Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Enabling IoT Devices’ Hardware and Software Interoperability, IPSO Alliance (IoT World 2017 Workshop)


Published on

Presentation delivered during the Internet of Things World, Santa Clara pre-event workshop by Christian Legare - IPSO Alliance Chairman, Chief of Software Engineering, Micrium (Part of Silicon Labs)

Internet Protocol for Smart Objects (IPSO) is an alliance that, among other things, defines a data model to represent sensor values and attributes. OMA uses IPSO Smart Objects v1.0 as its resource model to expose sensor information to a remote LwM2M Server. From the speaker from IPSO Alliance, you will learn:
● What is an IPSO Smart Object data model
● What do these Objects and Resources look like
● How to create and register your own resources
● What is next for IPSO Alliance

Published in: Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Enabling IoT Devices’ Hardware and Software Interoperability, IPSO Alliance (IoT World 2017 Workshop)

  1. 1. IPSO Alliance Enabling IoT Devices’ Hardware and Software Interoperability
  2. 2. What is the IPSO Alliance? The IPSO Alliance is a global forum comprising a diverse international membership focused on enabling IoT devices to communicate, understand and trust each other with global interoperability based on open standards. IPSO Alliance membership is open to all organizations supporting an IP-based approach to connecting smart objects and interested in defining the future of the Internet of Things. 25/18/2017 IPSO Alliance 2015 – All rights reserved
  3. 3. IPSO Technical Advisory Board and Working Group Efforts 3 Resource Model Protocol Model Identity Model Physical Model Services Model Semantic Model Autonomous Model Technical Advisory Board ROLE • Define Guiding Principles • Architecture Correctness • Act on the Board Behalf • Advise the Working Committees • Ensure Consistency Working Groups ACTIVE TO BE CHARTERED
  4. 4. The Importance of Interoperability 4 IoT Systems: heterogeneous, large-scale, distributed systems with multi- vendor building-blocks We need Interoperability to build systems, create systems of systems, to keep cost low, to reduce risk, to spur innovation,… IoT The challenge • An aircraft jet engine is built with 25,000 parts • A passenger car has 30,000 • A wind turbine has 8,000 • There are >10,000 types of medical devices …all of which are from hundreds of manufacturers
  5. 5. • Why Semantics? • The 2015 McKinsey report that said 40% of the additional value to IoT is interoperability • Interoperability starts with the data • The value add exists when data coming from any origin can be shared and used by everybody • The IPSO smart object definition is gaining traction: •OMA •Bluetooth (BIPSO) •STMicroelectronics •IoTerop (and its smart city initiatives) •… and more Semantic Working Group Charter 5
  6. 6. • Why Protocol? • There are too many IP standards to choose from currently • There is a need to evaluate performance; some perform better in certain markets and others better elsewhere • The Protocol Working Group is tasked with answering how to use Internet Protocol(s) Protocol Working Group Charter 6
  7. 7. • With the success of IPSO Smart Object v1, IPSO is now working on Smart Object v2 which is specifically addressing the issues with: • Stringent Object/Resource ID standardization processes and activities which are becoming a barrier in describing “things” dynamically • Compile / development time binding of Objects/Resources into code which makes the adoption and continuous improvements to “things” rather difficult • Interoperability can only be achieved by the SDOs interoperability • OMA is a very important IPSO partner Reasons for this presentation
  8. 8. IPSO Smart Object Model V1.0
  9. 9. • IPSO Data Model V1.0 • Our surroundings can be expressed as a model of Objects & Resources • Break large components into atomic components, e.g. relays, temperature sensors, digital input / output, etc. • Objects and Resources are standardized one by one, and registered with OMNA LwM2M Registry IPSO V1.0 Model RelayTemperature Sensor 3303 5700 5601 5605…Sensor Value Min Measured Value Reset (E) Min/Max Measure Values 10245 5500 5501 5854…Digital Input State Digital Input Counter Off Time
  10. 10. • Object Validation • Anybody can use composition to create new Objects from the existing ones. You need to validate them before submitting new ones. You can use 'xmllint' to validate against the LWM2M Schema. Welcome to the public IPSO Repository 10 # Run xmllint against one or multiple Objects $ xmllint --noout --schema LWM2M.xsd example.xml # The output should be: $ example.xml validates
  11. 11. • OMNA can provide you with an unique Object or/and Resource Identifier: (Object ID) or (ResourceID). To register a new (Ojbect ID) or (Resource ID). OMA has developed an editor for creating LwM2M Objects & Resources. •The LwM2M Editor can be accessed here: Editor. •The XML schema used by the LwM2M Editor can be found here: Schema. OMA LightweightM2M (LwM2M) Object and Resource Registry 11
  12. 12. • This is a tool for creating, editing and viewing OMA LWM2M objects OMA LWM2M Management Object Editor 12
  13. 13. IPSO v1.0 Requires to define the sensors to “atomic” level Data Model Escalation x y z o TransportConnected Car Smart Cities Industry IPSO V1.0 Data Model
  14. 14. Challenges
  15. 15. • The definition and registration process of objects and resources doesn’t escalate very well: • All Objects / Resources and any permutations and variations thereof must be predefined á priori • Huge standardization effort is required to define Objects/Resources for components in each vertical sector: industrial, smart cities, transport, etc • It requires companies from different sectors to agree what and how to standardize sensor properties. • Registration, validation and verification effort cannot be underestimated if the aim is to reach out to billion of devices. Challenges of this Data Model Logistic and Operational Challenge
  16. 16. • Since all the bindings are done at development/compile time, any new “thing”, changes to an existing “thing”, or any new variations thereof require redevelopment of drivers, testing, and firmware update • There’s absolutely no way for a new “thing” to automatically work without any changes to the client framework Technical Challenge Switch Drvr Temp Drvr Sensor drivers manually configured for each sensor & Client hardware H/W Sensors Driver Sensors Client Platform
  17. 17. • Reusable Object IDs and Resource IDs. • Transport protocol and encoding data format independent. • Easy to build your own Objects and add to repo. • Easy to get feedback. • Sufficient for current use cases. • Trivial to integrate with LWM2M. • Tested. IPSO Smart Objects 17
  18. 18. These are examples of groups/companies/orgs that use IPSO objects... • • • • • • • • • • Interoperability Any actual example system/implementation to demonstrate how IPSO plays so well for interoperability? 18
  19. 19. • The current paradigm doesn’t scale well in a market of billion of “things” – including virtual - and millions of variations to the same “things”: • Standardization & registration effort is a daunting task • Development/Compile time integration is an impediment to interoperability Limitations of the IPSO Smart Object model V1.0
  20. 20. Next Steps
  21. 21. • IPSO is working on a Node Meta Model • A Model that defines how things should be defined • “Things” do not need to be defined a priori and promotes runtime binding • Proof of Concept is already completed and working in the real world • Proof of Concept for integration with LWM2M already completed (ST Micro) • Synergy with IPSO • IPSO deals only with the model • The model is protocol, security, bootstrap, and commissioning agnostic – a major synergy with OMA and LWM2M • No framework available – Should we work with the Eclipse Foundation? • Possible impact in the evolution of LwM2M • This is for OMA to assess based on the information of the new model. Next Steps
  22. 22. • No Web Linking! (but easy to add) • LWM2M Object Versioning. • Not suited for complex hypermedia interactions. • Could have a richer language to represent IPSO Objects instead of XML. • Missing a lot of IETF CoRE-Link concepts: recource type "rt", "cf", etc. • Also URI 3303/0/5700 (no decoupling) IPSO Smart Objects 22
  23. 23. IPSO Alliance Membership 5/18/2017 IPSO Alliance 2015 – All rights reserved 23
  24. 24. • Participate in Working Groups to help create and influence the use cases, technical guidelines, marketing materials, lobbying efforts, and all other Alliance work products • Access pre-publication drafts of the design guidelines and internal documents through the Working Groups; review and comment on new guidelines prior to adoption • Attend and participate in Alliance member-only meetings • Leverage the IPSO brand and its alliances, present at IPSO-sponsored key industry events, participate in interoperability test events Additionally, promoter-level members may: • Serve on the Board of Directors • Hold leadership positions within IPSO committees • Vote on all IPSO business Why Join the IPSO Alliance? 24
  25. 25. Membership Levels • Promoter: $5,000 per year • Contributor: $2,500 per year • Innovator: $1,000 per year [<10 employees and annual revenues of $2.5M or less] How to Join 25
  26. 26. THANK YOU! 5/18/2017 IPSO Alliance 2015 – All rights reserved 26