Shaping Device Descriptions to Achieve IoT Semantic Interoperability
Author(s): Aparna Saisree Thuluva, Darko Anicic, Sebastian Rudolph
Full text: submitted version
Abstract: The Internet of Things (IoT) promises easy integration of
connected physical devices at a large scale. For this purpose use of seman-
tic technologies are widely acknowledged, as they enable devices to un-
derstand the meaning of data instead of merely exchanging it. W3CWoT
Working Group is standardizing Thing Description (TD) as a machine-
readable interface of a thing. Further on, iot.schema.org species seman-
tics for capabilities of things. Using these models it is possible to describe
devices. However, they do not constrain semantics of IoT devices. For
example, iot.schema.org provides one capability for a class of devices.
Often same-class devices, produced by dierent manufacturers, dier in
certain feature or data they oer. In order to represent device variants we
propose to extend iot.schema.org Capabilities with RDF Shapes. In our
approach, TDs for device variants are automatically generated. It also
enhances thing discovery, semantic interoperability, validation of TDs,
and accelerates IoT application development.
Keywords: Internet of Things; Web of Things; iot.schema.org; RDF Shape Languages; Shape Expressions (ShEx); W3C Web of Things Thing Description; Semantic Discovery; Semantic Interoperability
Review 1 (by Anna Fensel)
The paper proposes a solution for modeling capabilities and constraints of IoT devices. Having this information modelled may facilitate the interaction with the devices, and make them more actionable, e.g. enabling them to be activated in a manner similar as to activation of a semantic web service. Given that there are really many IoT, appliance and device ontologies, it would be highly beneficial at the beginning of the paper to provide a very clear typical example scenario, demonstrating the advantages your work will bring, and what exactly that you model which is not available at other ontologies. Now the coverage of the IoT, device and appliance semantic models is generally very high. Even complex scenarios including the details of an appliance as well as its context can be modelled solely with existing ontologies, e.g. see our example work addressing energy efficiency of fridges: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167739X16306653 In the first half of the paper, there is on the other hand, quite a lot of repetition in the texts: some working groups and details of the overall context of the work are mentioned over and over again. The exact scope of the work should be also defined clearer. The work is implemented, but an extensive evaluation is missing; in fact, the development would have a further evolution (i.e. this paper describes a development which is still in progress). The presentation of the paper needs to be improved, the narrative should be more fluent. There are also a few typos: - Page 5: “model is alligned” should be “model is aligned”, - Page 10: “over specify capabilities” should be “overspecify capabilities”, - In the reference list, the reference number 7 is not complete. Generally, given the fact, that there are many relevant IoT models and scenarios being created and implemented now, the reference list should also be extended, to show that the state of the art overview has been comprehensive. *** after rebuttal note *** Thank you for replying the review comments. I will remain with my opinion and the evaluation score.
Review 2 (by anonymous reviewer)
While the paper is well written and includes a sound motivation and approach it is not appropriate for the in-use track. It does not include details of use of the approach in practice or an evaluation. Furthermore it does not address the extent to which discoverability is improved which is a clear aim of the approach.
Review 3 (by Albert Meroño-Peñuela)
Review 4 (by Anna Tordai)
This is a metareview for the paper that summarizes the opinions of the individual reviewers. The topic of the paper, a solution for modeling the constraints of IoT devices, makes it very relevant for the In-Use track and for this community. However, the reviewers note that the paper does not contain an evaluation, nor does it measure impact of the technology. In some cases the lack of detail in the description of the implementation raises questions. These comments lead us to conclude that this work is not mature enough in this state. Laura Hollink & Anna Tordai