Advertisement

Asymmetric Interoperability for Software Services in Smart City Environments

  • José C. DelgadoEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

Interoperability of software services is one of the main challenges of smart city environments, since there is a huge number of interconnected small devices (Internet of Things) which implement and provide a wide variety of fine-grained software services. Classical approaches, such as Service Oriented Architecture (SOA) and RESTful APIs, in which both interacting services share the same data schema, usually lead to a coupling problem, since a service cannot change the schema of its messages without changing it as well in the services with which it interacts. This chapter proposes an asymmetric interoperability approach, in which the schema used to produce a message does not have to be identical to the schema of the messages expected by the receiver. This asymmetry in interoperability is based on the concepts of structural compliance and conformance, which state that schemas need only be compatible in the message components that are actually used and not in the full message schema. This reduces service coupling and allows a service to interact with others, which send or receive messages with different schemas, and to replace another one with a new schema without impairing existing interactions. Simple models of interoperability, coupling, adaptability, and changeability are proposed to justify the usefulness of the compliance and conformance concepts. A few implementation examples, using JSON, are also presented.

Keywords

Smart cities Internet of Things Interoperability Coupling Changeability Compliance Conformance Service Schema 

References

  1. 1.
    Mohanty S, Choppali U, Kougianos E (2016) Everything you wanted to know about smart cities: The internet of things is the backbone. IEEE Consum Electron Mag, 5.3:60–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    World Health Organization (2016) Global report on urban health: equitable healthier cities for sustainable development. World Health Organization. Available via http://www.who.int/kobe_centre/measuring/urban-global-report/en/. Accessed 26 Oct 2017
  3. 3.
    Yaqoob I, Ahmed E, Hashem I, Ahmed A, Gani A, Imran M, Guizani M (2017) Internet of things architecture: Recent advances, taxonomy, requirements, and open challenges. IEEE Wirel Commun, 24.3:10–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rayes A, Samer S (2017) Internet of Things—From Hype to Reality. Springer International Publishing, Cham, SwitzerlandCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    van der Meulen R (2017) Gartner Says 8.4 Billion Connected “Things” Will Be in Use in 2017, Up 31 Percent From 2016. Available via https://www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/3598917. Accessed 26 Oct 2017
  6. 6.
    Nordrum A (2016) Popular Internet of Things Forecast of 50 Billion Devices by 2020 Is Outdated. Available via http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/telecom/internet/popular-internet-of-things-forecast-of-50-billion-devices-by-2020-is-outdated. Accessed 26 Oct 2017
  7. 7.
    Ahlgren B, Hidell M, Ngai E (2016) Internet of Things for Smart Cities: Interoperability and Open Data. IEEE Internet Comp, 20.6:52–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gyrard A, Serrano M (2016) Connected smart cities: Interoperability with SEG 3.0 for the internet of things. In: Proceedings of the 30th IEEE International Conference on Advanced Information Networking and Applications, p 796–802. IEEE Computer Society Press, PiscatawayGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gazis V (2017) A Survey of Standards for Machine-to-Machine and the Internet of Things. IEEE Commun Surv & Tutor, 19.1:482–511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fawcett J, Ayers D, Quin L (2012) Beginning XML. John Wiley & Sons, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bassett L (2015) Introduction to JavaScript Object Notation: A To-the-Point Guide to JSON. O’Reilly Media, Inc, SebastopolGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Erl T (2016) Service-oriented architecture: concepts, technology, and design (2nd Edition). Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Pautasso C, Wilde E, Alarcon R (ed) (2014) REST: advanced research topics and practical applications. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Khatoun R, Zeadally S (2016) Smart cities: concepts, architectures, research opportunities. Commun ACM, 59:8, 46–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rathore M, Ahmad A, Paul A, Rho S (2016) Urban planning and building smart cities based on the internet of things using big data analytics. Comp Netw, 101:63–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Doran D, Severin K, Gokhale S, Dagnino A (2016) Social media enabled human sensing for smart cities. AI Commun, 29:1, 57–75MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Vinod Kumar T, Dahiya B (2017) Smart Economy in Smart Cities. In: Vinod Kumar T (ed) Smart Economy in Smart Cities. Advances in 21st Century Human Settlements. Springer, Singapore. In: Vinod Kumar T (ed) Smart Economy in Smart Cities, p 3–76. Springer, SingaporeGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Calvillo C, Sánchez-Miralles A, Villar J (2016) Energy management and planning in smart cities. Renew Sustain Energy Rev, 55:273–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Peris-Ortiz M, Bennett D, Yábar D (eds) (2017) Sustainable Smart Cities. Innovation, Technology, and Knowledge Management. Springer International Publishing, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Botta A, de Donato W, Persico V, Pescapé A (2016) Integration of cloud computing and internet of things: a survey. Future Generation Computer Systems, 56:684–700CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sun H, Wang C, Ahmad B (eds) (2017) From Internet of Things to Smart Cities: Enabling Technologies. CRC PressGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Qin Y, Sheng Q, Falkner N, Dustdar S, Wang H, Vasilakos A (2016) When things matter: A survey on data-centric internet of things. J Netw Comp Appl, 64:137–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Nitti M, Pilloni V, Colistra G, Atzori L (2016) The virtual object as a major element of the internet of things: a survey. IEEE Commun Surv Tutor, 18.2:1228–1240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Panetto H, Zdravkovic M, Jardim-Goncalves R, Romero D, Cecil J, Mezgár I (2016) New perspectives for the future interoperable enterprise systems. Comp Ind, 79:47–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Gil-Garcia J, Zhang J, Puron-Cid G (2016) Conceptualizing smartness in government: An integrative and multi-dimensional view. Gov Inf Q, 33.3:524–534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Díaz M, Martín C, Rubio B (2016) State-of-the-art, challenges, and open issues in the integration of Internet of things and cloud computing. J Netw Comp Appl, 67:99–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Pramanik M, Lau R, Demirkan H, Azad M (2017) Smart health: Big data enabled health paradigm within smart cities. Expert Syst Appl, 87:370–383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Rashid B, Rehmani M (2016) Applications of wireless sensor networks for urban areas: A survey. J Netw Comp Appl, 60:192–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Laouiti A, Qayyum A, Saad M (eds) (2016) Vehicular Ad-Hoc Networks for Smart Cities. Springer, SingaporeGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Zimmermann O, Tomlinson M, Peuser S (2012) Perspectives on Web Services: Applying SOAP, WSDL and UDDI to Real-World Projects. Springer Science & Business Media, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Pautasso C (2014) RESTful web services: principles, patterns, emerging technologies. In: Bouguettaya A, Sheng Q, Daniel F (ed) Web Services Foundations, p 31–51. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Guinard D, Ion I, Mayer S (2011) In search of an internet of things service architecture: REST or WS-*? A developers’ perspective. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Mobile and Ubiquitous Systems: Computing, Networking, and Services, p 326–337. Springer, Berlin, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kumari S, Rath S (2015) Performance comparison of SOAP and REST based Web Services for Enterprise Application Integration. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Advances in Computing, Communications and Informatics, p 1656–1660. IEEE Computer Society Press, PiscatawayGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Bora A, Bezboruah T (2015) A Comparative Investigation on Implementation of RESTful versus SOAP based Web Services. Int J Database Theory Appl, 8.3:297–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Sungkur R, Daiboo S (2015) SOREST, A Novel Framework Combining SOAP and REST for Implementing Web Services. In: Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Data Mining, Internet Computing, and Big Data, p 22–34. The Society of Digital Information and Wireless Communications, WilmingtonGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Babu D, Darsi M (2013) A Survey on Service Oriented Architecture and Metrics to Measure Coupling. Int J Comp Scie Eng, 5.8:726–733Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Geetika R, Singh P (2014) Dynamic coupling metrics for object oriented software systems: a survey. ACM SIGSOFT Softw Eng Notes, 39.2:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Alenezi M, Magel K (2014) Empirical evaluation of a new coupling metric: combining structural and semantic coupling. Int J Comp Appl, 36.1:34–44Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Tran H, Zdun U, Oberortner E, Mulo E, Dustdar S (2012) Compliance in service-oriented architectures: A model-driven and view-based approach. Inf Softw Technol, 54.6:531–552.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2012.01.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Khalfallah M, Figay N, Barhamgi M, Ghodous P (2014) Model driven conformance testing for standardized services. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Services Computing, p 400–407. IEEE Computer Society Press, PiscatawayGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Capel M, Mendoza L (2014) Choreography Modeling Compliance for Timed Business Models. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Enterprise and Organizational Modeling and Simulation, p 202–218. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Brandt C, Hermann F (2013) Conformance analysis of organizational models: a new enterprise modeling framework using algebraic graph transformation. Int J Info Sys Model Des, 4.1:42–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Preidel C, Borrmann A (2016) Towards code compliance checking on the basis of a visual programming language. J Inf Technol Constr, 21.25:402–421Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Graydon P, Habli I, Hawkins R, Kelly T, Knight J (2012) Arguing Conformance. IEEE Softw, 29.3:50–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Rachad T, Boutahar J (2014) A new efficient method for calculating similarity between web services. Int J Adv Comp Sci Appl, 5.8:60–67Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Otero-Cerdeira L, Rodríguez-Martínez F, Gómez-Rodríguez A (2015) Ontology matching: A literature review. Expert Sys Appl, 42.2:949–971CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Athanasopoulos, D. (2017, June) Self-Adaptive Service Organization for Pragmatics-Aware Service Discovery. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Services Computing, p. 164–171. IEEE Computer Society Press, PiscatawayGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    ISO/IEC/IEEE (2010) Systems and software engineering – Vocabulary. International Standard ISO/IEC/IEEE 24765:2010(E). First Edition (p. 186). International Standards Office, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    ISO/IEC (1994) ISO/IEC 7498–1, Information technology – Open Systems Interconnection – Basic Reference Model: The Basic Model, 2nd edition. International Standards Office, Geneva. Available via http://standards.iso.org/ittf/PubliclyAvailableStandards/index.html. Accessed 26 Oct 2017
  50. 50.
    Wang W, De S, Toenjes R, Reetz E, Moessner K (2012) A comprehensive ontology for knowledge representation in the internet of things. In: Proceedings of the IEEE 11th International Conference on Trust, Security and Privacy in Computing and Communications, p 1793–1798. IEEE Computer Society Press, PiscatawayGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Ross A, Rhodes D, Hastings D (2008) Defining changeability: Reconciling flexibility, adaptability, scalability, modifiability, and robustness for maintaining system lifecycle value. Syst Engineer 11.3:246–262.  https://doi.org/10.1002/sys.20098 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Bloomberg J, Schmelzer R (2013) Deep Interoperability: Getting REST Right (Finally!). The Agile Architecture Revolution: How Cloud Computing, Rest-Based SOA, and Mobile Computing are Changing Enterprise IT. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., HobokenGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Fielding R (2000) Architectural Styles and the Design of Network-based Software Architectures. Doctoral dissertation, University of California at Irvine. Available via http://www.ics.uci.edu/~fielding/pubs/dissertation/fielding_dissertation_2up.pdf. Accessed 26 Oct 2017
  54. 54.
    Palavalli A, Karri D, Pasupuleti S (2016) Semantic Internet of Things. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Tenth International Conference on Semantic Computing, p 91–95. IEEE Computer Society Press, PiscatawayGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Delgado J (2015) Decreasing Service Coupling to Increase Enterprise Agility. In: Achieving Enterprise Agility through Innovative Software Development, p 225–261. IGI Global, HersheyCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Delgado J (2016) Bridging Services and Resources with Structural Services. Int J Inf Sys Model Des, 7.4:83–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Kreutz, D., Ramos, F. M., Verissimo, P. E., Rothenberg, C. E., Azodolmolky, S., & Uhlig, S. (2015) Software-defined networking: A comprehensive survey. Proceedings of the IEEE, 103.1:14–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Bormann C, Hoffman P (2013) Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR). Available via https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7049. Accessed 26 Oct 2017
  59. 59.
    Schneider J, Kamiya T, Peintner D, Kyusakov R (ed) (2014) Efficient XML Interchange (EXI) Format 1.0 (Second Edition). W3C. Available via http://www.w3.org/TR/exi/. Accessed 26 Oct 2017

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Instituto Superior Técnico, Universidade de LisboaLisbonPortugal

Personalised recommendations