack a type.Every type is defined by an URI.

Abstraction of information

Clayster “is a” Company Clayster “is domiciled in” Valparaíso Valparaíso “is a” City Valparaíso “lies in” Chile Chile “is a” Country Peter Waher “is a” Man Peter Waher “has” 40 years Peter Waher “is employed by” Clayster. Peter Waher “is married to” Katya Waher. etc.

Examples of Semantic Triples

URI FormatScheme://Host/PathSimple to extendSimple to maintain uniqueSimple to distribute

URIs

Semantic graphsSubjects and Objects are nodesPredicates form edges

Graphs

Introductory links to SW

http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/http://semanticweb.org/http://www.w3.org/standards/semanticweb/data

Links

Resource Description FrameworkW3C Recommendation (“Standard”)Easy for machines to understandRDF/XML (Documents)RDFa (Micro format)Uses the power of XML and NamespacesEasy to validateDifficult to read or write by humans.

RDF

RDF Example 1(2)

RDF Example 2(2)

Describe VocabulariesCorresponds to Schemas in the XML-worldPermits deduction

RDF Schema (RDFS)Very easy

Web Ontology Language (OWL)More advancedThree levels (Lite, DL, Full)

Ontologies

RDFS Example

Describe publicaciones

Dublin Core Example

Turtle W3C Recommendation (“Standard”) “Terse RDF Triple Language” Easier to read and write by humans

Turtle

Turtle Example 1(2)

Turtle Example 2(2)

The previous example in RDF

RDF/Turtle Linkshttp://www.w3schools.com/rdf/default.asphttp://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-primer-200402

10/http://www.w3.org/standards/techs/rdf#w3c_allhttp://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-syntax-gramm

ar-20040210/http://www.w3.org/TeamSubmission/turtle/

Links

Objects in OOP are Objects in SWProperties are PredicatesValues are Objects.Classes in OOP are also Objects

OOP for the Semantic Web

Object Oriented Programming OOP Semantic Web

Exclusive Inclusive

Centralized Distributed

Closed World assumption Open World assumption

Proprietary Collaborative

Deterministic Indeterministic

Classes have heritence Types and properties have heritence

Differences between OOP & WS

SPARQLW3C Recommendation (“Standard”) “SPARQL Protocol and RDF

Query Language”Performs Pattern Matching in semantic graphs.SQL for the Semantic Web.Connection through a “SPARQL Endpoint”.Access to all types of data.

SPARQL

SPARQL 1.0 Example 1(2)

SPARQL 1.0 Example 2(2)

SPARQL 1.1 Example 1(2)

SPARQL 1.1 Example 2(2)

Federation – “Grid Computing”

SPARQLE.P.

Client

RDF

RDF

RDF

RDF

SPARQLE.P.

SPARQLE.P.

SPARQLE.P.

RDF

RDF

RDF

RDF

SPARQL Linkshttp://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-query/http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-rdf-sparql-query-2

0080115/http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-rdf-sparql-protocol

-20080115/http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-rdf-sparql-XMLres

-20080115/http://www.w3.org/standards/techs/sparql#w3c_allhttp://www.w3.org/wiki/SparqlEndpointshttp://dbpedia.org/sparql

Links

“Rule Interchange Format”W3C Recommendation (“Standard”)Automatic interchange of informationPermits automation and control Interchangeable modules.

RIF

RIF Example

RIF Linkshttp://www.w3.org/TR/2010/NOTE-rif-overview-201

00622/http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/REC-rif-core-20100622/http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/images/b/b0/W3

C_RIF-CW-9-09.pdfhttp://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/RIF_Working_Gr

oup

Links

Proprietary files (~ “web 1.0”)Error prone.

Procedural API’s (~ “web 2.0”)dBase, Paradox, FoxPro, etc.Difficult to join information (relationships)

SQL (~ “web 3.0”)MS SQL, Oracle, DB2, MySQL, Sybase, etc.Standardized = InterchangeableEasy to join information from different sources.

Evolution of Databases

¿How many API’s can be economically supported?¿10? ¿25? ¿50? ¿100? ¿200?

~2’000’000’000 connected devices~ 1 / person of middle class

2020: ~50’000’000’000 devices.> 10 / person of middle class¿How many product providers?¿How many API’s for integration projects?

IoT: Web 2.0 vs Web 3.0

Centralized (web 2.0) Distributed (Federation - web 3.0)

Expensive Cheap

Inefficient Efficient

Difficult to grow proportionally Grows organically (~ neural network)

Insecure Secure

Lack of integrity Maximum of integrity

Easy to abuse Difficult to abuse

User does not control information User is owner of information

Centralized vs. Distributed

Linux Server1,2 Watts2 USD for 24 / 7 / 365 service.119 USD/unit price.

Plug Computers

Based on HTTPAuthenticationEncryption (SSL/TLS)

Decentralized storage Lowers the risk of attacks Lowers the effect of an attack Difficult to attack using an DDOS.

Extensions to other protocolsXMPP

Security in Web 3.0

Standardized (IETF)Peer-to-peerBased of XML fragmentsData protected by firewalls.Authenticated clientsAuthorized clients

XMPP

Replaceable componentsLowers the costPermits interchange of informationPermits a mixture of providersPower shifts to clientCreates a new infrastructurePermits new business models

Advantages with IETF, W3C, XSF

CLAYSTER Technology

CLAYSTER Technology

CLAYSTER Technology

TVMobile MID-Phone

Computer

CLAYSTER Technology

Developing the technology for the future

¿Do you find this interesting?¿Do you want to work with this with us?We seek development engineers within:

.NET (server, platform)WPF (client, UI)Android (mobile, UI) Integrated systems (PLC, electronic circuits)

Peter WaherClayster Laboratorios Chile Ltda.

Calle Blanco 1623, of 1402.

Valparaíso

peter.waher@clayster.com

Tel: 032-212 25 33

Skype: peterwaher

Twitter: PeterWaher

Twitter: ClaysterLabs