End-User Development for the Internet of Things: EFESTO and the 5W Composition Paradigm

  • Giuseppe Desolda
  • Carmelo Ardito
  • Maristella Matera
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 696)

Abstract

This paper illustrates a composition paradigm and a related tool to express rules for smart object composition. The composition paradigm is characterized by operators for coupling multiple events and conditions exposed by smart objects, and for defining temporal and spatial constraints on rule activation. The design of the composition paradigm is based on the results of an elicitation study that involved 25 participants.

Keywords

End-User Development of mashups Visual paradigms for ECA rule expression Internet of Thing 

References

  1. 1.
    Atzori, L., Iera, A., Morabito, G.: The Internet of Things: a survey. Comput. Netw. 54(15), 2787–2805 (2010)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Tetteroo, D., Markopoulos, P., Valtolina, S., Paternò, F., Pipek, V., Burnett, M.: End-user development in the Internet of Things era. In: Proceedings of CHI 2015, Seoul, pp. 2405–2408 (2015)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Desolda, G., Ardito, C., Matera, M.: Empowering end users to customize their smart environments: model, composition paradigms and tools. Technical report (2016)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Desolda, G., Ardito, C., Matera, M.: EFESTO: a platform for the end-user development of interactive workspaces for data exploration. In: Daniel, F., Pautasso, C. (eds.) RMC 2015. CCIS, vol. 591, pp. 63–81. Springer, Heidelberg (2016). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-28727-0_5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Desolda, G.: Enhancing workspace composition by exploiting linked open data as a polymorphic data source. In: Damiani, E., Howlett, R.J., Jain, L.C., Gallo, L., De Pietro, G. (eds.) Intelligent Interactive Multimedia Systems and Services. SIST, vol. 40, pp. 97–108. Springer, Heidelberg (2015). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-19830-9_9 Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Daniel, F., Matera, M.: Mashups: Concepts, Models and Architectures. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Coronado, M., Iglesias, C.A.: Task automation services: automation for the masses. IEEE Internet Comput. 20(1), 52–58 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    IFTTT. https://ifttt.com/. Accessed 3 Dec 2015
  9. 9.
    Ardito, C., Costabile, M.F., Desolda, G., Lanzilotti, R., Matera, M., Picozzi, M.: Visual composition of data sources by end-users. In: Proceedings of AVI 2014, Como, 28–30 May, pp. 257–260 (2014)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    ELASTIC.IO GMBH. http://www.elastic.io/. Accessed 25 July 2016
  11. 11.
    Zapier. https://zapier.com/. Accessed 25 Mar 2016
  12. 12.
    Atooma. https://www.atooma.com/. Accessed 25 Mar 2016
  13. 13.
    Cabitza, F., Fogli, D., Lanzilotti, R., Piccinno, A.: Rule-based tools for the configuration of ambient intelligence systems: a comparative user study. Multimed. Tools Appl. 75(248), 1–21 (2016)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    AutomateIt. http://automateitapp.com/. Accessed 25 Mar 2016
  15. 15.
    Tasker. http://tasker.dinglisch.net/index.html. Accessed 25 Mar 2016
  16. 16.
    Technology IE. http://nodered.org/. Accessed 26 Nov 2015
  17. 17.
    Namoun, A., Nestler, T., Angeli, A.: Conceptual and Usability Issues in the Composable Web of Software Services. In: Daniel, F., Facca, F.M. (eds.) ICWE 2010. LNCS, vol. 6385, pp. 396–407. Springer, Heidelberg (2010). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-16985-4_35 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Namoun, A., Nestler, T., Angeli, A.D.: Service composition for non-programmers: prospects, problems, and design recommendations. In: Proceedings of ECOWS 2010. Washington, DC, pp. 123–130 (2010)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Zang, N., Rosson, M.B.: What’s in a mashup? And why? Studying the perceptions of web-active end users. In: Proceedings of VL-HCC 2008, Herrsching, 15–19 September, pp. 31–38 (2008)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bip.io. https://bip.io/. Accessed 25 Mar 2016
  21. 21.
    Spacebrew. http://docs.spacebrew.cc/. Accessed 25 Mar 2016
  22. 22.
    Zipato. https://www.zipato.com/. Accessed 25 March 2016
  23. 23.
    Fogli, D., Lanzilotti, R., Piccinno, A.: End-User development tools for the smart home: a systematic literature review. In: Streitz, N., Markopoulos, P. (eds.) DAPI 2016. LNCS, vol. 9749, pp. 69–79. Springer, Heidelberg (2016). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-39862-4_7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wajid, U., Namoun, A., Mehandjiev, N.: Alternative representations for end user composition of service-based systems. In: Costabile, M.F., Dittrich, Y., Fischer, G., Piccinno, A. (eds.) IS-EUD 2011. LNCS, vol. 6654, pp. 53–66. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-21530-8_6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Namoun, A., Wajid, U., Mehandjiev, N.: Service composition for everyone: a study of risks and benefits. In: Dan, A., Gittler, F., Toumani, F. (eds.) ICSOC/ServiceWave -2009. LNCS, vol. 6275, pp. 550–559. Springer, Heidelberg (2010). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-16132-2_52 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Barricelli, B.R., Valtolina, S.: Designing for end-user development in the Internet of Things. In: Díaz, P., Pipek, V., Ardito, C., Jensen, C., Aedo, I., Boden, A. (eds.) IS-EUD 2015. LNCS, vol. 9083, pp. 9–24. Springer, Heidelberg (2015). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-18425-8_2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Rode, J.A., Toye, E.F., Blackwell, A.F.: The fuzzy felt ethnography—understanding the programming patterns of domestic appliances. Pers. Ubiquitous Comput. 8(3–4), 161–176 (2004)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Pivotal Software. https://spring.io/. Accessed 21 July
  29. 29.
    Ardito, C., Costabile, M.F., Desolda, G., Lanzilotti, R., Matera, M., Piccinno, A., Picozzi, M.: User-driven visual composition of service-based interactive spaces. J. Vis. Lang. Comput. 25(4), 278–296 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Yu, J., Benatallah, B., Saint-Paul, R., Casati, F., Daniel, F., Matera, M.: A framework for rapid integration of presentation components. In: Proceedings of WWW 2007, Banff, 8–12 May, pp. 923–932 (2007)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Cappiello, C., Matera, M., Picozzi, M., Sprega, G., Barbagallo, D., Francalanci, C.: DashMash: a mashup environment for end user development. In: Auer, S., Díaz, O., Papadopoulos, G.A. (eds.) ICWE 2011. LNCS, vol. 6757, pp. 152–166. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-22233-7_11 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Terracotta. http://www.quartz-scheduler.org/. Accessed 21 July
  33. 33.
    Li, S., Xu, L., Zhao, S.: The Internet of Things: a survey. Inf. Syst. Front. 17(2), 243–259 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Costabile, M.F., Fogli, D., Mussio, P., Piccinno, A.: Visual interactive systems for end-user development: a model-based design methodology. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Part A Syst. Hum. 37(6), 1029–1046 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Giuseppe Desolda
    • 1
  • Carmelo Ardito
    • 1
  • Maristella Matera
    • 2
  1. 1.Dipartimento di InformaticaUniversità degli Studi di Bari Aldo MoroBariItaly
  2. 2.Dipartimento di Elettronica, Informazione e BioingegneriaPolitecnico di MilanoMilanItaly

Personalised recommendations