You might be interested to learn that ISO/IEC JTC 1 has just established a Working Group (WG 10) to work on standardization in support of the Internet of Things (IoT). WG 10 has just been established and has not yet begun any actual standardization actions, but is likely to get started in earnest within the next two or three months. I cannot predict what WG 10 will do, nor how successful it will be, but it will certainly have participation by a great many of the big players in the IoT arena. I would guess that the first activities of JTC 1/WG 10 would be generating a "reference architecture" for IoT, after which they will either propose that existing subcommittees (SCs) in JTC 1 pursue standards in specific areas or perhaps write those standards themselves.
Those of you who are interested in this activity might consider discussing with your ISO National Bodies (e.g., ANSI, BSI, DIN) getting accredited to attend the WG 10 meetings as an individual expert.
Hope this helps,
Jim
At 2014-12-23 09:41, Peter Hunsberger wrote:
Having worked on a system that supported several 100 different devices I know some standardization could sure help. The actual contents don't necessarily need to be standardized but standardized containers, protocols, and schema / meta languages sure would help. Something like EXI would have made out jobs way easier...
Some of the manufacturers (in the satellite world in particular) also make a tidy profit by supporting their own gateways or more fully featured service endpoints to do conversions from some proprietary binary format to something like XML. For example, Digi will be happy to charge you a dollar (or maybe less) per device and give you a cloud based API with persistent storage behind it. Seems cheap until you do something like put a couple of devices in every office in a couple dozen buildings. You can usually roll your own handlers for the binary formats, there are usually some docs, but the XML formats are trivial to implement.
On Tue Dec 23 2014 at 9:32:10 AM Simon St.Laurent <simonstl@simonstl.com> wrote:
- I'm not sure there's much to be gained from standardizing sensor data
- formats as a whole. Standardizing time, quantity, and unit pieces might
- be worthwhile, but I don't see a point in trying to create a generic
- "sensor data" format.
- Thanks,
- Simon
- On 12/23/2014 10:10 AM, Peter Hunsberger wrote:
- > Not a lot of standardization in that field, especially in the mobile
- > devices. At the transport level you do have MQTT and there are a couple
- > of small efforts to build some standards on top of that. Most of the
- > mobile stuff is binary, I've worked with devices from probably over a
- > dozen manufacturers and you see a tiny bit of standardization around
- > some ASCII with yea olde Hayes modem command sets and so called hex bin
- > numerics. At the home level you're starting to see a few manufacturers
- > gaining some traction, the Rockchip WiMo (Wireless Mobile Multimedia
- > Transmission Protocol)* has a fair number of devices and Google has some
- > people jumping on whatever is behind the Nest devices. Lutron uses
- > Telnet and a (proprietary) ASCII protocol which makes it very easy to
- > work with.*
- >
========================================================================
Jim Melton --- Editor of ISO/IEC 9075-* (SQL) Phone: +1.801.942.0144
Chair, ISO/IEC JTC1/SC32 and W3C XML Query WG Fax : +1.801.942.3345
Oracle Corporation Oracle Email: jim dot melton at oracle dot com
1930 Viscounti Drive Alternate email: jim dot melton at acm dot org
Sandy, UT 84093-1063 USA Personal email: SheltieJim at xmission dot com
========================================================================
= Facts are facts. But any opinions expressed are the opinions =
= only of myself and may or may not reflect the opinions of anybody =
= else with whom I may or may not have discussed the issues at hand. =
========================================================================