Your browser does not support JavaScript!
http://iet.metastore.ingenta.com
1887

access icon free Survey on Quality of Observation within Sensor Web systems

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)
      • 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.
    2. 2)
      • 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.
    3. 3)
      • 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.
    4. 4)
      • 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.
    5. 5)
      • 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.
    6. 6)
      • 5. Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC): ‘SWE common data model encoding standard’. Available at http://www.opengeospatial.org/standards/swecommon, accessed May 2017.
    7. 7)
      • 2. Sheth, A., Henson, C., Sahoo, S.S.: ‘Semantic sensor web’, IEEE Internet Comput.., 2008, 12, (4), pp. 7883.
    8. 8)
      • 14. Wand, Y., Wang, R.Y.: ‘Anchoring data quality dimensions in ontological foundations’, Commun. ACM, 1996, 39, (11), pp. 8695.
    9. 9)
      • 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.
    10. 10)
      • 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.
    11. 11)
      • 67. Chen, D., Varshney, P.K.: ‘QoS support in wireless sensor networks: a survey’. Int. Conf. Wireless Networks, 2004, vol. 233, pp. 17.
    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)
      • 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.
    14. 14)
      • 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.
    15. 15)
      • 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.
    16. 16)
      • 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.
    17. 17)
      • 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.
    18. 18)
      • 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.
    19. 19)
      • 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.
    20. 20)
      • 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.
    21. 21)
      • 33. Grosky, W.I., Kansal, A., Nath, S., et al: ‘SenseWeb: an infrastructure for shared sensing’, IEEE Multimedia, 2007, 14, (4), pp. 813.
    22. 22)
      • 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.
    23. 23)
      • 1. Bröring, A., Echterhoff, J., Jirka, S., et al: ‘New generation sensor web enablement’, Sensors, 2011, 11, (3), pp. 26522699.
    24. 24)
      • 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.
    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)
      • 54. Brewer, E.: ‘CAP twelve years later: how the’ rules’ have changed’, Computer, 2012, 45, (2), pp. 2329.
    27. 27)
      • 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.
    28. 28)
      • 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.
    29. 29)
      • 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.
    30. 30)
      • 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.
    31. 31)
      • 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.
    32. 32)
      • 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.
    33. 33)
      • 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.
    34. 34)
      • 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.
    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)
      • 68. Akyildiz, I.F., Melodia, T., Chowdhury, K.R.: ‘A survey on wireless multimedia sensor networks’, Comput. Netw., 2007, 51, (4), pp. 921960.
    37. 37)
      • 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.
    38. 38)
      • 48. Carr, D.: ‘The SIXTH middleware: sensible sensing for the sensor web’. PhD thesis, University College Dublin, 2015.
    39. 39)
      • 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.
    40. 40)
      • 24. Rao, L., Osei-Bryson, K.-M.: ‘Towards defining dimensions of knowledge systems quality’, Expert Syst. Appl., 2007, 33, (2), pp. 368378.
    41. 41)
      • 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.
    42. 42)
      • 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).
    43. 43)
      • 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.
    44. 44)
      • 59. Atzori, L., Iera, A., Morabito, G.: ‘The internet of things: a survey’, Comput. Netw., 2010, 54, (15), pp. 27872805.
    45. 45)
      • 11. Sheth, A.: ‘Internet of things to smart IoT through semantic, cognitive, and perceptual computing’, IEEE Intell. Syst., 2016, 31, (2), pp. 108112.
    46. 46)
      • 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.
    47. 47)
      • 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.
    48. 48)
      • 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.
    49. 49)
      • 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.
    50. 50)
      • 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.
    51. 51)
      • 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.
    52. 52)
      • 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.
    53. 53)
      • 61. FP7, E.U.. IOT-A: ‘Internet of things architecture’. Available at http://www.iot-a.eu/public, accessed March 2017.
    54. 54)
      • 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.
    55. 55)
      • 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.
    56. 56)
      • 6. International Organization for Standardization: ‘Geographic information – data quality’. Available at https://www.iso.org/standard/32575.html, accessed May 2017.
    57. 57)
      • 55. Javadi, S.H., Peiravi, A.: ‘Fusion of weighted decisions in wireless sensor networks’, IET Wirel. Sens. Syst., 2015, 5, (2), pp. 97105.
    58. 58)
      • 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.
    59. 59)
      • 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.
    60. 60)
      • 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.
    61. 61)
      • 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.
    62. 62)
      • 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.
    63. 63)
      • 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.
    64. 64)
      • 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.
    65. 65)
      • 13. ITU-T. X.641: ‘Information technology – quality of service: framework’. International Telecommunication Union-Telecommunication Standardisation Sector (ITU-T), 1997.
    66. 66)
      • 57. Kephart, J.O., Chess, D.M.: ‘The vision of autonomic computing’, Computer, 2003, 36, (1), pp. 4150.
    67. 67)
      • 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.
    68. 68)
      • 51. Puiu, D., Barnaghi, P., Tönjes, R., et al: ‘CityPulse: large scale data analytics framework for smart cities’, IEEE Access, 2016, 4, pp. 10861108.
    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)
      • 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.
    71. 71)
      • 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.
    72. 72)
      • 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.
    73. 73)
      • 3. Bröring, A., Maué, P., Janowicz, K., et al: ‘Semantically-enabled sensor plug & play for the sensor web’, Sensors, 2011, 11, (8), pp. 75687605.
    74. 74)
      • 16. Dey, A.K.: ‘Understanding and using context’, Pers. Ubiquitous Comput., 2001, 5, (1), pp. 47.
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