The document discusses the evolution of the internet from Web 1.0 (static content) to Web 2.0 (user interaction) and finally to Web 3.0, which emphasizes interconnected machine-to-machine communication and the Internet of Things (IoT). It highlights the technologies and protocols integral to each phase, such as RDF, SPARQL, and decentralized systems in Web 3.0. Additionally, it considers security improvements, integration challenges, and the future of technology development within this context.

1. Web 3.0 & IoT
The future of Internet

2. Callenge for 2020 1(2)
http://www.ericsson.com/news/110214_more_than_50_billion_244188811_c

3. Challenge for 2020 2(2)

4. Evolution
Web 1.0
 Publication
Web 2.0
 Interaction
 Automatization
Web 3.0
 Interoperation
 IoT
 Smart City

5. Web 1.0
Publication of papers.
 HTML / HTTP / TCP / IP
Links between publications.
 URI
Consumption by humans.
 Browsers
Static information.
 The publisher provides the information.
 Centralized.

6. Examples of web 1.0
Newspapers
Portals
Home Pages
Britannica Online

7. Web 2.0
Dynamic information.
 Users provide the information.
 XML, XML Schema, XSLT, XHR (Ajax).
New interfaces for humans
 Apps (10’ interfaces)
Web Services.
 SOAP, WSDL
 REST, WADL
 Syndication (RSS, ATOM, Podcasts, etc.)

8. Examples of web 2.0
Social networks
 FB, Twitter, LinkedIn, Flickr, YT, etc.
 Comments, tagging, voting, liking, blogging.
On-line databases
 Wikipedia, Google Earth, OSM, etc.
Stores
 eBay, Amazon, etc.
Content Management Systems
 Drupal, Mediawiki, etc.

9. Examples of web 2.0
Apps
 IPhone, Android, IP-TV, etc.
“Web as a platform”
 Cloud
 Google: Docs, Gmail, Calendar, etc.
 Hotmail, MS Web Apps
Programmable web
 Mashups (6809 en www.programmableweb.com)
 APIs (7677 en www.programmableweb.com)

10. 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.

11. Web 3.0 Technologies
Semantic Web
 Universal abstraction of information.
 Meaning of información.
 Standardized question languages
 Standardized rule languages
 Artificial intelligence.
Internet of Things (IoT)
 Wireless sensor networks WSN (IPv6 / WiFi)
 Grid Computing (federation)
 Security, peer-to-peer (XMPP)

12. Linked Data
http://linkeddata.org/
http://www.w3.org/standards/semanticweb/data

13. Abstraction of information
Semantic Triples
 Subject Predicate Object (S, P, O)
 Can describe all information that exists.
 S & P are URI’s
 O can be an URI or a LITERAL
 Literals can have or lack a type.
 Every type is defined by an URI.

14. Examples of Semantic Triples
 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.

15. URIs
URI Format
Scheme://Host/Path
Simple to extend
Simple to maintain unique
Simple to distribute

16. Graphs
Semantic graphs
 Subjects and Objects are nodes
 Predicates form edges

17. Links
Introductory links to SW
 http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/
 http://semanticweb.org/
 http://www.w3.org/standards/semanticweb/data

18. RDF
Resource Description Framework
 W3C Recommendation (“Standard”)
 Easy for machines to understand
 RDF/XML (Documents)
 RDFa (Micro format)
 Uses the power of XML and Namespaces
 Easy to validate
 Difficult to read or write by humans.

19. RDF Example 1(2)

20. RDF Example 2(2)

21. Ontologies
Describe Vocabularies
 Corresponds to Schemas in the XML-world
 Permits deduction
RDF Schema (RDFS)
 Very easy
Web Ontology Language (OWL)
 More advanced
 Three levels (Lite, DL, Full)

22. RDFS Example

23. Dublin Core Example
Describe publicaciones

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

25. Turtle Example 1(2)

26. Turtle Example 2(2)

27. The previous example in RDF

28. Links
RDF/Turtle Links
 http://www.w3schools.com/rdf/default.asp
 http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-primer-
20040210/
 http://www.w3.org/standards/techs/rdf#w3c_all
 http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-syntax-
grammar-20040210/
 http://www.w3.org/TeamSubmission/turtle/

29. OOP for the Semantic Web
Objects in OOP are Objects in SW
Properties are Predicates
Values are Objects.
Classes in OOP are also Objects

30. Differences between OOP & WS
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

31. SPARQL
SPARQL
 W3C 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.

32. SPARQL 1.0 Example 1(2)

33. SPARQL 1.0 Example 2(2)

34. SPARQL 1.1 Example 1(2)

35. SPARQL 1.1 Example 2(2)

36. Federation – “Grid Computing”
Client
RDF RDF
SPARQL
E.P.
RDF RDF
RDF RDF
SPARQL SPARQL
E.P. E.P.
RDF SPARQL RDF
E.P.

37. Links
SPARQL Links
 http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-query/
 http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-rdf-sparql-query-
20080115/
 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_all
 http://www.w3.org/wiki/SparqlEndpoints
 http://dbpedia.org/sparql

38. RIF
“Rule Interchange Format”
 W3C Recommendation (“Standard”)
 Automatic interchange of information
 Permits automation and control
 Interchangeable modules.

39. RIF Example

40. Links
RIF Links
 http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/NOTE-rif-overview-
20100622/
 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.pdf
 http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/RIF_Working_Gr
oup

41. Evolution of Databases
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 = Interchangeable
 Easy to join information from different sources.

42. IoT: Web 2.0 vs Web 3.0
¿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?

43. Centralized vs. Distributed
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

44. Plug Computers
 Linux Server
 1,2 Watts
 2 USD for 24 / 7 / 365 service.
 119 USD/unit price.

45. Security in Web 3.0
Based on HTTP
 Authentication
 Encryption (SSL/TLS)
Decentralized storage
 Lowers the risk of attacks
 Lowers the effect of an attack
 Difficult to attack using an DDOS.
Extensions to other protocols
 XMPP

46. XMPP
Standardized (IETF)
Peer-to-peer
Based of XML fragments
Data protected by firewalls.
Authenticated clients
Authorized clients

47. Advantages with IETF, W3C, XSF
Replaceable components
Lowers the cost
Permits interchange of information
Permits a mixture of providers
Power shifts to client
Creates a new infrastructure
Permits new business models

48. CLAYSTER Technology

49. CLAYSTER Technology

50. CLAYSTER Technology

51. CLAYSTER Technology
Mobile MID-
Computer TV
Phone

53. 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)

54. Peter Waher
Clayster Laboratorios Chile Ltda.
Calle Blanco 1623, of 1402.
Valparaíso
peter.waher@clayster.com
Tel: 032-212 25 33
Skype: peterwaher
Twitter: PeterWaher
Twitter: ClaysterLabs