Re: [m2m-iwg] M2M Top-Level Project Charter Draft

[UOMo <uomo@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Matteo,

+1 you made very good points and more task or domain-focussed outline of what should go in there.

@Ben somehow the system liked to keep me subscribed, so you'll have to deal with me for the greater good of this IWG and initiative

Werner

On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 6:00 PM, <m2m-iwg-request@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Send m2m-iwg mailing list submissions to
        m2m-iwg@xxxxxxxxxxx

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
        http://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/m2m-iwg
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
        m2m-iwg-request@xxxxxxxxxxx

You can reach the person managing the list at
        m2m-iwg-owner@xxxxxxxxxxx

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of m2m-iwg digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: M2M Top-Level Project Charter Draft (Benjamin Cab?)
   2. Re: M2M Top-Level Project Charter Draft (Matteo Collina)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2013 12:53:50 -0700
From: Benjamin Cab? <bcabe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: m2m Industry Working Group <m2m-iwg@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [m2m-iwg] M2M Top-Level Project Charter Draft
Message-ID: <CDFA44A2.45B8E%BCabe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"

Hi Kai,

I quite like the charter! And I have a VERY boring suggestion for the naming: Eclipse IoT :-)

Does not look boring to me! I have added that to the list of proposed names in the wiki page.

I know, a big buzzword and its hype might be over one day, but at the moment I would actually see it as the most descriptive and appropriate, so I wanted to throw it into the discussion.

Yes, that would be my concern neither M2M nor IoT will be hype forever, so this why I also like the idea of trying to find a hype-proof name :) But FWIW if I were to choose between "M2M" and "IoT", my vote would probably go to "IoT".

In the scope section you write:

 *   "Implementation of communication protocols applicable to M2M communications due to their nature (bandwidth efficiency, security, ?)"

Looking from the Home Automation perspective, I think this is a too narrow scope. For HA, the M2M communication part is not so important, but rather the protocol that is used to communicate with different gateways. Just to give you an example: For the EnOcean protocol (see http://www.enocean.com/en/energy-harvesting-wireless/), it is not so interesting to understand what goes over the radio (what is very constrained), but how to communicate with the usb radio stick over the serial interface. So I think the protocol scope would actually boil down to "Implementation of communication protocols".

You are right. I have reworded to "Protocols implementations that can easily be consumed by end solution developers as well as framework developers". Maybe it still can be improved to somehow limit the scope to M2M/IoT protocols (e.g. I don't think we want HTTP or SMTP implementations? :-) )

Open question would be: Which OSI layers would be in scope here? Is 4-7 enough or would you also see layers 1-3 in the scope?

Do you have specific protocols in mind?
I am not sure there would be a justification to formally limiting the scope to just layer 4 and above. What do you think?

Benjamin.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/private/m2m-iwg/attachments/20130703/db083e95/attachment.html>

------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2013 23:10:58 +0100
From: Matteo Collina <matteo.collina@xxxxxxxxx>
To: m2m Industry Working Group <m2m-iwg@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [m2m-iwg] M2M Top-Level Project Charter Draft
Message-ID:
        <CAANuz54C1YX23fWWNfGPnHjDJnwNaocBBuvad56e2BzBZ3ruOA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

Hi everybody,

I am not sure that I have read ALL the previous messages, but I am trying
to add my point of view. I think we are thinking in a technology-driven
scope, while the Eclipe IoT Charter should provide a clear vision that goes
above the technology (as far as I get it).  The IoT is about data and how
data is exchanged between the machines in order to provide services to the
user, who does not care about how the data are transmitted as far as the
service is reliable. We need the tools to build a world where everything is
connected, but we should not limit our technology choices. We should avoid
the 'not invented here' syndrome. We need to tackle the heterogeneity
problem of the real world.

I would like to rephrase the overview as: Eclipse IoT aims to provide the
means to build, setup and manage hardware-software entities, called
"things" or "machines", that have the primary focus of gathering,
processing, and reacting to real-world events. Eclipse IoT is the place
where we build the "tools" for a connected world.

In the mission, we need to add a references to data (formats, semantics,
units) to allow both user-facing and big data applications to be built on
top of our work. Moreover, the IoT will also need some kind of metadata, in
order to represent not only what the devices are exchanging but also the
devices themselves. I perfectly know that this is inside "application
management" or "device management", however these concepts need to be
explicit. We can call them device 'profiles', if metadata is a too abstract
concept.

BTW, my preference goes to the Eclipse IoT name. Boring and hyping.

Cheers,

Matteo
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/private/m2m-iwg/attachments/20130703/3458568f/attachment.html>

------------------------------

_______________________________________________
m2m-iwg mailing list
m2m-iwg@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/m2m-iwg


End of m2m-iwg Digest, Vol 21, Issue 7
**************************************