GROUP: A
MATRIC NUMBER: 11/ENG02/003
11/ENG02/007
11/ENG02/009
DEPARTMENT: COMPUTER ENGINEERING
COURSE CODE: COE 503
COURSE TITLE: CAD AND SIMULATION
TOPIC REVIEW: INTERNET OF THINGS
ABSTRACT
The Internet of Things is a hyped term and many definitions for it exist. Worse still, it comes
with a lot of related terminology that is not used uniformly either, hindering scientific
discourse.
We are standing on the brink of a new ubiquitous computing and communication era, one that
will radically transform our corporate, community, and personal spheres. Over a decade ago,
the late Mark Weiser developed a seminal vision of future technological ubiquity – one in
which the increasing “availability” of processing power would be accompanied by its
decreasing “visibility”. As he observed, “the most profound technologies are those that
disappear…they weave themselves into the fabric of everyday life until they are
indistinguishable from it”. Early forms of ubiquitous information and communication
networks are evident in the widespread use of mobile phones: the number of mobile phones
worldwide surpassed 2 billion in mid-2005. These little gadgets have become an integral and
intimate part of everyday life for many millions of people, even more so than the internet.
Today, developments are rapidly under way to take this phenomenon an important step
further, by embedding short-range mobile transceivers into a wide array of additional gadgets
and everyday items, enabling new forms of communication between people and things, and
between things themselves. A new dimension has been added to the world of information and
communication technologies (ICTs): from anytime,any place, connectivity for anyone, we
will now have connectivity for anything.
Connections will multiply and create an entirely new dynamic network of networks – an
Internet of Things. The Internet of Things is neither science fiction nor industry hype, but is
based on solid technological advances and visions of network ubiquity that are zealously
being realized.
Many technical communities are vigorously pursuing research topics that contribute to the
Internet of Things (IoT). Today, as sensing, actuation, communication, and control become
ever more sophisticated and ubiquitous, there is significant overlap in these communities,
sometimes from slightly different perspectives. More cooperation between communities is
encouraged. To provide a basis for discussing open research problems in IoT, a vision for
how IoT could change the world in the distant future is first presented. Then, eight key
research topics are enumerated and research problems within those topics are discussed.
KEYWORDS- Internet of Things; Devices; Resources; Services; Adressing; Identification;
Resolution; Discovery.
INTRODUCTION
There currently different opinions on what the Internet of Things is, ranging from the original
concept proposed of an informational network that allows the look-up of information about
real-world objects by means of a unique ID called Electronic Product Code (EPC) and a
resolution mechanism, to a network of sensors, actuators and autonomous objects interacting
with each other directly. Machine-to-machine (M2M) communication is another term
sometimes associated with the later. With so many diverging opinions, and with the hype that
has evolved around the term, it is not surprising that there are equally many attempts at
providing a definition of the Internet of Things. More important though than agreeing on a
definition of the overall term is to have a common understanding of the components and
concepts that constitute the Internet of Things. First and foremost, what are the things in the
Internet of Things? What is the relation to devices, resources and services? Second, what do
we mean when we talk about addressing, identification and resolution? Looking at
discussions at conferences and within international research projects, one can see that these
terms are used with different meanings by different people, and that the terminology is often
mixed up, leading to confusion and hindering scientific discourse. The goal of this paper is to
bring some clarity into these discussions. It can also be seen as a call to a common usage of
the terminology associated with the Internet of Things.
II. THINGS, DEVICES ANDRESOURCES
All the different definitions of the term “Internet of Things“ have in common that it is related
to the integration of the physical world with the virtual world of the Internet. There are
physical objects one wants to be able to track, to monitor and to interact with. Examples
include inanimate objects like pallets, boxes containing consumer goods, cars, machines,
fridges and maybe even the infamous carton of milk or cup of yoghurt – as well as animate
objects like animals and humans. These are the things of the Internet of Things – or to use a
clearer term, the entities of interest. Buildings, rooms and things in the environment like
rivers and glaciers can also be entities of interest. Basically any object including the attributes
that describe it and its state that is relevant from a user or application perspective can be
regarded as an entity of interest. In order to monitor and interact with one or more entities and
make the connection to the Internet, technical communication devices are required. The
devices can be attached to or embedded in the entities themselves – thus creating smart things
–, or they can be installed in the environment of the things to be monitored. Typical examples
of devices include RFID readers, sensors and actuators, embedded computers as well as
mobile phones. While there is a school of thought that regards the devices as the things in the
Internet of Things, such an approach seems too limited, as businesses and consumers are
more interested the physical objects rather than any technical devices needed for monitoring
and communication. Having said that, it needs to be noted that devices constitute entities of
interest in its own right when looking at them from a technical or management perspective.
Thus, devices are a subset of all the things in the Internet of Things. However, for reasons of
clarity this case where the thing, the device and the entity of interest are the same should be
treated as a special case. Devices usually host resources: These are computational elements
that provide the technical link to the entities of interest – e.g., they offer information about
the thing, like an identifier or sensed data, and they may provide actuation capabilities as
well. Access to resources from the outside world finally happens through services. Resources
may offer a service interface directly, or services inside the network act as proxies for the
actual resources, possibly providing additional levels of aggregation and abstraction. Restful
services can be used and are most appropriate when accessing resources directly, but other
implementation technologies like SOAP or Device Profile for Web Services (DPWS) are also
possible; in particular higher-level aggregated services that have to be integrated with
enterprise applications. When using REST, the distinction between resource and service
becomes blurry, but it can be disambiguated in the following way: use the term service when
focusing on the application integration and accessing aspects, and talk about resources when
looking from more low level component and deployment perspective.
III. EXAMPLES OF THINGS AND DEVICES
The distinction between entities of interest and devices is often clear – the entity of interest is
the object that has some value for the observer, the device is a technical component needed to
observe or interact with the entity of interest. There are however many cases where the
distinction is more difficult and therefore justifies to be elaborated upon. In the following, a
few examples in common application areas for the Internet of Things are discussed:
Logistics, energy monitoring and management, as well as public safety and disaster
management. Let’s start by looking at container filled with some temperature-sensitive
chemical that is transported from A to B. Its location needs to be tracked continuously, and
for quality assurance reasons, the temperature must be monitored to ensure that it is within
certain boundaries at all times. To do this, a wireless sensor tag is attached to the container.
The tag provides both communication as well as temperature recording capabilities. In this
simple example the distinction is obvious: the container is the entity of interest, and the
sensor tag is the attached device1. But what about a pallet with a simple barcode label
attached? The pallet is clearly an entity of interest from a supply chain application
perspective, but the barcode label? One could argue that as the label is an artificial
component attached to the pallet in order to be able to identify and track it, it also qualifies to
be called a device. However, that would be stretching the common understanding of the term
device. It makes more sense to regard the label as a „feature“ of the entity of interest itself;
and the tracking of the pallet is done with the help of barcode scanners which thus constitute
environmental devices. To strengthen the point, if we would look at the label as a device,
then the imprinted barcode would qualify as a resource, this again would be stretching the
common understanding of these terms. It looks different though when we replace the barcode
label with a passive RFID tag: The tag with its electronic circuitry and the communication
capabilities can reasonably be called a device, and its memory containing an ID and possibly
additional user data also qualifies as a resource. RFID interrogators are – similar to barcode
scanners – definitely environmental devices monitoring things that pass through their reading
fields. Only from the perspective of the administrator of the interrogator network they are
also entities of interest. In the field of energy monitoring, smart meters to remotely monitor
the consumption of electricity – and in smart grid scenarios, also distributed electricity
production – are one of the key components to minimize energy usage and allowing an
accurate billing based on individual consumption. In more and more countries the usage of
smart meters is mandated. They also constitute an interesting example for this paper, as they
clearly are both a device and an entity of interest. When looking at their purpose, they have to
be considered a device that monitors the energy consumption of, e.g., a household – the entity
of interest. But they are complex enough that they constitute an entity of interest to the
organization responsible for managing and maintaining them. In more advanced energy
management scenarios, smart meters are also used to shape the energy demand to avoid peak
loads and thus reduce the overall carbon footprint. For example, a freezer in a household may
be shut down for a certain time without any detrimental effects to its contents. Such a freezer
is an example where the distinction between entity of interest and device is simple: The
freezer is the entity of interest, and it contains a controller component (the device) that allows
the freezer to be turned on or off remotely. The last example considers micro unmanned
aerial vehicles (MUAV) that are becoming increasingly popular in disaster management. For
example, they can be used to monitor the spread and the contamination of specific areas after
the release of some hazardous substances. As such, they are monitoring environmental
devices that observe, e.g., a building, a plant, or a city district. For the hazard response team,
these latter are the entities of interest. But for the operator of the MUAV – flight control – the
MUAV itself is very much the entity of interest.
IV. ADDRESSING, IDENTIFICATION ANDRESOLUTION Unfortunately one can often
see confusion between the terms identity and identifiers. Identity is a philosophical concept
meaning “whatever makes an entity definable and recognizable”. An entity of interest only
has one identity, but it might have several unique identifiers (ID’s) associated with it. These
ID’s are used to disambiguate two things from each other, and depending on the context,
different ID’s may be used. An ID can be compared to a social security number or a key
value for looking up records about the thing in a data base. Many types of different ID
schemes have been proposed for IDs in the Internet of Things, and it is unlikely that we will
have one common scheme across the globe and across industries.
An address on the other hand is a technical term for accessing – “talking to” – either a device
or a service. In the case of devices, the ID and the address often are the same, e.g., an IPv6 or
MAC address, but in general they are not. As an example, let’s have a look again at the
container filled with a chemical. The container has an ID, e.g., a Serial Shipping Container
Code (SSCC). This ID can be used to find in data base information like the type of chemical
currently in the container or first current location. The sensor tag attached however might
have an IPv6 address that can be used to query the sensor for the current temperature. The
temperature readings could then of course be saved in the data base as properties of the entity
of interest and thus become accessible also via the SSCC again, but the point is that the ID
links to properties of the entity of interest, while the address is directly used for
communication with the device. In order to find information about a thing with a specific ID,
two approaches are possible: Resolution and discovery. Resolving a given ID leads to a set of
addresses of information and interaction services. Information services allow querying,
changing and adding information about the thing in question, while interaction services
enable direct interaction with the thing by accessing the resources of the associated devices.
Resolution is a straight-forward process based on a-priori knowledge that will yield at least
one address that should have information about the object. For example, the standard
resolution mechanism for EPCs, the Object Naming Service ONS, will return with addresses
of EPC Information Systems (EPCIS) of the original manufacturer of the product. In a second
step, these EPCIS can be queried to return information about the thing. What information – if
any – is returned depends then on confidentiality policies and potentially successful
authentication of the requester. Discovery on the other hand is more like “googling” for
information without a-priori knowledge, finding in the process previously unknown sources
of information. Authentication is usually part of the discovery processes, i.e., only addresses
of information services that are willing to provide information are reported back.
V. RESEARCH
The spectrum of research required to achieve IoT at the scale envisioned above requires
significant research along many directions. In this section problems and required research are
highlighted in 8 topic areas: massive scaling, architecture and dependencies, creating
knowledge and big data, robustness, openness, security, privacy, and human-in- the-loop.
Each of the topic discussions primarily focuses on new problems that arise for future IoT
systems of the type. The research topics presented in each case are representative and not
complete. Many important topics such as the development of standards, the impact of privacy
laws, and the cultural impact on use of these technologies are outside the scope of the paper.
A. Massive Scaling
The current trajectory of the numbers of smart devices being deployed implies that eventually
trillions of things will be on the Internet. How to name, authenticate access, maintain, protect,
use, and support such a large scale of things are major problems; Will IPv6 suffice? Will
protocols such a 6LowPAN play a role? Will entirely new standards and protocols emerge?
Since many of the things on the Internet will require their own energy source, will energy
scavenging and enormously low power circuits eliminate the need for batteries? How will the
massive amounts of data be collected, used, and stored? What longitudinal studies will be
performed? How will the real-time and reliability aspects be supported [5][13]? How will
devices including mobile devices be discovered? Will the emergence of a utility model, if it
occurs, mean entirely new standards? How will such a utility be achieved? It is unlikely that
any solution immediately becomes the norm. Many protocols and variations will co- exist.
What will be the architectural model that can support the expected heterogeneity of devices
and applications?
B. Architecture and Dependencies
As trillions of things (objects) are connected to the Internet it is necessary to have an
adequate architecture that permits easy connectivity, control, communications, and useful
applications. How will these objects interact in and across applications. Many times, things or
sets of things must be disjoint and protected from other devices. At other times it makes
sense to share devices and information. One possible architectural approach for IoT is to
borrow from the smartphone world. Smartphones employ an approach where applications are
implemented and made available from an app store. This has many advantages including an
unbounded development of novel applications that can execute on the smartphones. Various
standards and automatic checks are made to ensure that an app can execute on a given
platform. For example, the correct version of the underlying OS and the required sensors and
actuators can be checked when the app is installed. A similar architectural approach for IoT
would also have similar advantages. However, the underlying platform for IoT is much more
complicated than for smartphones. Nevertheless, if IoT is based on an underlying sensor and
actuator network that acts as a utility similar to electricity and water, then, different IoT
applications can be installed on this utility.
METHODS
The Internet of Things is a technological revolution that represents the future of computing
and communications, and its development depends on dynamic technical innovation in a
number of important fields, from wireless sensors to nanotechnology.
First, in order to connect everyday objects and devices to large databases and networks – and
indeed to the network of networks (the internet) – a simple, unobtrusive and cost-effective
system of item identification is crucial. Only then can data about things be collected and
processed. Radio-frequency identification (RFID) offers this functionality. Second, data
collection will benefit from the ability to detect changes in the physical status of things, using
sensor technologies. Embedded intelligence in the things themselves can further enhance the
power of the network by devolving information processing capabilities to the edges of the
network. Finally, advances in miniaturization and nanotechnology mean that smaller and
smaller things will have the ability to interact and connect. A combination of all of these
developments will create an Internet of Things that connects the world’s objects in both a
sensory and an intelligent manner.
Indeed, with the benefit of integrated information processing, industrial products and
everyday objects will take on smart characteristics and capabilities. They may also take on
electronic identities that can be queried remotely, or be equipped with sensors for detecting
physical changes around them. Eventually, even particles as small as dust might be tagged
and networked; such developments will turn the merely static objects of today into newly
dynamic things, embedding intelligence in our environment, and stimulating the creation of
innovative products and entirely new services.
RFID technology, which uses radio waves to identify items, is seen as one of the pivotal
enablers of the Internet of Things. Although it has sometimes been labelled as the nextgeneration of bar codes, RFID systems offer much more in that they can track items in realtime to yield important information about their location and status. Early applications of
RFID include automatic highway toll collection, supply-chain management (for large
retailers), pharmaceuticals (for the prevention of counterfeiting) and e-health (for patient
monitoring). More recent applications range from sports and leisure (ski passes) to personal
security (tagging children at schools); RFID tags are even being implanted under human skin
for medical purposes, but also for VIP access to bars like the Baja Beach Club in Barcelona.
E-government applications such as RFID in drivers’ licences, passports or cash are under
consideration. RFID readers are now being embedded in mobile phones. Nokia, for instance,
released its RFID-enabled phones for businesses with workforces in the field in mid-2004
and plans to launch consumer handsets by 2006.
In addition to RFID, the ability to detect changes in the physical status of things is also
essential for recording changes in the environment. In this regard, sensors play a pivotal role
in bridging the gap between the physical and virtual worlds, and enabling things to respond to
changes in their physical environment. Sensors collect data from their environment,
generating information and raising awareness about context. For example, sensors in an
electronic jacket can collect information about changes in external temperature and the
parameters of the jacket can be adjusted accordingly.
Embedded intelligence in things themselves will distribute processing power to the edges of
the network, offering greater possibilities for data processing and increasing the resilience of
the network. This will also empower things and devices at the edges of the network to take
independent decisions. “Smart things” are difficult to define, but imply a certain processing
power and reaction to external stimuli. Advances in smart homes, smart vehicles and personal
robotics are some of the leading areas. Research on wearable computing (including wearable
mobility vehicles) is swiftly progressing. Scientists are using their imagination to develop
new devices and appliances, such as intelligent ovens that can be controlled through phones
or the internet, online refrigerators and networked blinds.
The Internet of Things will draw on the functionality offered by all of these technologies to
realize the vision of a fully interactive and responsive network environment.
The technologies discussed in this report are not just the preserve of industrialized countries.
These technologies have much to offer for the developing world and can lead to tangible
applications in, inter alia, medical diagnosis and treatment, cleaner water, improved
sanitation, energy production, the export of commodities and food security.
In line with the global commitment to achieving the Millennium Development Goals
(MDGs), the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) focuses on ICT development
through the creation of national e-strategies, the guarantee of universal, ubiquitous, equitable
and affordable access to technology and the wider dissemination and sharing of information
and knowledge. WSIS commitments go far beyond technological diffusion – there is a pledge
for common action towards poverty alleviation, the enhancement of human potential and
overall development through communication technologies and related emerging technologies.
In this regard, the technologies underlying the Internet of Things offer many potential
benefits.
One does not have to look far to find examples. In the production and export of commodities,
sensor technologies are being used to test the quality and purity of different products, such as
coffee in Brazil and beef in Namibia. RFID has been used to track shipments of beef to the
European Union to verify their origin, integrity and handling essential given present trends in
food traceability standards. Such applications help ensure the quality and market expansion
of commodities from developing countries.
The enabling technologies of the Internet of Things have much to offer developing countries
in their goals for improving quality of life. Nanofilters in Bangladesh are removing pollutants
and ensuring that water is safe to drink. Nano-sensors can be used to monitor water quality at
reduced cost, while nanomembranes can assist in the treatment of
The enabling technologies of the Internet of Things have much to offer developing countries
in their goals for improving quality of life
wastewater. Research is under way to apply nanotechnology in the diagnosis and treatment of
disease, including the diagnosis of HIV and AIDS, as well as nano-drugs for other diseases.
Emerging technologies could also improve the quality and reliability of conventional drugs
for the developing world: RFID, for example, can track the origin of safe drugs thereby
reducing counterfeit.
Sensor technologies can monitor vulnerable environments and prevent or limit natural
disasters. Extensive and effective systems are needed to ensure early warning and evacuation,
thereby reducing loss of life due to natural disasters. Special robots have for instance been
used for mine detection to save lives and limbs in conflict zones. Commercial applications
are already being deployed in countries like India, Thailand and Turkey, among others.
Next-generation communication technologies may well originate in the larger growth markets
of the developing world – China and India, in particular. The substantial research
programmes currently being undertaken by these developing giants mean that the
implementation of the Internet of Things will be adapted to local conditions and
circumstances, as well as to international trade; Wal-Mart, for instance, now requires its
suppliers to be RFID-compliant. In 2002, Wal-Mart sourced billions of dollars’ worth of
products from China, i.e. around 12% of the total value of US imports from China during that
year. Not surprisingly, China is rapidly preparing itself to become a leader in RFID
deployment. Far from being passive followers of the Internet of Things, the developing world
stands to greatly influence the implementation and widespread adoption of these emerging
technologies.
DISCUSSION
Building on the potential benefits offered by the Internet of Things poses a number of
challenges, not only due to the nature of the enabling technologies but also to the sheer scale
of their deployment. Technological standardization in most areas is still in its infancy, or
remains fragmented. Not surprisingly, managing and fostering rapid innovation is a challenge
for governments and industry alike. Standardization is essential for the mass deployment and
diffusion of any technology. Nearly all commercially successful technologies have undergone
some process of standardization to achieve mass market penetration. Today’s internet and
mobile phones would not have thrived without standards such as TCP/IP and IMT-2000.
Successful standardization in RFID was initially achieved through the Auto-ID Center and
now by EPC Global. However, efforts are under way in different forums (ETSI, ISO, etc...)
and there have been calls for the increased involvement of ITU in the harmonization of RFID
protocols. Wireless sensor networks have received a boost through the work of the ZigBee
Alliance, among others. By contrast, standards in nanotechnology and robotics are far more
fragmented, with a lack of common definitions and a wide variety of regulating bodies.
One of the most important challenges in convincing users to adopt emerging technologies is
the protection of data and privacy. Concerns over privacy and data protection are widespread,
particularly as sensors and smart tags can track users’ movements, habits and ongoing
preferences. When everyday items come equipped with some or all of the five senses (such as
sight and smell) combined with computing and communication capabilities, concepts of data
request and data consent risk becoming outdated. Invisible and constant data exchange
between things and people, and between things and other things, will occur unknown to the
owners and originators of such data. The sheer scale and capacity of the new technologies
will magnify this problem. Who will ultimately control the data collected by all the eyes and
ears embedded in the environment surrounding us?
Public concerns and active campaigns by consumers have already hampered commercial
trials of RFID by two well-known retailers. To promote a more widespread adoption of the
technologies underlying the Internet of Things, principles of informed consent, data
confidentiality and security must be safeguarded. Moreover, protecting privacy must not be
limited to technical solutions, but encompass regulatory, market-based and socio-ethical
considerations. Unless there are concerted efforts involving all government, civil society and
private sector players to protect these values, the development of the Internet of Things will
be hampered if not prevented. It is only through awareness of these technological advances,
and the challenges they present, that we can seize the future benefits of a fair and user-centric
Internet of Things.
CONCLUSION
The internet as we know it is transforming radically. From an academic network for the
chosen few, it became a mass-market, consumer-oriented network. Now, it is set to become
fully pervasive, interactive and intelligent. Real-time communications will be possible not
only by humans but also by things at anytime and from anywhere. The advent of the Internet
of Things will create a plethora of innovative applications and services, which will enhance
quality of life and reduce inequalities whilst providing new revenue opportunities for a host
of enterprising businesses.
The development of the Internet of Things will occur within a new ecosystem that will be
driven by a number of key players. These players have to operate within a constantly
evolving economic and legal system, which establishes a frame- work for their endeavours.
Nevertheless, the human being should remain at the core of the overall vision, as his or her
needs will be pivotal to future innovation in this area. Indeed, technology and markets cannot
exist independently from the over-arching principles of a social and ethical system. The
Internet of Things will have a broad impact on many of the processes that characterize our
daily lives, influencing our behaviour and even our values.
For the telecommunication industry, the Internet of Things is an opportunity to capitalize on
existing success stories, such as mobile and wireless communications, but also to explore
new frontiers. In a world increasingly mediated by technology, we must ensure that the
human core to our activities remains untouched. On the road to the Internet of Things, this
can only be achieved through people- oriented strategies, and tighter linkages between those
that create technology and those that use it. In this way, we will be better equipped to face the
challenges that modern life throws our way.
In summary, one vision of the future is that IoT becomes a utility with increased
sophistication in sensing, actuation, communications, control, and in creating knowledge
from vast amounts of data. This will result in qualitatively different lifestyles from today.
What the lifestyles would be is anyone’s guess. It would be fair to say that we cannot predict
how lives will change. We did not predict the Internet, the Web, social networking,
Facebook, Twitter, millions of apps for smartphones, etc., and these have all qualitatively
changed societies’ lifestyle. New research problems arise due to the large scale of devices,
the connection of the physical and cyber worlds, the openness of the systems of systems, and
continuing problems of privacy and security. It is hoped that there is more cooperation
between the research communities in order to solve the myriad of problems sooner as well as
to avoid re-inventing the wheel when a particular community solves a problem.
REFERENCES
1. S. Sarma, D.L. Brock, and K. Ashton, “The Networked Physical World, Proposals
for Engineering the Next Generation of Computing, Commerce & AutomaticIdentification”, Auto-ID Center White Paper, October 2000
2. M. Presser, P. Daras, N. Baker, S. Karnouskos, A. Gluhak et al., “Real- World
Internet – Position Paper”, position paper of the Real-World Intrent (RWI) Cluster
of
the
Future
Internet
Assembly
(FIA).
internet.eu/index.php/Position_Paper, last accessed May 27, 2010
http://rwi.future-
3. Beecham Research, “Business Opportunities from Remote Device Management:
M2M and the Internet of Things”, 2008.
4. S. Haller, S. Karnouskos, and C. Schroth, “The Internet of Things in an Enterprise
Context”, in J. Domingue, D. Fensel und P. Traverso (Eds.), “First Future Internet
Symposium - FIS 2008”, LNCS 5468, Springer Verlag 2009, pp. 14-28.
5. O. Vermesan, M. Harrison, H. Vogt, K. Kalaboukas, M. Tomasella et al. (Eds.),
“The Internet of Things - Strategic Research Roadmap”, Cluster of European
Research Projects on the Internet of Things, CERP-IoT, 2009.
6. EU FP7 Project CASAGRAS, “CASAGRAS Final Report: RFID and the
Inclusive Model for the Internet of Things”, 2009, pp. 10-12.
7. F. Carrez (Ed.), M. Bauer, T. Baugé, J. Bernat, M. Bohli et al., “SENSEI
Reference Architecture”, EU FP7 Project SENSEI, Deliverable D3.2, 2009.
8. L. Richardson and S. Ruby, “RESTful Web Services”. O’Reilly Media, May
2007.
9. D. Guinard, V. Trifa, T. Pham, and O. Liechti, “Towards Physical Mashups in the
Web of Things”, in Proc. of INSS 2009 (IEEE Sixth International Conference on
Networked Sensing Systems), Pittsburgh, USA, June 2009
10. World-Wide
Web
Consortium
(W3C),
“SOAP
Version
1.2”,
W3C
Recommendation, 2nd edition, 27 April 2008
11. E. Zeeb, A. Bobek, H. Bohn, S. Prüter, A. Pohl, H. Krumm, I. Lück, F.
Golatowski, and D. Timmermann, “WS4D: SOA-Toolkits making embedded
systems ready for Web Services,” in Proceedings of the Open Source Software
and Product Lines Workshop (OSSPL07), 2007.
12. Berg Insight, “Smart Metering in Western Europe”, M2M Research Series, June
2009
13. K. Daniel, B. Dusza, A. Lewandowski, and C. Wietfeld, “AirShield: A System-ofSystems MUAV Remote Sensing Architecture for Disaster Response”, IEEE
International Systems Conference, March 2009, pp. 196-200.
14. Wikipedia,“
Definition
of
Identity
(philosophy)”,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_(philosophy), last accessed May 22, 2010
15. EU FP7 Project CASAGRAS, “CASAGRAS Final Report: RFID and the
Inclusive Model for the Internet of Things”, 2009, pp. 43-54.
16. C. Kürschner, C. Condea, and O. Kasten, “Discovery Service Design in the
EPCglobal Network : Towards Full Supply Chain Visibility”, in C. Floerkemeier
et al. (Eds.), “Internet of Things – IOT 2008”, LNCS 4952, Springer Verlag 2008,
pp. 19-34.
17. T. He, J. Stankovic, C. Lu and T. Abdelzaher, A Spatiotemporal Communication
Protocol for Wireless Sensor Networks, IEEE Transactions on Parallel and
Distributed Systems, Vol. 16, No. 10, Oct. 2005, pp. 995-1006.
18. M. Huang, J. Li, X. Song, and H. Guo, Modeling Impulsive Injections of Insulin:
Towards Artificial Pancreas. SIAM Journal of Applied Mathematics 72, 5, 2012,
pp. 1524–1548.
19. M. Kay, E. Choe, J. Shepherd, B. Greenstein, N. Watson, S. Consolvo, and J.
Kientz, Lullaby: a Capture & Access System for Understanding the Sleep
Environment. UbiComp, 2012.
20. A Liu, and D. Salvucci, Modeling and Prediction of Human Driver Behavior, Intl.
Conference on HCI , 2001.
21. J. Lu, T. Sookoor, V. Srinivasan, G. Gao, B. Holben J. Stankovic, E. Field, and
K. Whitehouse, The Smart Thermostat: Using Occupancy Sensors to Save Energy
in Homes, ACM SenSys, 2010.
22. M. Maroti, B. Kusy, G. Simon, and A. Ledeczi, The Flooding Time
Synchronization Protocol, ACM SenSys, November 2004.
23. S. Mohammed, P. Fraisse, D. Guiraud, P. Poignet, and H. Makssoud, Towards
a Co-contraction Muscle Control strategy for Paraplegics. CDC- ECC, 2005.
24. S. Munir, J. Stankovic, C. Liang, and S. Lin, New Cyber Physical System
Challenges for Human-in-the-Loop Control, 8th International Workshop on
Feedback Computing, June 2013.
25. S. Munir and J. Stankovic, DepSys: Dependency Aware Integration of Systems
for Smart Homes, submitted for publication.