Web 3.0 & IoT  The 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)
EvolutionWeb 1.0  PublicationWeb 2.0  Interaction  AutomatizationWeb 3.0  Interoperation  IoT  Smart City
Web 1.0Publication of papers.   HTML / HTTP / TCP / IPLinks between publications.   URIConsumption by humans.   Brow...
Examples of web 1.0NewspapersPortalsHome PagesBritannica Online
Web 2.0Dynamic information.   Users provide the information.   XML, XML Schema, XSLT, XHR (Ajax).New interfaces for hu...
Examples of web 2.0Social networks   FB, Twitter, LinkedIn, Flickr, YT, etc.   Comments, tagging, voting, liking, blogg...
Examples of web 2.0Apps   IPhone, Android, IP-TV, etc.“Web as a platform”   Cloud   Google: Docs, Gmail, Calendar, et...
Web 3.0Publication of data.   RDF / HTTP, XMPP / TCPv6 / IPv6Links between data.   URIConsumption by machines.   M2M...
Web 3.0 TechnologiesSemantic Web   Universal abstraction of information.   Meaning of información.   Standardized ques...
Linked Datahttp://linkeddata.org/http://www.w3.org/standards/semanticweb/data
Abstraction of informationSemantic Triples   Subject Predicate Object (S, P, O)   Can describe all information that exi...
Examples of Semantic Triples   Clayster “is a” Company   Clayster “is domiciled in” Valparaíso   Valparaíso “is a” City...
URIsURI Format Scheme://Host/Path Simple to extend Simple to maintain unique Simple to distribute
GraphsSemantic graphs  Subjects and Objects are nodes  Predicates form edges
LinksIntroductory links to SW   http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/   http://semanticweb.org/   http://www.w3.org/standards/sem...
RDFResource Description Framework  W3C Recommendation (“Standard”)  Easy for machines to understand  RDF/XML (Document...
RDF Example 1(2)
RDF Example 2(2)
OntologiesDescribe Vocabularies   Corresponds to Schemas in the XML-world   Permits deductionRDF Schema (RDFS)   Very...
RDFS Example
Dublin Core ExampleDescribe publicaciones
TurtleTurtle   W3C Recommendation (“Standard”)   “Terse RDF Triple Language”   Easier to read and write by humans
Turtle Example 1(2)
Turtle Example 2(2)
The previous example in RDF
LinksRDF/Turtle Links   http://www.w3schools.com/rdf/default.asp   http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-primer-    2004021...
OOP for the Semantic WebObjects in OOP are Objects in SWProperties are PredicatesValues are Objects.Classes in OOP are...
Differences between OOP & WSObject Oriented Programming OOP   Semantic WebExclusive                         InclusiveCentr...
SPARQLSPARQL  W3C Recommendation (“Standard”)  “SPARQL Protocol and RDF   Query Language”  Performs Pattern Matching i...
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”                 Client      RDF                     RDF                SPARQL               ...
LinksSPARQL Links  http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-query/  http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-rdf-sparql-query-   20080115/  ...
RIF“Rule Interchange Format”   W3C Recommendation (“Standard”)   Automatic interchange of information   Permits automa...
RIF Example
LinksRIF Links   http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/NOTE-rif-overview-    20100622/   http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/REC-rif-core-   ...
Evolution of DatabasesProprietary files (~ “web 1.0”)   Error prone.Procedural API’s (~ “web 2.0”)   dBase, Paradox, F...
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 connec...
Centralized vs. DistributedCentralized (web 2.0)                  Distributed (Federation - web 3.0)Expensive             ...
Plug Computers Linux Server 1,2 Watts 2 USD for 24 / 7 / 365 service. 119 USD/unit price.
Security in Web 3.0Based on HTTP   Authentication   Encryption (SSL/TLS)Decentralized storage   Lowers the risk of at...
XMPPStandardized (IETF)Peer-to-peerBased of XML fragmentsData protected by firewalls.Authenticated clientsAuthorized...
Advantages with IETF, W3C, XSFReplaceable componentsLowers the costPermits interchange of informationPermits a mixture...
CLAYSTER Technology
CLAYSTER Technology
CLAYSTER Technology
CLAYSTER TechnologyMobile   MID-                 Computer   TV         Phone
Developing the technology for the future ¿Do you find this interesting? ¿Do you want to work with this with us? We seek...
Peter WaherClayster Laboratorios Chile Ltda.Calle Blanco 1623, of 1402.Valparaísopeter.waher@clayster.comTel: 032-212 25 3...
Web 3.0 & io t (en)
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Web 3.0 & io t (en)

591 views

Published on

Claysters CTO describe the evolution of Internet, by guiding you through the world of semantic technologies etc.

Published in: Technology
0 Comments
2 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
591
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
6
Comments
0
Likes
2
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Web 3.0 & io t (en)

  1. 1. Web 3.0 & IoT The future of Internet
  2. 2. Callenge for 2020 1(2)http://www.ericsson.com/news/110214_more_than_50_billion_244188811_c
  3. 3. Challenge for 2020 2(2)
  4. 4. EvolutionWeb 1.0  PublicationWeb 2.0  Interaction  AutomatizationWeb 3.0  Interoperation  IoT  Smart City
  5. 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. 6. Examples of web 1.0NewspapersPortalsHome PagesBritannica Online
  7. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 12. Linked Datahttp://linkeddata.org/http://www.w3.org/standards/semanticweb/data
  13. 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. 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. 15. URIsURI Format Scheme://Host/Path Simple to extend Simple to maintain unique Simple to distribute
  16. 16. GraphsSemantic graphs  Subjects and Objects are nodes  Predicates form edges
  17. 17. LinksIntroductory links to SW  http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/  http://semanticweb.org/  http://www.w3.org/standards/semanticweb/data
  18. 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. 19. RDF Example 1(2)
  20. 20. RDF Example 2(2)
  21. 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. 22. RDFS Example
  23. 23. Dublin Core ExampleDescribe publicaciones
  24. 24. TurtleTurtle  W3C Recommendation (“Standard”)  “Terse RDF Triple Language”  Easier to read and write by humans
  25. 25. Turtle Example 1(2)
  26. 26. Turtle Example 2(2)
  27. 27. The previous example in RDF
  28. 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. 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. 30. Differences between OOP & WSObject Oriented Programming OOP Semantic WebExclusive InclusiveCentralized DistributedClosed World assumption Open World assumptionProprietary CollaborativeDeterministic IndeterministicClasses have heritence Types and properties have heritence
  31. 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. 32. SPARQL 1.0 Example 1(2)
  33. 33. SPARQL 1.0 Example 2(2)
  34. 34. SPARQL 1.1 Example 1(2)
  35. 35. SPARQL 1.1 Example 2(2)
  36. 36. Federation – “Grid Computing” Client RDF RDF SPARQL E.P. RDF RDFRDF RDF SPARQL SPARQL E.P. E.P.RDF SPARQL RDF E.P.
  37. 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. 38. RIF“Rule Interchange Format”  W3C Recommendation (“Standard”)  Automatic interchange of information  Permits automation and control  Interchangeable modules.
  39. 39. RIF Example
  40. 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. 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. 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. 43. Centralized vs. DistributedCentralized (web 2.0) Distributed (Federation - web 3.0)Expensive CheapInefficient EfficientDifficult to grow proportionally Grows organically (~ neural network)Insecure SecureLack of integrity Maximum of integrityEasy to abuse Difficult to abuseUser does not control information User is owner of information
  44. 44. Plug Computers Linux Server 1,2 Watts 2 USD for 24 / 7 / 365 service. 119 USD/unit price.
  45. 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. 46. XMPPStandardized (IETF)Peer-to-peerBased of XML fragmentsData protected by firewalls.Authenticated clientsAuthorized clients
  47. 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. 48. CLAYSTER Technology
  49. 49. CLAYSTER Technology
  50. 50. CLAYSTER Technology
  51. 51. CLAYSTER TechnologyMobile MID- Computer TV Phone
  52. 52. 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)
  53. 53. Peter WaherClayster Laboratorios Chile Ltda.Calle Blanco 1623, of 1402.Valparaísopeter.waher@clayster.comTel: 032-212 25 33Skype: peterwaherTwitter: PeterWaherTwitter: ClaysterLabs

×