Advertisement

SECoG: semantically enhanced mashup of CoAP-based IoT services

  • Xiongnan Jin
  • Jooik Jung
  • Sejin Chun
  • Seungjun Yoon
  • Kyong-Ho LeeEmail author
Original Research Paper
  • 15 Downloads

Abstract

One of the noticeable characteristics of the Internet-of-Things (IoT) devices is that they are resource-constrained, which makes them incompatible with the standard Internet protocols, e.g., HTTP. Nevertheless, IoT offers the Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) as an alternative protocol for IoT devices where it is considered to be lightweight in regard to power consumption, network traffic, and so on. The main challenges associated with CoAP, however, still remain unsolved where most of the state-of-the-art approaches group servers manually and return the exact matches only. To address these issues, we propose a novel Semantically Enhanced CoAP Gateway (SECoG) for complex service mashups. SECoG enables users to create a simple or complex CoAP service mashup via a single HTTP request. Furthermore, a prototype implementation of SECoG was deployed on a real-world testbed to evaluate the proposed approach in terms of the reliability, execution time, network traffic, and accuracy.

Keywords

Internet of Things Constrained Application Protocol Semantically Enhanced CoAP Gateway Complex service mashup 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by Korea Electric Power Corporation (Grant No.: R18XA05).

References

  1. 1.
    Castro M, Jara AJ, Skarmeta AF (2016) Enabling end-to-end CoAP-based communications for the Web of Things. J Netw Comput Appl 59:230–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chun S, Seo S, Oh B, Lee K-H. (2015) Semantic description, discovery and integration for the Internet of Things. In: Proceedings of the international conference on semantic computing (ICSC), pp 272–275Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Compton M, Barnaghi P, Bermudez L, GarcíA-Castro R, Corcho O, Cox S, Huang V et al (2012) The SSN ontology of the W3C semantic sensor network incubator group. Web Semant Sci Serv Agents World Wide Web 17:25–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fu X, Yue K, Liu L, Zou P, Feng Y (2015) Discovering admissible Web services with uncertain QoS. Front Comput Sci 9(2):265–279MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hajlaoui JE, Omri MN, Benslimane D, Barhamgi M (2017) QoS based framework for configurable IaaS cloud services discovery. In: Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on web services (ICWS), pp 460–467Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hasemann H, Kleine O, Krller A, Leggieri M, Pfisterer D (2013) Annotating real-world objects using semantic entities. In: Proceedings of the European conference on wireless sensor networks (EWSN), February 2013, pp 67–82Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Han SN, Khan I, Lee GM, Crespi N, Glitho RH (2016) Service composition for IP smart object using realtime Web protocols: concept and research challenges. Comput Stand Interfaces 43:79–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hou CD, Li D, Qiu JF, Shi HL, Cui L (2014) SeaHttp: a resource-oriented protocol to extend REST style for Web of Things. J Comput Sci Technol 29(2):205–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ishaq I, Hoebeke J, Van den Abeele F, Rossey J, Moerman I, Demeester P (2014) Flexible unicast-based group communication for CoAP-enabled devices. Sensors 14(6):9833–9877CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ishaq I, Hoebeke J, Moerman I, Demeester P (2016) Observing CoAP groups efficiently. Ad Hoc Netw 37:368–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jiang W, Wu T, Hu SL, Liu ZY (2011) QoS-aware automatic service composition: a graph view. J Comput Sci Technol 26(5):837–853CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jin X, Chun S, Jung J, Lee K-H (Nov 2014) IoT service selection based on physical service model and absolute dominance relationship. In: Proceedings of the international conference on service-oriented computing and applications (SOCA), pp 65–72Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jin X, Chun S, Jung J, Lee K-H (2016) A fast and scalable approach for IoT service selection based on a physical service model. Inf Syst Front 19(6):1357–1372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jung J, Chun S, Jin X, Lee K-H (2016) Enabling smart objects discovery via constructing hypergraphs of heterogeneous IoT interactions. J Inf Sci.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0165551516674164
  15. 15.
    Kim M, Oh B, Jung J, Lee K-H (2016) Outlier-robust web service selection based on a probabilistic QoS model. Int J Web Grid Serv 12(2):162–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kovatsch M, Lanter M, Shelby Z. (Mar 2014) Californium: scalable cloud services for the internet of things with CoAP. In: Proceedings of the IEEE world forum on Internet of Things (WF-IoT), pp 1–6Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ludovici A, Calveras A (2015) A proxy design to leverage the interconnection of CoAP wireless sensor networks with web applications. Sensors 15(1):1217–1244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Luo JZ, Zhou JY, Wu ZA (2009) An adaptive algorithm for QoS-aware service composition in grid environments. Serv Oriented Comput Appl 3(3):217–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Moussa H, Gao T, Yen IL, Bastani F, Jeng JJ (2010) Toward effective service composition for real-time SOA-based systems. Serv Oriented Comput Appl 4(1):17–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Resnik P (1995) Using information content to evaluate semantic similarity in a taxonomy. In: Proceedings of the international joint conference on AI (IJCAI), pp 448–453Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Shelby Z, Bormann C (2014) Core resource directory. https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-core-resource-directory-00. Accessed Aug 2018
  22. 22.
    Shelby Z, Hartke K, Bormann C (2014) The constrained application protocol (CoAP). https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-core-coap-18. Accessed Aug 2018
  23. 23.
    Shin DH, Lee K-H, Ishikawa F (2014) A graph-based approach enhancing correctness and speed of web services composition through explicit specification of functional semantics. Int J Web Grid Serv 10(4):297–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wang H, Huang G, Yu Q (2016) Automatic hierarchical reinforcement learning for efficient large-scale service composition. In: Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on web services (ICWS), pp 57–64Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Xu B, Luo S, Yan Y, Sun K (2012) Towards efficiency of QoS-driven semantic web service composition for large-scale service-oriented systems. Serv Oriented Comput Appl 6(1):1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Zeng L, Benatallah B, Dumas M, Kalagnanam J, Sheng QZ (2003) Quality driven web services composition. In: Proceedings of the international conference on World Wide Web (WWW), pp 411–421Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Zhang MW, Zhang B, Liu Y, Na J, Zhu ZL (2010) Web service composition based on QoS rules. J Comput Sci Technol 25(6):1143–1156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Zhang R, Zettsu K, Kidawara Y, Kiyoki Y, Zhou A (2013) Context-sensitive Web service discovery over the bipartite graph model. Front Comput Sci 7(6):875–893MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Zhu W, Bastani F, Yen I L, Fu J, Zhang Y (2017) Automated holistic service composition: modeling and composition reasoning techniques. In: Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on web services (ICWS), pp 596–603Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Xiongnan Jin
    • 1
  • Jooik Jung
    • 1
  • Sejin Chun
    • 1
  • Seungjun Yoon
    • 1
  • Kyong-Ho Lee
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceYonsei UniversitySeoulRepublic of Korea

Personalised recommendations