Yearly Archives: 2013

Thing Tracker Network

Thing Tracker Network Update

March 9, 2013 – 12:58 am

Time flies! It’s been almost two months since I posted about the Thing Tracker Network (TTN). Recently progress has slowed down to a crawl, mainly due to other priorities (RepRap Magazine, work, family, imminent house move, etc, y’know the usual things), and also because I am taking a slight detour with regard to TTN which I want to briefly describe here.

After the initial excitement of announcing the proposal there have been a series of suggestions and improvements which I have attempted to merge into the specification. I think the current version is a reasonable basis for defining Things and the relationships between them. Expanding to include the possibility of adding detailed bill-of-materials and tracker metadata, for example.

A quick aside: there are now several resources that make up the infrastructure of TTN which I will quickly list:

  • The website is the public face of the proposal and will be updated on an ad-hoc basis to reflect the current state of the proposal.
  • The Github repository holds the live specification along with examples. In the near future it will hopefully hold reference libraries, tools, and example applications. There is also a wiki and issue tracker to handle documentation and tasks.
  • A Google+ community to hold discussions, and an associated G+ page which is the source of “official” statements (as opposed to my personal thoughts as a fellow hacker).

Several people have mentioned in passing that the technology of the fabled Semantic Web, now known as Linked Data apparently, may be of interest. A little internet research led me to a useful resource in the Linked Data Book, and the more I read of it the more I realised that the TTN sounds like it is basically trying to be a Linked Data vocabulary. Consequently I think it is worth exploring the idea further, to see whether the goal of the TTN should be to define such a vocabulary along with tools and libraries to support it.

There are several considerations should a Linked Data approach be taken.

  • Many of the concerns that have cropped up in discussing TTN have already been discussed in the Semantic Web world, such as identity, security, and reliability.
  • A set of tools and libraries have already been developed which could potentially be utilised.
  • Linked Data seems ideally suited for describing the types of things the TTN is all about.
  • Using the language and specifications of the Semantic Web might interface the TTN to the wider internet of things, as espoused by Tim Berners-Lee.
  • The Linked Data specifications (e.g. RDFa,RDFS,OWL) are, however, more complex than those originally envisaged by TTN, and the learning curve to fully understand how the network works may be steeper.
  • Using a recognised and widely adopted standard would seem preferable than devising a proprietary, albeit open, standard.

From my reading so far, I believe the following would be possible using Linked Data:

  • Define a vocabulary using RDFS (Resource Description Framework Schema) which would be similar (if not identical) to the current TTN json schema.
  • Mark up a Thing with metadata attributes using one of the following ways:
    • RDFa (Resource Description Framework in attributes) to embed the TTN attributes within a web page describing a Thing.
    • JSON-LD (JavaScript Object Notation for Linked Data) to describe the Thing in a JSON document.
    • Traditional RDF (Resource Description Framework) in an XML document.
  • Use existing libraries, or build new ones, to interact and work with this data.

In fact I hope that the RDFS & JSON-LD combination might already be very close to the work we have done so far.

To date my playing and experimenting has been limited. I have started formulating an RDF Schema (http://thingtracker.net/thingtracker.rdfs) and have added some RDFa to the example Githubiverse site (http://garyhodgson.github.com/githubiverse-tst), which appears to be readable according to the few tools I have tried out.

RDFa Source

Snippet from source html. New RDFa attributes highlighted.

Parsed RDFa

RDFa parsed using Green Turtle RDFa extension for Chrome browser.

There is a whole raft of things I still need to learn (help & guidance very welcome!), and this is still only an exploratory dive into Linked Data, but so far I feel it is worth pursuing further.

Permalink | Comments (9)
3D Printroom

3D Printroom

February 17, 2013 – 10:43 pm

A small distraction I thought up a few days involves how we organise our STL and gcode files.  The Windows and Linux file explorers are rather limited when dealing with exotic files (no previews, no metadata). Additionally, I don’t know how other people manage their files, but mine are scattered across my main PC, my laptop and a NAS, within arbitrarily named folders filled with overly long file names (in an attempt to capture some metadata). It certainly has it’s limitations!

file chaos

Chaos! Chaos I tell you!

This seems ripe for an application of some sort (ignoring the patently absurd, if rational, argument to simply impose a little order on things).

I have always enjoyed using Adobe Lightroom to organise and work on my photos – it has several features that could be very useful when dealing with 3D printer files:

  • Directory scanning & sync
  • Arbitrary collections and groups
  • Adding additional metadata, including comments and ratings
  • Previews of non-standard files (e.g. RAW)
Adobe Lightroom

Adobe Lightroom – something to aspire to.

I wish I could announce that I have completely written a “Lightroom for 3D Printers” but at this stage I have only created a skeleton app with limited functionality:

  • Drop a directory in the top left panel to load it.
  • The top file view filters only STL files.
  • When an STL is selected the related gcode files are displayed below. This assumes the files start with the same name, e.g. cube.stl -> cube.gcode.
  • Any metadata in the gcode file is displayed in a table view (Slic3r only).
  • Double clicking a STL file displays a preview (thanks to Toby Buser’s Thingiview).
  • Double clicking a gcode file displays a preview (thanks to Joe Walnes’ gcode-viewer).
3D-Printroom

3D Printroom (Alpha!)

… and that’s it … so far.

The reason I am posting about this already is to share the idea, gauge interest, and to make the source code available in case anyone wants to pick it up and hack with it.

I chose to develop it with node-webkit, which allows you to develop with HTML + JS + CSS but still release a native binary. (This is necessary in order to use node.js so the local filesystem can be accessed). I’ve added a few notes on the github project on how to hack with it.  Or there is a Windows binary available to play with: 3D-Printroom-distribution.zip.

I’d be interested to hear if anyone thinks such an app would be useful.

 

 

Permalink | Comments (4)
Community Thing Tracker Network

Thing Tracker Network

January 12, 2013 – 9:41 pm

A little time ago, RichRap started a discussion on the RepRap forum about a model repository for the project. My response to this crystallised a few thoughts I had on the subject since the Thingiverse debacle from last year. The basic concern being that, whilst creating a content repository is relatively straightforward from a technical perspective, there are other factors which will determine whether it will succeed. The most obvious being the catch-22 situation whereby users are attracted to a service that is being used by many other people, i.e.  where they are more likely to have their project/design discovered by other people. There is also a concern that any one provider evolves into a monopoly, depriving the community of diversity.

 

With all this in mind, I have been developing the idea a little more and would like to present the resulting proposal for consideration to the community. To do this I have created an information website which I hope can be used as a central hub for distribution and further development of the idea: thingtracker.net

Overview

The site should have enough information to get the rough idea across, and so I shan’t repeat it all in this blog post, however a TL;DR summary may be helpful. The proposal simply suggests a way in which an ad-hoc Network of Things could be created. This is enabled by a short, flexible, and easy to implement specification, which, when followed, would allow a wide range of individuals and groups to participate in the network. Furthermore, the open nature of the specification should promote development of an ecosystem within the maker community, allowing a diverse set of applications and websites to emerge.

 

Use Cases

A couple of use-cases may help explain the potential of the proposal.

  • As an individual, when I create a design that I wish to share, I have several services available to me (Thingiverse, GrabCad, etc.). These being walled gardens means that anyone searching within one will not find results from another. Furthermore, search engines such as Google may result in my Thing being found, but its generic nature means that this is unlikely unless people use the right search terms. Therefore my options are either to limit the number of people who can discover my Thing, or submit, and maintain, the Thing to multiple repositories. Neither option is optimal, and the latter is particularly inefficient should my Thing evolve and I have to update the information in several places. Ideally I would submit my Thing to my favourite (based on features that I value) repository, and then have it discoverable by others, independent of where it is hosted. Having the option to self-host the Thing would also be good. What is missing at the moment is a standardised way for web applications to exchange data about Things.
  • As a member of a hackerspace, or other group, we would like to host and share our designs ourselves but still have them discoverable by a wide audience. Furthermore, we would like to provide much more detailed information, such as: bill of materials; instructions; and other information. In this case there may be a sub-Network of Things which has it’s own ecosystem but is still a part of the wider network.

 

Where Next?

To start dissemination of the proposal I made a brief post on Google+ and was pleasantly surprised at the positive feedback the idea received. I shall be collating this information and reflecting it in further revisions of the proposal and specification. In order to facilitate further discussions, without over-thinking the infrastructure, I have created a dedicated page on G+ to act as a blog and to collect discussions, etc.  There is also an email address: contact@thingtracker.net

 

The proposal is at a very early stage and is completely open to everyone,  so feel free to share your ideas, thoughts and opinions. If you feel that an open, distributed, Network of Things would benefit the maker community then please share the links, spread the word and join the discussion.

Permalink | Comment (0)