Telecommunication Systems

, Volume 40, Issue 1–2, pp 27–37 | Cite as

A computational intelligence method for traversing dynamically constructed networks of knowledge

  • Kevin Curran
  • Matthias Baumgarten
  • Maurice Mulvenna
  • Chris Nugent
  • Kieran Greer


A core goal for autonomous systems such as proposed here is automated collaboration in order to perform tasks or share information. The system is always distributed by default and frequently on a large-scale. It can be argued that robustness and economy demand the deployment of a tested autonomic supporting infrastructure whenever possible. A knowledge network is a generic structure that organises distributed knowledge of any format into a system that will allow it to be retrieved efficiently. The rationale of the knowledge network is to act as a middle layer that connects to a multitude of sources, organises them based on various concepts and finally provides well-structured, pre-organised knowledge to individual services and applications. To use the knowledge network we need a querying mechanism to be able to retrieve information. The knowledge network will organise itself in an autonomous manner and it is possible to use the querying mechanism also as part of the knowledge organization mechanism, to autonomously create temporary views that reflect the use of the system. This paper is an attempt to investigate the peculiarities of node behaviour in traversing such a knowledge network. We investigate a variety of methods of traversing a knowledge network.


Network simulation Autonomous Knowledge Network Self-organisation Self-adaptation 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Doval, D., & O’Mahony, D. (2003). Overlay networks. IEEE Internet Computing, Jul/Aug, 79–82. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Saltzer, J. H., Reed, D. P., & Clark, D. D. (1984). End-to-end arguments in system design. ACM Transactions on Computer Systems, 2(4), 277–288. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Calvert, K., Edwards, W. K., & Grinter, R. (2007). Moving toward the middle: the case against the end-to-end argument in home networking. In Proceedings of the sixth workshop on hot topics in networks, HotNets-VI, November 14–15, 2007, Atlanta, Georgia, USA. Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sterritt, R., Mulvenna, M., & Lawrynowicz, A. (2004). Dynamic and contextualised behavioural knowledge in autonomic communications. In Proc. of the 1st IFIP workshop on autonomic communications. Berlin: Springer. Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Balkenius, C., & Moren, J. (2000). A computational model of context processing. In 6th international conference on the simulation of adaptive behaviour. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Buchholz, T., Kupper, A., & Schiffers, M. (2003). Quality of context: What it is and why we need it. In Workshop HP OpenView University Association (HPOVUA 2003), Geneve. Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Melcher, B., & Mitchell, B. (2004). Towards an autonomic framework: self-configuring network services and developing autonomic applications. Intel Technology Journal, 8(4), 279–290. Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Baumgarten, M., Bicocchi, N., Curran, K., Mamei, M., Mulvenna, M. D., Nugent, C., & Zambonelli, F. (2006). Towards self-organizing knowledge networks for smart World infrastructures. In Self-organization and autonomous systems in computing and communications (SOAS’2006), Erfurt, Germany, 18–21 September 2006. Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rooney, S., Bauer, D., & Scotton, P. (2006). Techniques for integrating sensors into the enterprise network. IEEE Transactions on Network and Service Management, 2(1). Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rooney, S., Bauer, D., & Scotton, P. (2006). Edge server software architecture for sensor applications. In Saint 2005, Symposium on applications and the Internet, Trento, Italy, Feb. 2005 (pp. 64–73). Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    NS (2006). Network simulator,
  12. 12.
    Badishi, G., Keidar, I., & Sasson, A. (2006). Exposing and eliminating vulnerabilities to denial of service attacks in secure gossip-based multicast. IEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure Computing, 3(1), 45–61. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    He, Y., Raghavendra, C., & Berson, S. (2003). A programmable routing framework for autonomic sensor networks. In Autonomic computing workshop fifth annual international workshop on active middleware services (AMS’03), Seattle, USA, June 2003. Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Vassilopoulos, D., Pilioura, T., & Tsalgatidou, A. (2006). Distributed technologies CORBA, Enterprise JavaBeans, Web Services—A comparative presentation (pp. 280–284). Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Davis, A., & Zhang, D. (2005). A comparative study of SOAP and DCOM. Journal of Systems and Software, 76(2), 157–169. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Inverardi, P., & Tivoli, M. (2003). Deadlock-free software architectures for COM/DCOM applications. Journal of Systems and Software, 65(3), 173–183. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kevin Curran
    • 1
  • Matthias Baumgarten
    • 1
  • Maurice Mulvenna
    • 1
  • Chris Nugent
    • 1
  • Kieran Greer
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of Computing and EngineeringUniversity of UlsterNorthern IrelandUK

Personalised recommendations