Upload
rikard-strid
View
318
Download
2
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Claysters CTO describe the evolution of Internet, by guiding you through the world of semantic technologies etc.
Citation preview
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
Tel: 032-212 25 33
Skype: peterwaher
Twitter: PeterWaher
Twitter: ClaysterLabs