I asked our p2p architecture expert Eric Hunting to review the “internet of things” project called HyperHabitat, which you can find here.

Here are his comments:

“This Hyperhabitat project is compelling, but also a little confusing. It’s a valiant attempt at demonstrating the concept of an ‘internet of things’ as characterized by computer science theorists and futurists like Bruce Sterling. Where it gets confusing is in its information representation based on the notion of object nodes and line-code networks, it’s graphic interface -based on a vast projection display in one of the installation showcase venues- not as intuitive as it might be largely because of its high level abstraction and a two-dimensional organization of what is ultimately polydimensional relationships and information. I don’t wish to seem too critical on this point since it’s obviously dealing with a very nascent technology and very new concepts and any such attempt at a system of representation for this is breaking new ground. And it seems a lot things got lost in the translation to english and the streamlining for exhibit media. But I really wished there had been a more detailed explanation somewhere of how the representation scheme was to be interpreted and much better images of these maps. So down-scaled were these maps that text on images of them on the hyperhabitat web site couldn’t be read even in the ‘expanded’ view.

There were also a number of references to an open call for participation in the project through the creation of their own habitats anywhere in the world, but no apparent method or plan for people to follow to do this. This may have been because the invitation was only for some limited time prior to the exhibits in September to November but I couldn’t find any material on exactly how the participation was supposed to work, if it did.

The most obvious omission, for me at least, was the curious lack of inclusion of the elements of structure into the hyperhabitat environment. It was focused entirely on discrete motile artifacts -consumer goods- and the production tools and resource systems behind them. Yet nowhere were houses or buildings or the components and systems making them up represented in this information model. It model characterized ‘habitats’ in terms of function and scale but never in structure. This seemed particularly ironic given that the project was spearheaded by architects and also that, ultimately, the physical structure of the habitat must serve as the infrastructure for the networking technology everything else is relying on. Again, it may be the nascent nature of these concepts which led to this being left out as a matter of convenience and simplicity. It’s not clear to me how structures -and for that matter geographical information- would fit into the demonstrated representational scheme.

These caveats aside, this was a very intriguing first-foray into a field that hasn’t been much explored to date and which is likely to be further elaborated on in the future. And I liked how the fab labs were really able to impart their unique aesthetic sense to the installations with novel stylized and luminous representations of artifacts that well imparted a sense of life to the otherwise abstract information represented by these mock-objects. One got a very good impression of the sense of ‘demassification’ in the future habitat -the notion of a decentralized and organic (in the structural sense) ecology of future civilization, in contrast to the primitive hierarchies of Industrial Age civilization. I only wish I could have examined it in person. I might then have understood its details better.”