This talk introduces the concepts of web 3.0 technology and how they relate to related technologies such as Internet of Things (IoT), Grid Computing and the Semantic Web: • A short history of web technologies: o Web 1.0: Publishing static information with links for human consumption. o Web 2.0: Publishing dynamic information created by users, for human consumption. o Web 3.0: Publishing all kinds of information with links between data items, for machine consumption. • Standardization of protocols for description of any type of data (RDF, N3, Turtle). • Standardization of protocols for the consumption of data in “the grid” (SPARQL). • Standardization of protocols for rules (RIF). • Comparison with the evolution of technologies related to data bases. • Comparison of IoT solutions based on web 2.0 and web 3.0 technologies. • Distributed solutions vs centralized solutions.. • Security • Extensions of Peer-to-peer protocols (XMPP). • Advantages of solutions based on web 3.0 and standards (IETF, XSF). Duration of talk: 1-2 hours with questions.

1. Web 3.0 & IoT
The future of Internet

2. Callenge for 2020 1(2)
http://www.ericsson.com/news/110214_more_than_50_billion_244188811_c

3. Challenge for 2020 2(2)

4. Evolution
Web 1.0
 Publication
Web 2.0
 Interaction
 Automatization
Web 3.0
 Interoperation
 IoT
 Smart City

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. Examples of web 1.0
Newspapers
Portals
Home Pages
Britannica Online

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Linked Data
http://linkeddata.org/
http://www.w3.org/standards/semanticweb/data

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. 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. URIs
URI Format
Scheme://Host/Path
Simple to extend
Simple to maintain unique
Simple to distribute

16. Graphs
Semantic graphs
 Subjects and Objects are nodes
 Predicates form edges

17. Links
Introductory links to SW
 http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/
 http://semanticweb.org/
 http://www.w3.org/standards/semanticweb/data

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. RDF Example 1(2)

20. RDF Example 2(2)

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. RDFS Example

23. Dublin Core Example
Describe publicaciones

24. Turtle
Turtle
 W3C Recommendation (“Standard”)
 “Terse RDF Triple Language”
 Easier to read and write by humans

25. Turtle Example 1(2)

26. Turtle Example 2(2)

27. The previous example in RDF

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. 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. Differences between OOP & WS
Object Oriented Programming OOP Semantic Web
Exclusive Inclusive
Centralized Distributed
Closed World assumption Open World assumption
Proprietary Collaborative
Deterministic Indeterministic
Classes have heritence Types and properties have heritence

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. SPARQL 1.0 Example 1(2)

33. SPARQL 1.0 Example 2(2)

34. SPARQL 1.1 Example 1(2)

35. SPARQL 1.1 Example 2(2)

36. Federation – “Grid Computing”
Client
RDF RDF
SPARQL
E.P.
RDF RDF
RDF RDF
SPARQL SPARQL
E.P. E.P.
RDF SPARQL RDF
E.P.

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. RIF
“Rule Interchange Format”
 W3C Recommendation (“Standard”)
 Automatic interchange of information
 Permits automation and control
 Interchangeable modules.

39. RIF Example

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. 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. 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. Centralized vs. Distributed
Centralized (web 2.0) Distributed (Federation - web 3.0)
Expensive Cheap
Inefficient Efficient
Difficult to grow proportionally Grows organically (~ neural network)
Insecure Secure
Lack of integrity Maximum of integrity
Easy to abuse Difficult to abuse
User does not control information User is owner of information

44. Plug Computers
 Linux Server
 1,2 Watts
 2 USD for 24 / 7 / 365 service.
 119 USD/unit price.

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. XMPP
Standardized (IETF)
Peer-to-peer
Based of XML fragments
Data protected by firewalls.
Authenticated clients
Authorized clients

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. CLAYSTER Technology

49. CLAYSTER Technology

50. CLAYSTER Technology

51. CLAYSTER Technology
Mobile MID-
Computer TV
Phone

53. 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)

54. Peter Waher
Clayster Laboratorios Chile Ltda.
Calle Blanco 1623, of 1402.
Valparaíso
peter.waher@clayster.com
Tel: 032-212 25 33
Skype: peterwaher
Twitter: PeterWaher
Twitter: ClaysterLabs