An Ontology-Centric Approach to Sensor-Mission Assignment

  • Mario Gomez
  • Alun Preece
  • Matthew P. Johnson
  • Geeth de Mel
  • Wamberto Vasconcelos
  • Christopher Gibson
  • Amotz Bar-Noy
  • Konrad Borowiecki
  • Thomas La Porta
  • Diego Pizzocaro
  • Hosam Rowaihy
  • Gavin Pearson
  • Tien Pham
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5268)

Abstract

Sensor-mission assignment involves the allocation of sensor and other information-providing resources to missions in order to cover the information needs of the individual tasks in each mission. This is an important problem in the intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) domain, where sensors are typically over-subscribed, and task requirements change dynamically. This paper approaches the sensor-mission assignment problem from a Semantic Web perspective: the core of the approach is a set of ontologies describing mission tasks, sensors, and deployment platforms. Semantic reasoning is used to recommend collections of types of sensors and platforms that are known to be “fit-for-purpose” for a particular task, during the mission planning process. These recommended solutions are used to constrain a search for available instances of sensors and platforms that can be allocated at mission execution-time to the relevant tasks. An interface to the physical sensor environment allows the instances to be configured to operate as a coherent whole and deliver the necessary data to users. Feedback loops exist throughout, allowing re-planning of the sensor-task fitness, reallocation of instances, and reconfiguration of the sensor network.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Paolucci, M., Kawamura, T., Payne, T.R., Sycara, K.P.: Semantic matching of web services capabilities. In: Horrocks, I., Hendler, J. (eds.) ISWC 2002. LNCS, vol. 2342, pp. 333–347. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sheehan, J.H., Deitz, P.H., Bray, B.E., Harris, B.A., Wong, A.B.H.: The military missions and means framework. In: Proceedings of the Interservice/Industry Training and Simulation and Education Conference, pp. 655–663 (2003)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Robin, A., Havens, S., Cox, S., Ricker, J., Lake, R., Niedzwiadek, H.: OpenGIS© sensor model language (SensorML) implementation specification. Technical report, Open Geospatial Consortium Inc. (2006)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Russomanno, D.J., Kothari, C., Thomas, O.: Building a sensor ontology: A practical approach leveraging ISO and OGC models. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 637–643 (2005)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    McMullen, D., Reichherzer, T.: The common instrument middleware architecture (CIMA): Instrument ontology & applications. In: Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Formal Ontologies Meets Industry (FOMI 2006), Trento, Italy, pp. 655–663 (2006)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bermudez, L., Graybeal, J., Arko, R.: A marine platforms ontology: Experiences and lessons. In: Cruz, I., Decker, S., Allemang, D., Preist, C., Schwabe, D., Mika, P., Uschold, M., Aroyo, L.M. (eds.) ISWC 2006. LNCS, vol. 4273. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Baader, F., Calvanese, D., McGuinness, D.L., Nardi, D., Patel-Schneider, P.F. (eds.): Description Logic Handbook. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2003)MATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Castillo, G.J., Trastour, D., Bartolini, C.: Description logics for matchmaking of services. In: Proceedings of Workshop on Application of Description Logics (KI 2001) (2001)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Di Noia, T., Di Sciascio, E., Donini, F.M.: Semantic matchmaking as non-monotonic reasoning: A description logic approach. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research (JAIR) 29, 269–307 (2007)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Tutton, S.J.: Optimizing the allocation of sensor assets for the unit of action. Technical report, Naval Postgraduate School, California, Master Thesis (2006)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bar-Noy, A., Brown, T., Johnson, M., La Porta, T., Liu, O., Rowaihy, H.: Assigning sensors to missions with demands. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Algorithmic Aspects of Wireless Sensor Networks (2007)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rowaihy, H., Johnson, M., Bar-Noy, T.B.A., La Porta, T.: Assigning Sensors to Competing Missions. Technical Report NAS-TR-0080-2007, Network and Security Research Center, Pennsylvania State University (October 2007)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Pizzocaro, D., Chalmers, S., Preece, A.: Sensor assignment in virtual environments using constraint programming. In: Proceedings 27th SGAI International Conference on Innovative Techniques and Applications of Artificial Intelligence, pp. 333–338. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bergamaschi, F., Conway-Jones, D., Gibson, C., Stanford-Clark, A.: A distributed test framework for the validation of experimental algorithms using real and simulated sensors. In: First Annual Conference of the International Technology Alliance (ACITA 2007) (2007)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mario Gomez
    • 1
  • Alun Preece
    • 2
  • Matthew P. Johnson
    • 3
  • Geeth de Mel
    • 1
  • Wamberto Vasconcelos
    • 1
  • Christopher Gibson
    • 4
  • Amotz Bar-Noy
    • 3
  • Konrad Borowiecki
    • 2
  • Thomas La Porta
    • 5
  • Diego Pizzocaro
    • 2
  • Hosam Rowaihy
    • 5
  • Gavin Pearson
    • 6
  • Tien Pham
    • 7
  1. 1.University of AberdeenUK
  2. 2.Cardiff UniversityUK
  3. 3.City University of New YorkUSA
  4. 4.IBMUK
  5. 5.Pennsylvania State UniversityUSA
  6. 6.Defence Science and Technology LaboratoryUK
  7. 7.Army Research LaboratoryUSA

Personalised recommendations