INTERNET OF THINGS

 

I blogged a little today about the Automation of the Internet of Things. This paper outlines the potential to implement blockchain-based Personal Experiences Datasets in Machine-Lined Computing. I also talk a little about modular microservices and some differences that have emerged between version 1.0 and version 2.0 of these microservices.

The various ways in which Microservices can be managed and operate were reviewed a little earlier in the release of version 2.0 of Operating System, but at this point, I’m going to let some of the commenters actually comment on their own examples. Also, this is a little more complete analysis than the paper, but it’s worth unpacking just a little.

Suppose you do a Map Knowledge booking using your mobile phone. Starting with the single online ticket form that you type in, there are endless permutations of this process to be implemented. You can probably pull in some types of local data using a number of different means (UPS, Geo and Telemetrics), but it’s hard to figure out who does exactly what offline. Having rich experience working in this area, and with Standard Stack tools on top of OpTic Express Bamboo along with some other things I forgot, I have created both an LSO for a category map as well as a BRIMMVM class map.

Where that information might be stored is really difficult. Frequent user tracking isn’t as hard as logging into your own machine or your room at home, but it may be a little trouble.

Blockchain-Based Personal Experiences Datasets

The Personal Experiences Datasets started in 2012 and is a traditional field of interest in this field. Traditionally, this data has been separated into object vectors and components. They are essentially made by data brokering operations that tap into services for request management or provisioning. The nodes, which contain hyperlinks (those parts of the data point where the arguments are cut and pasted together), aren’t difficult to do complex transformations on. A microservice model is used to avoid having to look for nodes but are still complicated by the fact that the nodes aren’t inherently defined. In contrast, an LSO or BRIMMVM class uses a model to describe the module, allowing some sort of provisioning of it in higher-level software.

We have already discussed the advantages of being open source and respecting open source practices in this LSO. I think that it’s pretty well-considered, and thus to a point, I don’t think there are any obvious disadvantages that I haven’t already discussed. It has a few specific constraints in how the modules can perform, such as how far upstream you can send a request. It does have some weaknesses to keep in mind as well, though. One particular area to make sure that those constraints are managed effectively is what sort of requirements should be embedded into it.

You can watch in the video below what happens when the NPO goes back to modifying the modules’ model and controlling how we pull data out of them. If that happens, we can’t use the modules for provisioning in e-commerce, application life-cycle management or other roles. It can’t be run like any user is running it on their own machine or even run in production environments. There is a recognition of these limitations and, hopefully, an attempt to address them as we go from the LSO onto microservices to the LSO and microservices to the LSO. It’s a challenge as they all have a couple of different approaches, and we’ll have to decide how best to implement them.

Token Procurement for Smart Objects in the Real-World

These microservices and LSOs have a problem with token procurement, which at this point seems to be the most fundamental benefit that we are able to get. It’s a challenge that has resulted in a lot of debate regarding the appropriate compensation models and frameworks for intelligent objects in the real world. Many of these issues are very difficult to decide on with certain of these microservices due to their undefined nature.

There are several attempts to get around these types of problems. Some approaches have had little success and others have had some success. I’ve decided to write up my own solution on how to implement a digital product token in a LSO class block that’s evolved from a set of Token Preference values (TPVs) in the ATP DLSR which I view as being the best framework that can be implemented (to put it mildly). I’ve also covered a list of complementary LSO blockchains that can help supplement our proposed token wallet (I know this really isn’t a solution so I guess I’ll just refer you to the Github repository