Internet Architecture Board (IAB)                             J. Jimenez
Request for Comments: 8477                                 H. Tschofenig
Category: Informational                                        D. Thaler
ISSN: 2070-1721                                             October 2018
Internet Architecture Board (IAB)                             J. Jimenez
Request for Comments: 8477                                 H. Tschofenig
Category: Informational                                        D. Thaler
ISSN: 2070-1721                                             October 2018

Report from the Internet of Things (IoT) Semantic Interoperability (IOTSI) Workshop 2016




This document provides a summary of the "Workshop on Internet of Things (IoT) Semantic Interoperability (IOTSI)", which took place in Santa Clara, California March 17-18, 2016. The main goal of the workshop was to foster a discussion on the different approaches used by companies and Standards Developing Organizations (SDOs) to accomplish interoperability at the application layer. This report summarizes the discussions and lists recommendations to the standards community. The views and positions in this report are those of the workshop participants and do not necessarily reflect those of the authors or the Internet Architecture Board (IAB), which organized the workshop. Note that this document is a report on the proceedings of the workshop. The views and positions documented in this report are those of the workshop participants and do not necessarily reflect IAB views and positions.


Status of This Memo


This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes.


This document is a product of the Internet Architecture Board (IAB) and represents information that the IAB has deemed valuable to provide for permanent record. It represents the consensus of the Internet Architecture Board (IAB). Documents approved for publication by the IAB are not candidates for any level of Internet Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 7841.

本文件是互联网体系结构委员会(IAB)的产品,代表IAB认为有价值提供永久记录的信息。它代表了互联网体系结构委员会(IAB)的共识。IAB批准发布的文件不适用于任何级别的互联网标准;见RFC 7841第2节。

Information about the current status of this document, any errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at


Copyright Notice


Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.

版权所有(c)2018 IETF信托基金和确定为文件作者的人员。版权所有。

This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents ( in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document.

本文件受BCP 78和IETF信托有关IETF文件的法律规定的约束(自本文件出版之日起生效。请仔细阅读这些文件,因为它们描述了您对本文件的权利和限制。

Table of Contents


   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  What Problems to Solve  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   4.  Translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   5.  Dealing with Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   6.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   7.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   8.  Collaboration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   9.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   Appendix A.  Program Committee  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   Appendix B.  Accepted Position Papers . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   Appendix C.  List of Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
   IAB Members at the Time of Approval . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
   Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  What Problems to Solve  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   4.  Translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   5.  Dealing with Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   6.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   7.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   8.  Collaboration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   9.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   Appendix A.  Program Committee  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   Appendix B.  Accepted Position Papers . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   Appendix C.  List of Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
   IAB Members at the Time of Approval . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
   Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
1. Introduction
1. 介绍

The Internet Architecture Board (IAB) holds occasional workshops designed to consider long-term issues and strategies for the Internet, and to suggest future directions for the Internet architecture. The investigated topics often require coordinated efforts from many organizations and industry bodies to improve an identified problem. One of the targets of the workshops is to establish communication between relevant organizations, especially when the topics are out of the scope of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). This long-term planning function of the IAB is complementary to the ongoing engineering efforts performed by working groups of the IETF.


With the expansion of the Internet of Things (IoT), interoperability becomes more and more important. Standards Developing Organizations (SDOs) have done a tremendous amount of work to standardize new protocols and profile existing protocols.


At the application layer and at the level of solution frameworks, interoperability is not yet mature. Particularly, the work on data formats (in the form of data models and information models) has not seen the same level of consistency throughout SDOs.


One common problem is the lack of an encoding-independent standardization of the information, the so-called information model. Another problem is the strong relationship between data formats and the underlying communication architecture, such as a design in Remote Procedure Call (RPC) style or a RESTful design (where REST refers to Representational State Transfer). Furthermore, groups develop solutions that are very similar on the surface but differ slightly in their standardized outcome, leading to interoperability problems. Finally, some groups favor different encodings for use with various application-layer protocols.


Thus, the IAB decided to organize a workshop to reach out to relevant stakeholders to explore the state of the art and identify commonality and gaps [IOTSIAG] [IOTSIWS]. In particular, the IAB was interested to learn about the following aspects:


o What is the state of the art in data and information models? What should an information model look like?

o 数据和信息模型的最新发展状况如何?信息模型应该是什么样子?

o What is the role of formal languages, such as schema languages, in describing information and data models?

o 形式语言(如模式语言)在描述信息和数据模型时扮演什么角色?

o What is the role of metadata, which is attached to data to make it self-describing?

o 元数据的作用是什么,它附加到数据以使其具有自描述性?

o How can we achieve interoperability when different organizations, companies, and individuals develop extensions?

o 当不同的组织、公司和个人开发扩展时,我们如何实现互操作性?

o What is the experience with interworking various data models developed from different groups, or with data models that evolved over time?

o 不同团队开发的各种数据模型或随时间演变的数据模型的交互工作经验如何?

o What functionality should online repositories for sharing schemas have?

o 共享架构的在线存储库应该具有哪些功能?

o How can existing data models be mapped against each other to offer interworking?

o 现有数据模型如何相互映射以提供互通性?

o Is there room for harmonization, or are the use cases of different groups and organizations so unique that there is no possibility for cooperation?

o 是否有协调的空间,或者不同团体和组织的用例是否如此独特,以至于不可能进行合作?

o How can organizations better work together to increase awareness and information sharing?

o 组织如何更好地协同工作以提高认识和信息共享?

2. Terminology
2. 术语

The first roadblock to interoperability at the level of data models is the lack of a common vocabulary to start the discussion. [RFC3444] provides a starting point by separating conceptual models for designers, or "information models", from concrete detailed definitions for implementers, or "data models". There are concepts that are undefined in that RFC and elsewhere, such as the interaction with the resources of an endpoint, or "interaction model". Therefore, the three "main" common models that were identified were:


Information Model An information model defines an environment at the highest level of abstraction and expresses the desired functionality. Information models can be defined informally (e.g., in prose) or more formally (e.g., Unified Modeling Language (UML), Entity-Relationship Diagrams, etc.). Implementation details are hidden.


Data Model A data model defines concrete data representations at a lower level of abstraction, including implementation- and protocol-specific details. Some examples are SNMP Management Information Base (MIB) modules, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) Thing Description (TD) Things, YANG modules, Lightweight Machine-to-Machine (LwM2M) Schemas, Open Connectivity Foundation (OCF) Schemas, and so on.


Interaction Model An interaction model defines how data is accessed and retrieved from the endpoints, being, therefore, tied to the specific communication pattern that the system has (e.g., REST methods, Publish/Subscribe operations, or RPC calls).


Another identified terminology issue is the semantic meaning overload that some terms have. The meaning can vary depending on the context in which the term is used. Some examples of such terms are as follows: semantics, models, encoding, serialization format, media types, and encoding types. Due to time constraints, no concrete terminology was agreed upon, but work will continue within each organization to create various terminology documents. The participants agreed to set up a GitHub repository [IOTSIGIT] for sharing information.


3. What Problems to Solve
3. 要解决什么问题

The participants agreed that there is not simply a single problem to be solved but rather a range of problems. During the workshop, the following problems were discussed:


o Formal Languages for Documentation Purposes

o 用于文档编制的正式语言

To simplify review and publication, SDOs need formal descriptions of their data and interaction models. Several of them use a tabular representation found in the specification itself but use a formal language as an alternative way of describing objects and resources for formal purposes. Some examples of formal language use are as follows.


The Open Mobile Alliance (OMA), now OMA SpecWorks, used an XML Schema [LWM2M-Schema] to describe their object and resource definitions. The XML files of standardized objects are available for download at [OMNA].

开放移动联盟(OMA),现在的OMA SpecWorks,使用XML模式[LWM2M模式]来描述他们的对象和资源定义。标准化对象的XML文件可从[OMNA]下载。

The Bluetooth Special Interest Group (SIG) defined Generic Attribute Profile (GATT) services and characteristics for use with Bluetooth Smart/Low Energy. The services and characteristics are shown in a tabular form on the Bluetooth SIG website [SIG] and are defined as XML instance documents.

Bluetooth Special Interest Group(SIG)定义了通用属性配置文件(GATT)服务和特性,用于Bluetooth Smart/Low Energy。服务和特性以表格形式显示在Bluetooth SIG网站[SIG]上,并定义为XML实例文档。

The Open Connectivity Foundation (OCF) uses JSON Schemas to formally define data models and RESTful API Modeling Language (RAML) to define interaction models. The standard files are available online at <>.

开放连接基础(OCF)使用JSON模式来正式定义数据模型和REST API建模语言(RAML)来定义交互模型。标准文件可在线访问<>。

The AllSeen Alliance uses AllJoyn Introspection XML to define data and interaction models in the same formal language, tailored for RPC-style interaction. The standard files are available online on the AllSeen Alliance website, but both standard and vendor-defined model files can be obtained by directly querying a device for them at runtime.


The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) uses the Resource Description Framework (RDF) to define data and interaction models using a format tailored for the web.


The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) uses YANG to define data and interaction models. Other SDOs may use various other formats.


o Formal Languages for Code Generation

o 用于代码生成的形式语言

Code-generation tools that use formal data and information modeling languages are needed by developers. For example, the AllSeen Visual Studio Plugin [AllSeen-Plugin] offers a wizard to generate code based on the formal description of the data model. Another example of a data modeling language that can be used for code generation is YANG. A popular tool to help with code generation of YANG modules is pyang [PYANG]. An example of a tool that can generate code for multiple ecosystems is OpenDOF [OpenDOF]. Use cases discussed for code generation included easing development of server-side device functionality, clients, and compliance tests.

开发人员需要使用正式数据和信息建模语言的代码生成工具。例如,AllSeen Visual Studio插件[AllSeen Plugin]提供了一个基于数据模型的形式化描述生成代码的向导。YANG是可用于代码生成的数据建模语言的另一个示例。pyang[pyang]是帮助生成YANG模块代码的流行工具。可以为多个生态系统生成代码的工具的一个例子是OpenDOF[OpenDOF]。讨论的代码生成用例包括简化服务器端设备功能的开发、客户端和遵从性测试。

o Debugging Support

o 调试支持

Debugging tools are needed that implement generic object browsers, which use standard data models and/or retrieve formal language descriptions from the devices themselves. As one example, the nRF Bluetooth Smart sniffer from Nordic Semiconductor [nRF-Sniffer] can be used to display services and characteristics defined by the Bluetooth SIG. As another example, AllJoyn Explorer [AllJoynExplorer] can be used to browse and interact with any resource exposed by an AllJoyn device, including both standard and vendor-defined data models, by retrieving the formal descriptions from the device at runtime.

需要调试工具来实现通用对象浏览器,这些浏览器使用标准数据模型和/或从设备本身检索正式的语言描述。例如,Nordic Semiconductor[nRF sniffer]的nRF Bluetooth Smart sniffer可用于显示由Bluetooth SIG定义的服务和特征。作为另一个示例,AllJoyn Explorer[AllJoynExplorer]可用于浏览AllJoyn设备公开的任何资源并与之交互,包括标准和供应商定义的数据模型,方法是在运行时从设备检索正式描述。

o Translation

o 翻译

The working assumption is that devices need to have a common data model with a priori knowledge of data types and actions. However, that would imply that each consortium/organization will try to define their own data model. That would cause a major interoperability


problem, possibly a completely intractable one given the number of variations, extensions, compositions, or versioning changes that will happen for each data model.


Another potential approach is to have a minimal amount of information on the device to allow for a runtime binding to a specific model, the objective being to require as little prior knowledge as possible.


Moreover, gateways, bridges and other similar devices need to dynamically translate (or map) one data model to another one. Complexity will increase as there are also multiple protocols and schemas that make interoperability harder to achieve.


o Runtime Discovery

o 运行时发现

Runtime discovery allows IoT devices to exchange metadata about the data, potentially along with the data exchanged itself. In some cases, the metadata not only describes data but also the interaction model as well. An example of such an approach has been shown with Hypermedia as the Engine of Application State (HATEOAS) [HATEOAS]. Another example is that all AllJoyn devices support such runtime discovery using a protocol mechanism called "introspection", where the metadata is queried from the device itself [AllSeen].


There are various models, whether deployed or possible, for such discovery. The metadata might be extracted from a specification, looked up on a cloud repository (e.g., oneIoTa for OCF models), looked up via a vendor's site, or obtained from the device itself (such as in the AllJoyn case). The relevant metadata might be obtained from the same place or different pieces might be obtained from different places, such as separately obtaining (a) syntax information, (b) end-user descriptions in a desired language, and (c) developer-specific comments for implementers.


4. Translation
4. 翻译

In an ideal world where organizations and companies cooperate and agree on a single data model standard, there is no need for gateways that translate from one data model to another one. However, this is far from reality today, and there are many proprietary data models in addition to the already standardized ones. As a consequence, gateways are needed to translate between data models. This leads to (n^2)-n combinations, in the worst case.


There are analogies with gateways back in the 1980s that were used to translate between network layer protocols. Eventually, IP took over, providing the necessary end-to-end interoperability at the network layer. Unfortunately, the introduction of gateways leads to the loss


of expressiveness due to the translation between data models. The functionality of IP was so valuable in the market that advanced features of other networking protocols became less attractive and were not used anymore.


Participants discussed an alternative that they called a "red star", shown in Figure 1, where data models are translated to a common data model shown in the middle. This reduces the number of translations that are needed down to 2n (in the best case). The problem, of course, is that everyone wants their own data model to be the red star in the center.


      +-----+                                        +-----+
      |     |                                        |     |
      |     |  --                                 -- |     |
      |     |    --                             --   |     |
      +-----+      --                         --     +-----+
                     --                    ---
                       --                --
                         --            --
                           --        --
        ---                  -- A  --                  ---
       /   \                ___/ \___                 /   \
      |     | ---------------',   .'---------------  |     |
       \   /                 /. ^ .\                  \   /
        ---                 /'     '\                  ---
                           --        --
                         --            --
                       --                --
                     --                    --
                   --                        --
          /\     --                            --     /\
         /  \  --                                --  /  \
        /    \                                      /    \
       /      \                                    /      \
      /--------\                                  /--------\
      +-----+                                        +-----+
      |     |                                        |     |
      |     |  --                                 -- |     |
      |     |    --                             --   |     |
      +-----+      --                         --     +-----+
                     --                    ---
                       --                --
                         --            --
                           --        --
        ---                  -- A  --                  ---
       /   \                ___/ \___                 /   \
      |     | ---------------',   .'---------------  |     |
       \   /                 /. ^ .\                  \   /
        ---                 /'     '\                  ---
                           --        --
                         --            --
                       --                --
                     --                    --
                   --                        --
          /\     --                            --     /\
         /  \  --                                --  /  \
        /    \                                      /    \
       /      \                                    /      \
      /--------\                                  /--------\

Figure 1: The "Red Star" in Data/Information Models


While the workshop itself was not a suitable forum to discuss the design of such translation in detail, several questions were raised:


o Do we need a "red star" that does everything, or could we design something that offers a more restricted functionality?

o 我们是否需要一个无所不能的“红星”,或者我们是否可以设计一些提供更严格功能的东西?

o How do we handle loss of data and functionality?

o 我们如何处理数据和功能的丢失?

o Should data be translated between data models, or should data models themselves be translated?

o 数据应该在数据模型之间转换,还是数据模型本身应该转换?

o How can interaction models be translated? They need to be dealt with in addition to the data models.

o 如何翻译交互模型?除了数据模型之外,还需要处理它们。

o Many (if not all) data and interaction models have some bizarre functionality that cannot be translated easily. How can those be handled?

o 许多(如果不是全部的话)数据和交互模型都有一些难以翻译的奇怪功能。如何处理这些问题?

o What limitations are we going to accept in these translations?

o 在这些翻译中,我们将接受哪些限制?

The participants also addressed the question of when translation should be done. Two use cases were discussed:


(a) Design time: A translation between data model descriptions, such as translating a YANG module to a RAML/JSON model, can be performed once, during design time. A single information model might be mapped to a number of different data models.

(a) 设计时:数据模型描述之间的转换,例如将YANG模块转换为RAML/JSON模型,可以在设计时执行一次。单个信息模型可能映射到多个不同的数据模型。

(b) Run time: Runtime translation of values in two standard data models can only be algorithmically done when the data model on one side is algorithmically derived from the data model on the other side. This was called a "derived model". It was discussed that the availability of runtime discovery can aid in semantic translation, such as when a vendor-specific data model on one side of a protocol bridge is resolved and the translator can algorithmically derive the semantically equivalent vendor-specific data model on the other side. This situation is discussed in [BridgeTaxonomy].

(b) 运行时:两个标准数据模型中的值的运行时转换只能在一边的数据模型通过算法从另一边的数据模型派生时通过算法完成。这被称为“衍生模型”。据讨论,运行时发现的可用性有助于语义转换,例如,当协议网桥一侧的供应商特定数据模型被解析时,翻译器可以通过算法推导另一侧的语义等效供应商特定数据模型。这种情况在[BridgeTaxonomy]中讨论。

The participants agreed that algorithm translation will generally require custom code whenever one is translating to anything other than a derived model.


Participants concluded that it is typically easier to translate data between systems that follow the same communication architecture.


5. Dealing with Change
5. 应对变化

A large part of the workshop was dedicated to the evolution of devices and server-side applications. Interactions between devices and services and how their relationship evolves over time is complicated by their respective interaction models.


The workshop participants discussed various approaches to deal with change. In the most basic case, a developer might use a description of an API and implement the protocol steps. Sometimes, the data or


information model can be used to generate code stubs. Subsequent changes to an API require changes on the clients to upgrade to the new version, which requires some development of new code to satisfy the needs of the new API.


These interactions could be made machine understandable in the first place, enabling for changes to happen at runtime. In that scenario, a machine client could discover the possible interactions with a service, adapting to changes as they occur without specific code being developed to adapt to them.


The challenge seems to be to code the human-readable specification into a machine-readable format. Machine-readable languages require a shared vocabulary to give meaning to the tags.


These types of interactions are often based on the REST architectural style. Its principle is that a device or endpoint only needs a single entry point, with a host providing descriptions of the API in-band by means of web links and forms.


By defining IoT-specific relation types, it is possible to drive interactions through links instead of hard-coding URIs into a RESTful client, thus making the system flexible enough for later changes. The definition of the basic hypermedia formats for IoT is still a work in progress. However, some of the existing mechanisms can be reused, such as resource discovery, forms, or links.


6. IANA Considerations
6. IANA考虑

This document has no IANA actions.


7. Security Considerations
7. 安全考虑

There were two types of security considerations discussed: use of formal data models for security configuration and security of data and data models in general.


It was observed that the security assumptions and configuration, or "security model", varies by ecosystem today, making the job of a translator difficult. For example, there are different types of security principals (e.g., user vs. device vs. application), the use of Access Control Lists (ACLs) versus capabilities, and what types of policies can be expressed, all vary by ecosystem. As a result, the security model architecture generally dictates where translation can be done.


One approach discussed was whether two endpoints might be able to use some overlay security model across a translator between two ecosystems, which only works if the two endpoints agree on a common data model for their communication. Another approach discussed was simply having a translator act as a trusted intermediary, which enables the translator to translate between different data models.


One suggestion discussed was either adding metadata into the formal data model language or having it accompany the data values over the wire, tagging the data with privacy levels. However, sometimes even the privacy level of information might itself be sensitive. Still, it was observed that being able to dynamically learn security requirements might help provide better UIs and translators.


8. Collaboration
8. 协作

The participants discussed how best to share information among their various organizations. One discussion was around having joint meetings. One current challenge reported was that organizations were not aware of when and where each other's meetings were scheduled, and sharing such information could help organizations better collocate meetings. To facilitate this exchange, the participants agreed to add links to their respective meeting schedules from a common page in the IOTSI repository [IOTSIGIT].


Another challenge reported was that organizations did not know how to find each other's published data models, and sharing such information could better facilitate reuse of the same information model. To facilitate this exchange, the participants discussed whether a common repository might be used by multiple organizations. The OCF's oneIoTa repository was discussed as one possibility, but it was reported that its terms of use at the time of the workshop prevented this. The OCF agreed to take this back and look at updating the terms of use to allow other organizations to use it, as the restriction was not the intent. <> was discussed as another possibility. In the meantime, the participants agreed to add links to their respective repositories from a common page in the IOTSI repository [IOTSIGIT].


It was also agreed that the mailing list would remain open and available for sharing information between all relevant organizations.


9. Informative References
9. 资料性引用

[AllJoynExplorer] Microsoft, "AllJoyn".


[AllSeen] Thaler, D., "Summary of AllSeen Alliance Work Relevant to Semantic Interoperability", 2016, < wp-content/IAB-uploads/2016/03/AllSeen-summary-IOTSI.pdf>.

[AllSeen]Thaler,D.“与语义互操作性相关的AllSeen联盟工作总结”,2016年< wp content/IAB uploads/2016/03/AllSeen summary IOTSI.pdf>。

[AllSeen-Plugin] Rockwell, B., "Using the AllJoyn Studio Extension", August 2015.

[AllSeen插件]Rockwell,B.,“使用AllJoyn Studio扩展”,2015年8月。

[BridgeTaxonomy] Thaler, D., "IoT Bridge Taxonomy", IAB IOTSI Workshop 2016, < IAB-uploads/2016/03/DThaler-IOTSI.pdf>.

[BridgeTaxonomy]Thaler,D.,“物联网桥梁分类学”,IAB物联网国际研讨会2016< IAB上传/2016/03/DThaler IOTSI.pdf>。

[HATEOAS] Kovatsch, M., Hassan, Y., and K. Hartke, "Semantic Interoperability Requires Self-describing Interaction Models: HATEOAS for the Internet of Things", Proceedings of the IAB IoT Semantic Interoperability Workshop 2016, < IAB-uploads/2016/03/2016-IAB-HATEOAS.pdf>.

[HATEOAS]Kovatsch,M.,Hassan,Y.,和K.Hartke,“语义互操作性需要自描述交互模型:物联网的HATEOAS”,2016年IAB物联网语义互操作性研讨会论文集< IAB上传/2016/03/2016-IAB-HATEOAS.pdf>。

[IOTSIAG] IAB, "IoT Semantic Interoperability Workshop Agenda", 2016, <>.


[IOTSIGIT] "Starting place for the IoT Semantic Interoperability Workshop (IOTSI) Information Resource", commit ff21f74, July 2018, <>.


[IOTSIWS] IAB, "IoT Semantic Interoperability Workshop 2016", 2016, <>.


[LWM2M-Schema] OMA, "LWM2M XML Schema - LWM2M Editor Schema", July 2018.


[nRF-Sniffer] Nordic Semiconductor, "nRF Sniffer: Smart/Bluetooth low energy packet sniffer".


[OMNA] OMA, "OMA LightweightM2M (LwM2M) Object and Resource Registry".

[OMNA]OMA,“OMA LightweightM2M(LwM2M)对象和资源注册表”。

[OpenDOF] OpenDOF, "The OpenDOF Project", <>.


[PYANG] "An extensible YANG validator and converter in python", commit 15c807f, September 2018, <>.


[RFC3444] Pras, A. and J. Schoenwaelder, "On the Difference between Information Models and Data Models", RFC 3444, DOI 10.17487/RFC3444, January 2003, <>.

[RFC3444]Pras,A.和J.Schoenwaeld,“关于信息模型和数据模型之间的差异”,RFC 3444,DOI 10.17487/RFC3444,2003年1月<>.

[SIG] Bluetooth SIG, "GATT Specifications", <>.


Appendix A. Program Committee

This workshop was organized by the following individuals: Jari Arkko, Ralph Droms, Jaime Jimenez, Michael Koster, Dave Thaler, and Hannes Tschofenig.


Appendix B. Accepted Position Papers

o Jari Arkko, "Gadgets and Protocols Come and Go, Data Is Forever"

o Jari Arkko,“小工具和协议来来往往,数据是永恒的”

o Carsten Bormann, "Noise in Specifications hurts"

o Carsten Bormann,“规范中的噪音伤害”

o Benoit Claise, "YANG as the Data Modelling Language in the IoT space"

o Benoit Claise,“YANG作为物联网空间中的数据建模语言”

o Robert Cragie, "The ZigBee Cluster Library over IP"

o Robert Cragie,“IP上的ZigBee群集库”

o Dee Denteneer, Michael Verschoor, and Teresa Zotti, "Fairhair: interoperable IoT services for major Building Automation and Lighting Control ecosystems"

o Dee Dentener、Michael Verschoor和Teresa Zotti,“Fairhair:主要楼宇自动化和照明控制生态系统的互操作物联网服务”

o Universal Devices, "Object Oriented Approach to IoT Interoperability"

o 通用设备,“物联网互操作性的面向对象方法”

o Bryant Eastham, "Interoperability and the OpenDOF Project"

o Bryant Eastham,“互操作性和OpenDOF项目”

o Stephen Farrell and Alissa Cooper, "It's Often True: Security's Ignored (IOTSI) - and Privacy too"

o 斯蒂芬·法雷尔(Stephen Farrell)和艾莉莎·库珀(Alissa Cooper),“这通常是真的:安全被忽视(IOTSI)——隐私也被忽视。”

o Christian Groves, Lui Yan, and Yang Weiwei, "Overview of IoT semantics landscape"

o Christian Groves、Lui Yan和Yang Weiwei,“物联网语义景观概述”

o Ted Hardie, "Loci of Interoperability for the Internet of Things"

o Ted Hardie,“物联网互操作性的位置”

o Russ Housley, "Vehicle-to-Vehicle and Vehicle-to-Infrastructure Communications"

o Russ Housley,“车对车和车对基础设施通信”

o Jaime Jimenez, Michael Koster, and Hannes Tschofenig, "IPSO Smart Objects"

o Jaime Jimenez、Michael Koster和Hannes Tschofenig,“IPSO智能对象”

o David Jones, "IOTDB - interoperability Through Semantic Metastandards"

o David Jones,“IOTDB-通过语义元标准的互操作性”

o Sebastian Kaebisch and Darko Anicic, "Thing Description as Enabler of Semantic Interoperability on the Web of Things"

o Sebastian Kaebisch和Darko Anicic,“物描述作为物联网语义互操作性的促成因素”

o Achilleas Kemos, "Alliance for Internet of Things Innovation Semantic Interoperability Release 2.0, AIOTI WG03 - IoT Standardisation"

o Achilleas Kemos,“物联网创新联盟语义互操作性2.0版,AIOTI WG03-物联网标准化”

o Ari Keraenen and Cullen Jennings, "SenML: simple building block for IoT semantic interoperability"

o Ari Keraenen和Cullen Jennings,“SenML:物联网语义互操作性的简单构建块”

o Dongmyoung Kim, Yunchul Choi, and Yonggeun Hong, "Research on Unified Data Model and Framework to Support Interoperability between IoT Applications"

o Kim Dongmyong,Yunchul Choi和Yonggeun Hong,“支持物联网应用程序之间互操作性的统一数据模型和框架研究”

o Michael Koster, "Model-Based Hypertext Language"

o Michael Koster,“基于模型的超文本语言”

o Matthias Kovatsch, Yassin N. Hassan, and Klaus Hartke, "Semantic Interoperability Requires Self-describing Interaction Models"

o Matthias Kovatsch、Yassin N.Hassan和Klaus Hartke,“语义互操作性需要自描述交互模型”

o Kai Kreuzer, "A Pragmatic Approach to Interoperability in the Internet of Things"

o Kai Kreuzer,“物联网互操作性的实用方法”

o Barry Leiba, "Position Paper"

o 巴里·莱巴,“立场文件”

o Marcello Lioy, "AllJoyn"

o Marcello Lioy,“AllJoyn”

o Kerry Lynn and Laird Dornin, "Modeling RESTful APIs with JSON Hyper-Schema"

o Kerry Lynn和Laird Dornin,“使用JSON超模式建模RESTful API”

o Erik Nordmark, "Thoughts on IoT Semantic Interoperability: Scope of security issues"

o Erik Nordmark,“物联网语义互操作性的思考:安全问题的范围”

o Open Geospatial Consortium, "OGC SensorThings API: Communicating "Where" in the Web of Things"

o 开放地理空间联盟,“OGC SensorThings API:在物联网中的“何处”通信”

o Jean Paoli and Taqi Jaffri, "IoT Information Model Interoperability: An Open, Crowd-Sourced Approach in Three Parallel Parti"

o Jean Paoli和Taqi Jaffri,“物联网信息模型互操作性:三个平行部分中的开放、众包方法”

o Joaquin Prado, "OMA Lightweight M2M Resource Model"

o Joaquin Prado,“OMA轻量级M2M资源模型”

o Dave Raggett and Soumya Kanti Datta, "Input paper for IAB Semantic Interoperability Workshop"

o Dave Raggett和Soumya Kanti Datta,“IAB语义互操作性研讨会的输入文件”

o Pete Rai and Stephen Tallamy, "Semantic Overlays Over Immutable Data to Facilitate Time and Context Specific Interoperability"

o Pete Rai和Stephen Tallamy,“不可变数据上的语义覆盖,以促进特定于时间和上下文的互操作性”

o Jasper Roes and Laura Daniele, "Towards semantic interoperability in the IoT using the Smart Appliances REFerence ontology (SAREF) and its extensions"

o Jasper Roes和Laura Daniele,“使用智能设备参考本体(SAREF)及其扩展实现物联网中的语义互操作性”

o Max Senges, "Submission for IAB IoT Sematic Interoperability workshop"

o Max Senges,“IAB物联网语义互操作性研讨会提交”

o Bill Silverajan, Mert Ocak and Jaime Jimenez, "Implementation Experiences of Semantic Interoperability for RESTful Gateway Management"

o Bill Silverajan、Mert Ocak和Jaime Jimenez,“RESTful网关管理语义互操作性的实现经验”

o Ned Smith, Jeff Sedayao, and Claire Vishik, "Key Semantic Interoperability Gaps in the Internet-of-Things Meta-Models"

o Ned Smith、Jeff Sedayao和Claire Vishik,“物联网元模型中的关键语义互操作性缺口”

o Robert Sparks and Ben Campbell, "Considerations for certain IoT-based services"

o Robert Sparks和Ben Campbell,“某些基于物联网的服务的考虑因素”

o J. Clarke Stevens, "Open Connectivity Foundation oneIoTa Tool"

o J. Clarke Stevens,“开放连接基金会ONEOTA工具”

o J. Clarke Stevens and Piper Merriam, "Derived Models for Interoperability Between IoT Ecosystems"

o J.Clarke Stevens和Piper Merriam,“物联网生态系统之间互操作性的衍生模型”

o Ravi Subramaniam, "Semantic Interoperability in Open Connectivity Foundation (OCF) - formerly Open Interconnect Consortium (OIC)"

o Ravi Subramaniam,“开放互联基础(OCF)中的语义互操作性——以前开放互连联盟(OIC)”

o Andrew Sullivan, "Position paper for IOTSI workshop"

o Andrew Sullivan,“IOTSI研讨会的立场文件”

o Darshak Thakore, "IoT Security in the context of Semantic Interoperability"

o Darshak Thakore,“语义互操作性背景下的物联网安全”

o Dave Thaler, "IoT Bridge Taxonomy"

o Dave Thaler,“物联网桥梁分类法”

o Dave Thaler, "Summary of AllSeen Alliance Work Relevant to Semantic Interoperability"

o Dave Thaler,“与语义互操作性相关的AllSeen联盟工作总结”

o Mark Underwood, Michael Gruninger, Leo Obrst, Ken Baclawski, Mike Bennett, Gary Berg-Cross, Torsten Hahmann, and Ram Sriram, "Internet of Things: Toward Smart Networked Systems and Societies"

o 马克·安德伍德、迈克尔·格鲁宁格、利奥·奥斯特、肯·巴克拉夫斯基、迈克·贝内特、加里·伯格·克罗斯、托尔斯滕·哈曼和拉姆·斯里拉姆,“物联网:走向智能网络系统和社会”

o Peter van der Stok and Andy Bierman, "YANG-Based Constrained Management Interface (CoMI)"

o Peter van der Stok和Andy Bierman,“基于YANG的受限管理界面(CoMI)”

Appendix C. List of Participants

Andy Bierman, YumaWorks Carsten Bormann, Uni Bremen/TZI Ben Campbell, Oracle Benoit Claise, Cisco Alissa Cooper, Cisco Robert Cragie, ARM Limited Laura Daniele, TNO Bryant Eastham, OpenDOF Christian Groves, Huawei Ted Hardie, Google Yonggeun Hong, ETRI Russ Housley, Vigil Security David Janes, IOTDB Jaime Jimenez, Ericsson Shailendra Karody, Catalina Labs Ari Keraenen, Ericsson Michael Koster, SmartThings Matthias Kovatsch, Siemens Kai Kreuzer, Deutsche Telekom Barry Leiba, Huawei Steve Liang, Uni Calgary Marcello Lioy, Qualcomm Kerry Lynn, Verizon Mayan Mathen, Catalina Labs Erik Nordmark, Arista Jean Paoli, Microsoft Joaquin Prado, OMA Dave Raggett, W3C Max Senges, Google Ned Smith, Intel Robert Sparks, Oracle Ram Sriram, NIST Clarke Stevens Ram Subramanian, Intel Andrew Sullivan, DIN Darshak Thakore, CableLabs Dave Thaler, Microsoft Hannes Tschofenig, ARM Limited Michael Verschoor, Philips Lighting

Andy Bierman、YumaWorks Carsten Bormann、Uni-Breme/TZI Ben Campbell、Oracle Benoit Claise、Cisco Alissa Cooper、Cisco Robert Cragie、ARM Limited Laura Daniele、TNO Bryant Eastham、OpenDOF Christian Groves、华为Ted Hardie、谷歌永坤Honggeun Hong、ETRI Russ Housley、守夜保安David Janes、IOTDB Jaime Jimenez、爱立信Shailendra Karody、,卡特琳娜实验室Ari Keraenen、爱立信Michael Koster、SmartThings Matthias Kovatsch、西门子Kai Kreuzer、德国电信巴里·莱巴、华为Steve Liang、卡尔加里大学Marcello Lioy、高通公司Kerry Lynn、Verizon Mayan Mathen、卡特琳娜实验室Erik Nordmark、Arista Jean Paoli、微软公司Joaquin Prado、OMA Dave Raggett、W3C Max Senges、谷歌公司Ned Smith、,Intel Robert Sparks、Oracle Ram Sriram、NIST Clarke Stevens Ram Subramanian、Intel Andrew Sullivan、DIN Darshak Thakore、CableLabs Dave Thaler、Microsoft Hannes Tschofenig、ARM Limited Michael Verschoor、飞利浦照明

IAB Members at the Time of Approval


Jari Arkko Alissa Cooper Ted Hardie Christian Huitema Gabriel Montenegro Erik Nordmark Mark Nottingham Melinda Shore Robert Sparks Jeff Tantsura Martin Thomson Brian Trammell Suzanne Woolf




We would like to thank all paper authors and participants for their contributions and Ericsson for hosting the workshop.


Authors' Addresses


Jaime Jimenez



Hannes Tschofenig



Dave Thaler