Una arquitectura de referencia en el desarrollo de software se refiere a las soluciones de plantilla específicamente adaptadas a un dominio particular, las mejores prácticas y la orientación para la interoperabilidad.
What is a Reference Architecture?
A Reference Architecture in software development refers to template solutions specifically tuned to a particular domain, best practices and guidance for interoperability. A Reference Architecture for Internet of Things (IoT) is not the best of all possible or most ideal architectures, nor does it set a particular standard for a concrete implementation. It starts from the assumption that IoT is a horizontal operation much like the Internet but with two main different characteristics. The first is that Internet was not designed in full but started iteratively with a military aim in mind. The tcp/ip protocol is build for resilience, speed and real-time to keep an open line between the different nodes. In hindsight the lack of inherent security and reciprocity makes it a very unlikely candidate to become a global communication baseline. The Internet of Things, aka pervasive computing, ubiquitous computing, or ambient intelligence, aims to embed connectivity not only in computing devices but also in mundane objects and infrastructure. As such it is not a communication protocol only but directly addresses competing applications, services and industries organized in intranets, silos, patented legacy and dedicated business models. So whereas the Internet somehow ‘appeared’ the Internet of Things is being brokered in full daylight and knowledge of all the stakeholders. A Reference Architecture then becomes more important to create interoperability inside domains and across applications, foster standardization on protocols and privacy and security features, and perhaps most important to project future capabilities the IoT itself is generating within, not outside of the model.
What different types of #IoT Reference Architectures exist currently?
There are basically three approaches all addressing that IoT suffers from fragmentation, product silos and corporate lock-in. The first takes the web as a starting point. The W3C claims it is able to define global standards to enable discovery and interoperability of services. They are extending the Web from a Web of pages to a Web of Things. Their standardization activities involve identifying “use cases and requirements for direct access to sensors and actuators from the browser, gateways that bridge IoT technologies and the Web, service platforms at the network edge (e.g. home hubs), and highly scalable cloud-based platforms.” https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/ The second approach is a combination of existing and future system planning. In the US the US National Science Foundation (NSF) has identified cyber-physical systems as a key area of research. Similar to IoT CPS presents “a higher combination and coordination between physical and computational elements.” https://www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=503286 CPS “will require interoperability between elements and systems, supported by new reference architectures and common definitions and lexicons.” NIST has established the CPS Public Working Group (CPS PWG). https://pages.nist.gov/cpspwg/ China, building on the 12th Five-Year Plan for IoT Development, expects the future of IoT to be unified, seamless, and pervasive and therefore frames Large-scale service deployment within a set of standards that have been accomplished through demonstration application projects such as the smart city and the intelligent transportation system.
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpls/icp.jsp?arnumber=6851114
The third approach is series of orchestration attempts that stem from the automaton paradigm that has fueled IoT to fully optimize closed environments like factories and large scale production facilities like nuclear plants or military systems. These approaches break IoT down into components to enable enables seamless ubicomp:
“(a) Hardware—made up of sensors, actuators and embedded communication hardware (b) Middleware—on demand storage and computing tools for data analytics and (c) Presentation—novel easy to understand visualization and interpretation tools which can be widely accessed on different platforms and which can be designed for different applications. http://arxiv.org/pdf/1207.0203.pdf
Other taxonomies claim that IoT should have the following three characteristics: (a) Comprehensive Perception: Identification and recognition of the physical world is the foundation of implementing overall perception. (b) Reliable Transmission: Machine to machine (M2M) is the key implementation technology of the Network of Things, which represents the connections and communications between M2M and Human to Machine including Mobile to Machine. (c) Intelligent Processing: The network service providers can process tens of millions or even billion pieces of messages instantly through cloud computing. Cloud computing technology will thus be the promoter of IoT.” http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=6851114
Of the latter group two examples will be highlighted.
IoT-A as an example of stakeholder coordination between industry and policy.
The Architectural Reference Model (ARM) of the IoT-A EU project (http://www.iot-a.eu), presented in the free Spinger book Enabling Things to Talk, Designing IoT solutions with the IoT Architectural Reference Model makes it possible to connect vertically closed systems, architectures and application areas so as to create open interoperable systems and integrated environments and platforms. According to Jim Morrish of M2M Foresight Machina the ARM enabled him to see that the fragmentation of the M2M space means that any attempt to definitively categorize applications against any rigid framework will be doomed to failure. Stefan Ferber, Bosch Software Innovations GmbH claims that IoT-A provides a holistic view for an Internet of Things architecture across multiple application domains like decentralized energy management, smart factories, logistics, and automotive mobility applications.
http://www.iot-a.eu/public/news/resources/newsletters/newsletter%237.pdf According to Sanford Klausner, CEO of Cubicon the IoT-A is a ‘reality check’ for those solely focused on identifying and addressing key challeng-es facing the industry today. http://www.coretalk.net
Cooperation between Plattform Industrie 4.0 and Industrial Internet Consortium
Industry 4.0, Industrie 4.0 or the fourth industrial revolution,[1] is a collective term embracing a number of contemporary automation, data exchange and manufacturing technologies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industry_4.0
The Platform Industry 4.0 Working Group Reference architecture and Standardization aims for one single, common approach and basic terminology that incorporates existing standards and promotes model-based Development Platforms as well as a framework for software applications and software services. The greatest challenges connected with implementing Industry 4.0 according to industrial and government stakeholders are standardization, new business models and security. The Architecture is neutral in terms of technology and has as a focus:
Service-orientation, Autonomy; Adaptivity; Cooperativity. http://www.omg.org/news/meetings/tc/berlin-15/special-events/mfg-present…
The Industrial Internet Consortium (2014) accelerates the growth of the Industrial Internet by identifying, assembling and promoting best practices. Their Industrial Internet Reference Architecture Technical Report is built to drive product interoperability and simplify development of Industrial Internet systems that are better built and integrated with shorter time to market. It helps organizations to better understand the technical requirements, methodologies and roadblocks to adoption. http://www.iiconsortium.org/white-papers.htm
Representatives of Plattform Industrie 4.0 and the Industrial Internet Consortium met in Zurich, Switzerland in March 2016 to explore the potential alignment of their two architecture efforts – respectively, the Reference Architecture Model for Industrie 4.0 (RAMI4.0) and the Industrial Internet Reference Architecture (IIRA).
Repercussions for Society
When do Reference Architectures cease being focused on interoperability between production processes and become a blueprint for political decision making as well? Is a pragmatic cybernetics inevitable as a result of IoT? How can this be positively addressed and understood? These questions become pertinent when both large corporations and national governments aim to exercise the same kind of control on the level of a society as on the scale of smart factories. There are two main trajectories that can be build on the same architecture, one of control of only a handful of actors which will lead to a new digital divide between those having access to all datasets and subsequent scenario planning based on data mining and analytics and one in which a large group of stakeholders create an ecosystem that is able to steer these datasets towards better use of resources and transparency in services and infrastructural decisions. It is clear that developers in any layer and at any moment in this IoT ecology can no longer claim to work in isolation. They will have to take responsibility for their work feeding one potential trajectory or the other.
