Advertisement

Mobile Networks and Applications

, Volume 19, Issue 1, pp 18–32 | Cite as

BeC 3: Behaviour Crowd Centric Composition for IoT applications

  • Sylvain Cherrier
  • Ismail Salhi
  • Yacine M. Ghamri-Doudane
  • Stéphane Lohier
  • Philippe Valembois
Article

Abstract

Service Oriented Computing (SOC) is a common way to build applications/services by composing distributed bricks of logic. Recently, the SOC paradigm has been considered for the design and implementation of Internet of Things (IoT) applications by abstracting objects as service providers or consumers. Based on this trend, we proposed in a previous work D-LITe: a lightweight RESTful virtual machine that allows ubiquitous logic description and deployment for IoT applications using Finite State Transducers (FST). Though D-LITe allows faster and more efficient application creation for heterogeneous objects, it turns out that FST design can be fastidious for inexperienced users. With that in mind, we propose in this paper BeC 3 (Behaviour Crowd Centric Composition) an innovative crowd centric architecture, grounded on D-LITe. It provides a simpler way to compose interactions between IoT components. The idea is to reverse the bottom-up approach of SOC by a rather top-down vision in which the user expresses the expected result of his application by composing behaviours that are proposed by contributors. These behaviours are deployed on each concerned component, which then act exactly as needed to fulfil their role in the composition. The crowd-Centric aspect of this platform allows a community-based design, granting a wide panel of modular and incremental interactions for a wide variety of components. Eventually, BeC 3 will give inexperienced users the ability to organise, interconnect and compose both state of the art web-services and IoT components to create interactive 2.0-like applications for the IoT.

Keywords

Services oriented computing Internet of things M2M networks 

References

  1. 1.
    Akyildiz I, Kasimoglu I (2004) Wireless sensor and actor networks: research challenges. Ad hoc Netw 2(4):351–367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Atzori L, Iera A, Morabito G (2010) The internet of things: a survey. Comput Netw 54(15):2787–2805CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ballesteros FJ, Soriano E, Guardiola OG (2012) An upperware based system for building personal pervasive environments. J Syst Softw 85(7):1637–1649CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Berardi D, Cheikh F, De Giacomo G, Patrizi F, Ibarra O (2008) Automatic service composition via simulation. Int J Found Comp Sci 19(2):429–451CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brabham D (2008) Crowdsourcing as a model for problem solving an introduction and cases. Converg Int J Res New Media Technol 14(1):75–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bultan T, Su J, Fu X (2006) Analyzing conversations of web services. Internet Comput, IEEE 10(1):18–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Calvanese D, De Giacomo G, Lenzerini M, Mecella M, Patrizi F (2008) Automatic service composition and synthesis: the roman model. IEEE Data Eng Bull 31(3):18–22Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cherrier S, Ghamri-Doudane Y, Lohier S, Roussel G (2011) D-lite: distributed logic for internet of things services. In: 2011 IEEE international conferences on internet of things, and cyber, physical and social computing. IEEE, pp 16–24Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cherrier S, Ghamri-Doudane Y, Lohier S, Roussel G (2012) Services collaboration in wireless sensor and actuator networks: orchestration versus choreography. In: 17th IEEE Symposium on computers and communications (ISCC’12). Cappadocia, p 8Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Curbera F, Goland Y, Klein J, Leymann F, Weerawarana S et al. (2003) Business process execution language for web services, version 1.1Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dunkels A, Gronvall B, Voigt T (2004) Contiki-a lightweight and flexible operating system for tiny networked sensors. Local computer networks. In: Annual IEEE conference on, 0. pp 455–462Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fi-ware internet of things(iot) service enablement (2011) http://www.fi-ware.eu/
  13. 13.
    Green D, Hulen R, Moody J (2008) IPV6 sensor service oriented architecture. In: Military communications conference, pp 1–6Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Guinard D, Trifa V (2009) Towards the web of things: web mashups for embedded devices. In: Workshop on mashups, enterprise mashups and lightweight composition on the web (MEM 2009), in proceedings of WWW (International World Wide Web Conferences). Citeseer, MadridGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Guinard D, Trifa V, Wilde E (2010) A resource oriented architecture for the web of things. In: Proceedings of IoTGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gummadi R, Gnawali O, Govindan R (2005) Macro-programming wireless sensor networks using kairos. In: Distributed computing in sensor systems. Springer, pp 126–140Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hernández-Muñoz JM, Vercher JB, Muñoz L, Galache JA, Presser M, Gómez LAH, Pettersson J (2011) Smart cities at the forefront of the future internet. In: The future internet. Springer, pp 447–462Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kavantzas N, Burdett D, Ritzinger G, Fletcher T, Lafon Y, Barreto C (2004) Web services choreography description language version 1.0. W3C Working Draft 17:10–20041217Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kovatsch M, Lanter M, Duquennoy S (2012) Actinium: a restful runtime container for scriptable internet of things applications. In: Internet of things (IOT), 2012 3rd international conference on the IEEE, pp 135–142Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Nayak A, Stojmenović I (2009) Wireless sensor and actuator networks. WileyGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Nielsen J (2006) Participation inequality: lurkers vs. contributors in internet communities. Jakob Nielsen’s AlertboxGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Pintus A, Carboni D, Piras A, Giordano A (2010) Connecting smart things through web services orchestrations. Curr Trends Web Eng LNCS 6385:431–441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Presser M, Barnaghi PM, Eurich M, Villalonga C (2009) The sensei project: integrating the physical world with the digital world of the network of the future. IEEE Commun Mag 47(4):1–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Qiu Z, Zhao X, Cai C, Yang H (2007) Towards the theoretical foundation of choreography. In: Proceedings of the 16th international conference on world wide web. ACM, pp 973–982Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Shelby Z, Bormann C (2010) 6LoWPAN: The wireless embedded internet. WileyGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Shelby Z, Frank B, Sturek D (2010) Constrained application protocol (coap). An online version is available at http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-core-coap-18.txt
  27. 27.
    Su J, Bultan T, Fu X, Zhao X (2008) Towards a theory of web service choreographies. Web Serve and Formal Methods LNCS 4937:1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Welsh M, Mainland G (2004) Programming sensor networks using abstract regions, vol 4. NSDI, pp 3–3Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Wilde E (2007) Putting things to rest. UC Berkeley: School of information http://escholarship.org/uc/item/1786t1dm
  30. 30.
    Ziegler S, Crettaz C, Ladid L, Krco S, Pokric B, Skarmeta AF, Jara A, Kastner W, Jung M (2013) Iot6–moving to an ipv6-based future iot. In: The future internet. Springer, pp 161–172Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sylvain Cherrier
    • 1
  • Ismail Salhi
    • 1
  • Yacine M. Ghamri-Doudane
    • 1
    • 2
  • Stéphane Lohier
    • 1
  • Philippe Valembois
    • 1
  1. 1.Laboratoire d’Informatique Gaspard-Monge (LIGM)Université Paris-EstMarne-la-Vallée Cedex 2France
  2. 2.L3i LabUniversity of La RochelleLa Rochelle Cedex 1France

Personalised recommendations