1. What and Why? Next steps for oneM2M Semantics Group Name: WG5 Source: Joerg Swetina, Martin Bauer (NEC) Meeting Date: 2014-03-03 Agenda Item: WI-0005 oneM2M-MAS-2014-0335

2. Goal of this presentation At the end of the last meeting several presentations for a ‘way forward’ with work on semantics were given in [ MAS-2014-0334, MAS-2014-0332R01, MAS- 2014-0331], but it was felt that they were lacking a tangible work plan This contribution gives a technical view (What), identifying benefit (Why) of work on semantics in oneM2M. It proposes: – A stepwise introduction from “basic” to “full” semantics Enabling “simple interworking”, “abstraction” and “semantic search / mesh-up / analytics” – That independent stakeholders can contribute according to their business role – A timeline (in particular what could be included for Rel-1) The first two steps (called “basic” and “enhanced”) do not yet aim at ‘full’ semantic services but rather provide support for inter- working with existing M2M systems => crucial for Rel-1 success. – An evolutionary approach to ‘full’ semantics is envisaged Not all decisions for ‘full’ semantics (e.g. architecture for storage …) need to be taken now but “basic” and “enhanced” semantics need to be extensible to “full” semantics. (e.g. RDF created for the earlier steps should be reusable in OWL in later steps…)

3. oneM2M-MAS-2014-0335 “basic” semantics - What and Why? Currently (simple) oneM2M system is unaware of application logic and –data. – It only knows “containers” to transport application data; Simple oneM2M is optimized for data transport. It neglects legacy solutions. Interworking with legacy solutions needed => Interworking Proxies (IPE) “basic” semantic for devices needed: Information Model (data types, parameter names, I/O primitives) of interworked devices. This allows the IPE: Well-defined creation (structuring, naming) of “containers” = “syntactic interoperability”  Enables development of Applications independent of development of IPEs! 3 Sensor/Meter CSE Mbus/COSE M Inter-working Proxy Entity Mca Utility Application Mca Sensor/Meter Zigbee telco Profile Inter-working Proxy Entity Mca Application Service Node CSE Mcc Infrastructure Node Common Information model Awareness INDEPENDENT !!

4. oneM2M-MAS-2014-0335 CSE “basic” Device Information Model Page 4 Manufacturer AE Manufacturer defines (at least) Syntactic Device model  Input- Output operations  Enables creation of (oneM2M) representations - resources  syntactic interoperability optionally:  Manufacture specific data o Name/ID of manufacturer o Product Identifier o … The I/O primitives, data types, etc. needed for the (basic) Device Info Model for any device ideally can be laid down in a universal Schema, the “Device Template” (e.g. as RDFS Schema) {= very simple semantics} – This Schema can be filled in by manufacturers for their device types – The filled-in schema is the (basic) Device Information model for that device  oneM2M only needs that a “Device Template” can describe parameter names, data types and I/O operation types

5. oneM2M-MAS-2014-0335 “enhanced” semantics - What and Why ? “enhanced” semantic contains simple ontologies (with e.g. industry sector specific concepts or widely used concepts). – Industry sectors (e.g. eHealth, Home Appliances..) agree on ontologies (vocabulary, relationships, semantic descriptions) that describe classes of devices. e.g. Model XPB60-65S-T190 from Zhejiang Tianlu Electrical Appliance Co. and WI12S140GB from SIEMENS can both be described by the concept “Washing Machine”, subclass “front loading”. – Additionally such ontologies may use widely used concepts (upper ontologies) that are specified by other organizations E.g. the concept of “Temperature” could be used for washing machines but also weather observations This enables creation of – Manufacturer independent applications (through “Abstract” devices that are mapped to “real”, manufacturer- and technology dependent devices) = “semantic interoperability”  Enables development of Applications independent of device technology!  Enables semantic search for types of devices, operations … 5

6. oneM2M-MAS-2014-0335 CSE “enhanced” Device Information Model Page 6 Industry Sector specific ontologies and widely used concepts Industry Sector specific ontologies and widely used concepts Industry sector stakeholder (e.g. HGI) defines industry sector specific Semantic Device model  Generic naming of device types operation types, profiles …  semantic interoperability Additionally: widely used concepts (upper ontologies) that can be used across industry sectors Multiple enhancements to a “basic” Device Information Model are possible  Industry specific additions to the “Device Template” Manufacturer AE  oneM2M business needs that “basic” (manufacturer) and “enhanced” (industry sector) semantics can be specified independently

7. oneM2M-MAS-2014-0335 intermezzo… So far semantics has only been considered to be used to define types (of devices and their data), but not instances. – one type can be statically linked (e.g. as subclass) to another type – Individual devices and their data (instances) can be modeled as oneM2M resources/containers, containing an “ontologyRef”. – “ontologyRef” points to a node in the ontology to specify the type. As long as only devices are modeled that may work fine, but if other “real-world” entities (a room, a street, an organization..) are modeled we need to instantiate relations. E.g. a specific room temperature sensor “MyTempSensor” may have a relation “is located in” a certain room “MyLivingRoom”. That relation may or may not exist. – For modeling “full” semantics the storage in dedicated semantic DBs will be needed. Concept of oneM2M Resources may need extensions (possibly by modeling them as semantic entities themselves). 7

8. oneM2M-MAS-2014-0335 “full” semantics - What and Why ? “full” semantics is modelled with ontologies that contain concepts of real-world entities (a room, a street,...) – They allow to model the context of individual devices e.g. “MyTempSensor” is located in “MyLivingRoom” – They allow to model “virtual devices”. e.g. a “virtual device” could sense the number of people in a room… The context of a device is known to the Application – the “full” semantic (of a device instance) can be defined by the application provider and industry-sector / cross-industry stakeholders Concept of oneM2M Resources may need extensions.  Enables semantic search including real-world context  Enables use of M2M data for other applications  Enables creation of Mesh-ups and BigData Analytics 8

9. oneM2M-MAS-2014-0335 CSE Page 9 Industry Sector specific Manufacturer AE Context specific Manufacturer defines (at least) Syntactic Device model  Input- Output operations  Enables creation of (oneM2M) representations - resources  syntactic interoperability  Manufacture specific data Industry sector stakeholder (e.g. HGI) defines industry sector specific Semantic Device model  Generic naming of device types operation types, profiles …  semantic interoperability Cross-sector stakeholders may define context specific extensions  Location information  Relationships to things  Usage for Virtual Devices  Enables linking device types to the context they are used in “full” Device Information Model

10. oneM2M-MAS-2014-0335 Proposed way forward 1.Now: Agree on stepwise introduction of semantics – Agree on independence of contributors you may call that a primitive “business Domain model” – Find an evolutionary way to introduce the 3 levels of semantic information into oneM2M What tools do we need? RDF, OWL? Can one be re-used within the other? – Agree what Rel-1 could already contain – “basic” semantics? An example/toy Device information model for a simple device (washing machine) should be created. Also the mapping into a oneM2M representation (containers) Maybe a first sketch of a Device Template can be created (send to Continua, HGI..) Document everything in TR-0007 (target usefulness, not “beauty”.. ). 2.Later: Check architecture impacts – Do we need specialized semantic databases for “full” semantics? How do they coexist with oneM2M resources? – Who should contribute semantics? More refined “Domain Model” 10