http://iet.metastore.ingenta.com
1887

Survey on Quality of Observation within Sensor Web systems

Survey on Quality of Observation within Sensor Web systems

For access to this article, please select a purchase option:

Buy article PDF
£12.50
(plus tax if applicable)
Buy Knowledge Pack
10 articles for £75.00
(plus taxes if applicable)

IET members benefit from discounts to all IET publications and free access to E&T Magazine. If you are an IET member, log in to your account and the discounts will automatically be applied.

Learn more about IET membership 

Recommend Title Publication to library

You must fill out fields marked with: *

Librarian details
Name:*
Email:*
Your details
Name:*
Email:*
Department:*
Why are you recommending this title?
Select reason:
 
 
 
 
 
IET Wireless Sensor Systems — Recommend this title to your library

Thank you

Your recommendation has been sent to your librarian.

The sensor web vision refers to the addition of a middleware layer between sensors and applications. To bridge the gap between these two layers, sensor web systems must deal with heterogeneous sources, which produce heterogeneous observations of disparate quality. Managing such diversity at the application level can be complex and requires high levels of expertise from application developers. Moreover, as an information-centric system, any sensor web should provide support for quality of observation (QoO) requirements. In practise, however, only few sensor webs provide satisfying QoO support and are able to deliver high-quality observations to end consumers in a specific manner. This survey aims to study why and how observation quality should be addressed in sensor webs. It proposes three original contributions. First, it provides important insights into quality dimensions and proposes to use the QoO notion to deal with information quality within sensor webs. Second, it proposes a QoO-oriented review of 29 sensor web solutions developed between 2003 and 2016, as well as a custom taxonomy to characterise some of their features from a QoO perspective. Finally, it draws four major requirements required to build future adaptive and QoO-aware sensor web solutions.

References

    1. 1)
      • 1. Bröring, A., Echterhoff, J., Jirka, S., et al: ‘New generation sensor web enablement’, Sensors, 2011, 11, (3), pp. 26522699.
    2. 2)
      • 2. Sheth, A., Henson, C., Sahoo, S.S.: ‘Semantic sensor web’, IEEE Internet Comput.., 2008, 12, (4), pp. 7883.
    3. 3)
      • 3. Bröring, A., Maué, P., Janowicz, K., et al: ‘Semantically-enabled sensor plug & play for the sensor web’, Sensors, 2011, 11, (8), pp. 75687605.
    4. 4)
      • 4. International Organization for Standardization: ‘Data quality – Part 140: master data: exchange of characteristic data: completeness’. Available at https://www.iso.org/standard/62395.html, accessed May 2017.
    5. 5)
      • 5. Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC): ‘SWE common data model encoding standard’. Available at http://www.opengeospatial.org/standards/swecommon, accessed May 2017.
    6. 6)
      • 6. International Organization for Standardization: ‘Geographic information – data quality’. Available at https://www.iso.org/standard/32575.html, accessed May 2017.
    7. 7)
      • 7. Delin, K.A., Jackson, S.P., Some, R.R.: ‘Sensor webs, volume 23 of NASA tech brief’. Available at http://www.techbriefs.com/component/content/article/1264-ntb/tech-briefs/electronics-and-computers/2227-npo20616?limitstart=0, accessed March 2017.
    8. 8)
      • 8. Teillet, P.M.: ‘Sensor webs: a geostrategic technology for integrated earth sensing’, IEEE J. Sel. Top. Appl. Earth Obs. Remote Sens., 2010, 3, (4), pp. 473480.
    9. 9)
      • 9. Perera, C., Zaslavsky, A., Christen, P., et al: ‘Context aware computing for the internet of things: A survey’, IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutor., 2014, 16, (1), pp. 414454.
    10. 10)
      • 10. Botts, M., Percivall, G., Reed, C., et al: ‘OGCR sensorweb enablement: overview and high level architecture’. Int. Conf. GeoSensor Networks, Boston, MA, USA, October 2006, pp. 175190.
    11. 11)
      • 11. Sheth, A.: ‘Internet of things to smart IoT through semantic, cognitive, and perceptual computing’, IEEE Intell. Syst., 2016, 31, (2), pp. 108112.
    12. 12)
      • 12. ITU-T. E.800: ‘Definitions of terms related to quality of service’. International Telecommunication Union-Telecommunication Standardisation Sector (ITU-T), 2008.
    13. 13)
      • 13. ITU-T. X.641: ‘Information technology – quality of service: framework’. International Telecommunication Union-Telecommunication Standardisation Sector (ITU-T), 1997.
    14. 14)
      • 14. Wand, Y., Wang, R.Y.: ‘Anchoring data quality dimensions in ontological foundations’, Commun. ACM, 1996, 39, (11), pp. 8695.
    15. 15)
      • 15. Wang, R.Y., Strong, D.M.: ‘Beyond accuracy: what data quality means to data consumers’, J. Manage. Inf. Syst., 1996, 12, (4), pp. 533.
    16. 16)
      • 16. Dey, A.K.: ‘Understanding and using context’, Pers. Ubiquitous Comput., 2001, 5, (1), pp. 47.
    17. 17)
      • 17. Sanchez, L., Lanza, J., Olsen, R., et al: ‘A generic context management framework for personal networking environments’. Third Annual Int. Conf. Mobile and Ubiquitous Systems-Workshops, 2006, San Jose, CA, USA, July 2006, pp. 18.
    18. 18)
      • 18. Buchholz, T., Schiffers, M.: ‘Quality of context: what it is and why we need it’. Proc. Tenth Workshop of the OpenView University Association: OVUA'03, 2003.
    19. 19)
      • 19. Bisdikian, C., Branch, J., Leung, K.K., et al: ‘A letter soup for the quality of information in sensor networks’. IEEE Int. Conf. Pervasive Computing and Communications, 2009. PerCom 2009, Galveston, TX, USA, March 2009, pp. 16.
    20. 20)
      • 20. Bisdikian, C., Kaplan, L.M., Srivastava, M.B.: ‘On the quality and value of information in sensor networks’, ACM Trans. Sens. Netw. (TOSN), 2013, 9, (4), p. 48.
    21. 21)
      • 21. Barnaghi, P., Bermudez-Edo, M., Tönjes, R.: ‘Challenges for quality of data in smart cities’, J. Data Inf. Qual. (JDIQ), 2015, 6, (2-3), p. 6.
    22. 22)
      • 22. Suri, N., Benincasa, G., Lenzi, R., et al: ‘Exploring value of-information-based approaches to support effective communications in tactical networks’, IEEE Commun. Mag., 2015, 53, (10), pp. 3945.
    23. 23)
      • 23. Compton, M., Henson, C., Lefort, L., et al: ‘A survey of the semantic specification of sensors’. Proc. Second Int. Conf. Semantic Sensor Networks, Washington DC, USA, October 2009, vol. 522, pp. 1732, CEURWS.org.
    24. 24)
      • 24. Rao, L., Osei-Bryson, K.-M.: ‘Towards defining dimensions of knowledge systems quality’, Expert Syst. Appl., 2007, 33, (2), pp. 368378.
    25. 25)
      • 25. Gibbons, P.B., Karp, B., Ke, Y., et al: ‘IrisNet: an architecture for a worldwide sensor web’, IEEE Pervasive Comput., 2003, 2, (4), pp. 2233.
    26. 26)
      • 26. Jiang, G., Chung, W.W., Cybenko, G.: ‘Semantic agent technologies for tactical sensor networks’. SPIE's AeroSense 2003 (OR03), Int. Society for Optics and Photonics, Orlando, FL, USA, April 2003, pp. 311320.
    27. 27)
      • 27. Ranganathan, A., Campbell, R.H.: ‘A middleware for context-aware agents in ubiquitous computing environments’. ACM/IFIP/USENIX Int. Conf. Distributed Systems Platforms and Open Distributed Processing, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, June 2003, pp. 143161.
    28. 28)
      • 28. Ranganathan, A., Al-Muhtadi, J., Chetan, S., et al: ‘MiddleWhere: a middleware for location awareness in ubiquitous computing applications’. Proc. Fifth ACM/IFIP/USENIX Int. Conf. Middleware, Middleware'04, Toronto, Canada, October 2004, pp. 397416.
    29. 29)
      • 29. Hwang, I., Han, Q., Misra, A.: ‘MASTAQ: a middleware architecture for sensor applications with statistical quality constraints’. Third IEEE Int. Conf. Pervasive Computing and Communications Workshops (PerCom 2005), Kauai Island, Hawaii, March 2005, pp. 390395.
    30. 30)
      • 30. Aberer, K., Hauswirth, M., Salehi, A.: ‘Middleware support for the Internet of things’. Proc. Fifth GI/ITG KuVS Fachgespraech-Drahtlose Sensornetze, Berlin, Germany, September 2006, pp. 1519.
    31. 31)
      • 31. Jacob, C., Linner, D., Steglich, S., et al: ‘Bio-inspired context gathering in loosely coupled computing environments’. First IEEE Bio-Inspired Models of Network, Information and Computing Systems, 2006, York, UK, 2006, pp. 16.
    32. 32)
      • 32. Moodley, D., Simonis, I.: ‘A new architecture for the sensorWeb: the SWAP framework’. Proc. Fifth Int. Semantic Web Conf. (ISWC 2006), Athens, GA, USA, 2006 (LNCS, 4273).
    33. 33)
      • 33. Grosky, W.I., Kansal, A., Nath, S., et al: ‘SenseWeb: an infrastructure for shared sensing’, IEEE Multimedia, 2007, 14, (4), pp. 813.
    34. 34)
      • 34. Bouillet, E., Feblowitz, M., Liu, Z., et al: ‘A semantics-based middleware for utilizing heterogeneous sensor networks’. Int. Conf. Distributed Computing in Sensor Systems (DCOSS'07), Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA, June 2007, pp. 174188.
    35. 35)
      • 35. Hu, P., Indulska, J., Robinson, R.: ‘An autonomic context management system for pervasive computing’. Sixth Annual IEEE Int. Conf. IEEE Pervasive Computing and Communications, 2008. PerCom 2008, Hong Kong SAR, China, March 2008, pp. 213223.
    36. 36)
      • 36. Kinnebrew, J.S., Otte, W.R., Shankaran, N., et al: ‘Intelligent resource management and dynamic adaptation in a distributed real-time and embedded sensor web system’. IEEE Int. Symp. IEEE Object/Component/Service-Oriented Real-Time Distributed Computing, 2009 ISORC'09, Tokyo, Japan, March 2009, pp. 135142.
    37. 37)
      • 37. Wieland, M., Käppeler, U.-P., Levi, P., et al: ‘Towards integration of uncertain sensor data into context-aware workflows’. GI Jahrestagung, Citeseer, 2009, pp. 20292040.
    38. 38)
      • 38. Pathan, M., Taylor, K., Compton, M.: ‘Semantics-based plug-and-play configuration of sensor network services’. SSN'10 Proc. Third Int. Conf. Semantic Sensor Networks, Shanghai, China, October 2010, vol. 668, pp. 1732, CEURWS.org.
    39. 39)
      • 39. Romero, D., Rouvoy, R., Seinturier, L., et al: ‘Enabling context-aware web services: a middleware approach for ubiquitous environments’, in Sheng, M., Yu, J., Dustdar, S., (EDs.): ‘Enabling context-aware web services: methods, architectures, and technologies’ (Chapman and Hall/CRC, 2010), pp. 113135.
    40. 40)
      • 40. Teixeira, T., Hachem, S., Issarny, V., et al: ‘Service oriented middleware for the internet of things: a perspective’. Towards a Service-Based Internet: Fourth European Conf., ServiceWave 2011. Proc., Poznan, Poland, October 2011, pp. 220229.
    41. 41)
      • 41. Matheus, C.J., Boran, A., Carr, D., et al: ‘Semantic network monitoring and control over heterogeneous network models and protocols’. Int. Conf. Active Media Technology, Macau, China, December 2012, pp. 433444.
    42. 42)
      • 42. Le-Phuoc, D., Nguyen-Mau, H.Q., Parreira, J.X., et al: ‘A middleware framework for scalable management of linked streams’, Web Semant. Sci. Serv. Agents World Wide Web, 2012, 16, pp. 4251.
    43. 43)
      • 43. Da, K., Roose, P., Dalmau, M., et al: ‘Kali2Much: a context middleware for autonomic adaptation-driven platform’. Proc. First ACM Workshop on Middleware for Context-Aware Applications in the IoT, Bordeaux, France, December 2014, pp. 2530.
    44. 44)
      • 44. Hachem, S., Pathak, A., Issarny, V.: ‘Service-oriented middleware for the mobile internet of things: a scalable solution’. IEEE GLOBECOM: Global Communications Conf., Austin, TX, USA, December 2014.
    45. 45)
      • 45. Marie, P., Lim, L., Manzoor, A., et al: ‘QoC-aware context data distribution in the internet of things’. Proc. First ACM Workshop on Middleware for Context-Aware Applications in the IoT (M4IoT'14), Bordeaux, France, December 2014, pp. 1318.
    46. 46)
      • 46. Kothari, A., Boddula, V., Ramaswamy, L., et al: ‘DQS-cloud: a data quality-aware autonomic cloud for sensor services’. 2014 Int. Conf. IEEE Collaborative Computing: Networking, Applications and Worksharing (CollaborateCom), October 2014, pp. 295303.
    47. 47)
      • 47. Perera, C., Zaslavsky, A., Liu, C.H., et al: ‘Sensor search techniques for sensing as a service architecture for the internet of things’, IEEE Sens. J., 2014, 14, (2), pp. 406420.
    48. 48)
      • 48. Carr, D.: ‘The SIXTH middleware: sensible sensing for the sensor web’. PhD thesis, University College Dublin, 2015.
    49. 49)
      • 49. Soldatos, J., Kefalakis, N., Hauswirth, M., et al: ‘OpenIoT: open source internet-of-things in the cloud’. Interoperability and Open-Source Solutions for the Internet of Things: Int. Workshop, FP7 OpenIoT Project, Held in Conjunction with SoftCOM 2014, Invited Papers, Split, Croatia, September 2015, vol. 9001, pp. 1325.
    50. 50)
      • 50. Kibria, M.G., Fattah, S.M.M., Jeong, K., et al: ‘A user-centric knowledge creation model in a web of object-enabled internet of things environment’, Sensors, 2015, 15, (9), pp. 2405424086.
    51. 51)
      • 51. Puiu, D., Barnaghi, P., Tönjes, R., et al: ‘CityPulse: large scale data analytics framework for smart cities’, IEEE Access, 2016, 4, pp. 10861108.
    52. 52)
      • 52. Ramalingam, S., Mohandas, L.: ‘A fuzzy based sensor web for adaptive prediction framework to enhance the availability of web service’, Int. J. Distrib. Sens. Netw., 2016, 12, (2), pp. 114.
    53. 53)
      • 53. Bizer, C., Heath, T., Berners-Lee, T.: ‘Linked data-the story so far. semantic services’,Interoperability Web Appl. Emerging Concepts, 2009, 5, (3), pp. 122.
    54. 54)
      • 54. Brewer, E.: ‘CAP twelve years later: how the’ rules’ have changed’, Computer, 2012, 45, (2), pp. 2329.
    55. 55)
      • 55. Javadi, S.H., Peiravi, A.: ‘Fusion of weighted decisions in wireless sensor networks’, IET Wirel. Sens. Syst., 2015, 5, (2), pp. 97105.
    56. 56)
      • 56. Jacob, B., Lanyon-Hogg, R., Nadgir, D.K., et al: ‘A practical guide to the IBM autonomic computing toolkit’, IBM Redbooks, 2004, 4, p. 10.
    57. 57)
      • 57. Kephart, J.O., Chess, D.M.: ‘The vision of autonomic computing’, Computer, 2003, 36, (1), pp. 4150.
    58. 58)
      • 58. Aggarwal, C.C., Ashish, N., Sheth, A.: ‘The internet of things: a survey from the data-centric perspective’. Managing and Mining Sensor Data, 2013, pp. 383428.
    59. 59)
      • 59. Atzori, L., Iera, A., Morabito, G.: ‘The internet of things: a survey’, Comput. Netw., 2010, 54, (15), pp. 27872805.
    60. 60)
      • 60. Abidoye, A.P., Obagbuwa, I.C.: ‘Models for integrating wireless sensor networks into the Internet of things’, IET Wirel. Sens. Syst., 2017, 7, (3), pp. 6572.
    61. 61)
      • 61. FP7, E.U.. IOT-A: ‘Internet of things architecture’. Available at http://www.iot-a.eu/public, accessed March 2017.
    62. 62)
      • 62. Bröring, A., Janowicz, K., Stasch, C., et al: ‘Semantic challenges for sensor plug and play’. Int. Symp. Web and Wireless Geographical Information Systems, 2009, pp. 7286.
    63. 63)
      • 63. Henson, C.A., Pschorr, J.K., Sheth, A.P., et al: ‘SemSOS: semantic sensor observation service’. Int. Symp. IEEE Collaborative Technologies and Systems, 2009 CTS'09, 2009, pp. 4453.
    64. 64)
      • 64. W3C SSN Incubator Group: ‘Review of sensor and observations ontologies’, 2011. Available at https://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/ssn/wiki/Review_of_Sensor_and_Observations_Ontologies, accessed March 2017.
    65. 65)
      • 65. Compton, M., Barnaghi, P., Bermudez, L., et al: ‘The SSN ontology of the W3C semantic sensor network incubator group’, Web Semant. Sci. Services Agentse World Wide Web, 2012, 17, pp. 2532.
    66. 66)
      • 66. Raskin, R.G., Pan, M.J.: ‘Knowledge representation in the semantic web for earth and environmental terminology (SWEET)’, Comput. Geosci., 2005, 31, (9), pp. 11191125.
    67. 67)
      • 67. Chen, D., Varshney, P.K.: ‘QoS support in wireless sensor networks: a survey’. Int. Conf. Wireless Networks, 2004, vol. 233, pp. 17.
    68. 68)
      • 68. Akyildiz, I.F., Melodia, T., Chowdhury, K.R.: ‘A survey on wireless multimedia sensor networks’, Comput. Netw., 2007, 51, (4), pp. 921960.
    69. 69)
      • 69. Bettini, C., Brdiczka, O., Henricksen, K., et al: ‘A survey of context modelling and reasoning techniques’, Pervasive Mob. Comput., 2010, 6, (2), pp. 161180.
    70. 70)
      • 70. Sheikh, K., Wegdam, M., Van Sinderen, M.: ‘Middleware support for quality of context in pervasive context-aware systems’. Fifth Annual IEEE Int. Conf. IEEE Pervasive Computing and Communications Workshops, 2007. PerCom Workshops’ 07, White Plains, NY, USA, March 2007, pp. 461466.
    71. 71)
      • 71. Al Nuaimi, K., Al Nuaimi, M., Mohamed, N., et al: ‘Web-based wireless sensor networks: a survey of architectures and applications’. Proc. Sixth Int. Conf. Ubiquitous Information Management and Communication ACM, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, February 2012, p. 113.
    72. 72)
      • 72. Boulos, M.N.K., Resch, B., Crowley, D.N., et al: ‘Crowdsourcing, citizen sensing and sensor web technologies for public and environmental health surveillance and crisis management: trends, OGC standards and application examples’, Int. J. Health Geogr., 2011, 10, (1), p. 1.
    73. 73)
      • 73. Bellavista, P., Corradi, A., Reale, A.: ‘Scalable stream processing with quality of service for smart city crowdsensing applications’, EAI Endorsed Trans. Mob. Commun. Appl., 2013, 13, (3), pp. 115.
    74. 74)
      • 74. Eastman, R., Schlenoff, C., Balakirsky, S., et al: ‘A sensor ontology literature review’. Technical Report NIST IR 7908, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 2013. Available at http://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/ir/2013/NIST.IR.7908.pdf, accessed March 2017.
http://iet.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1049/iet-wss.2017.0008
Loading

Related content

content/journals/10.1049/iet-wss.2017.0008
pub_keyword,iet_inspecKeyword,pub_concept
6
6
Loading
Errata
An Erratum has been published for this content:
Errata: Survey on Quality of Observation within Sensor Web systems
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address