Related Concepts

  • Pedro José Marrón
  • Daniel Minder
  • Stamatis Karnouskos
Part of the SpringerBriefs in Electrical and Computer Engineering book series (BRIEFSELECTRIC)


As mentioned before, Cooperating Objects is an emerging domain that can be identified by the key characteristics of the participating devices and systems, predominantly from the cooperation aspects of the constituted objects that depend both on the virtual as well as real world. Clearly they represent an evolutionary step of pre-existing approaches and built upon them. There are several concepts that share common ground with Cooperating Objects such as Cyber-Physical systems, Internet of Things, Internet of Services, M2M, robotics, system of systems, autonomic systems, etc. In this chapter we focus on the definition of each related area and show the similarities and differences with Cooperating Objects. Additionally we give some examples of domains where Cooperating Objectsplay a pivotal role in order to better make understandable the context they operate on.


Smart Grid Service Oriented Architecture Smart City Shop Floor Smart Object 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Rajkumar R, Lee I (2006) NSF workshop on cyber-physical systems.
  2. 2.
    National Science Foundation (2011) Cyber-physical systems (CPS) program solicitation NSF 11-516.
  3. 3.
    CPS Summit Steering Committee (2008) Cyber-physical systems executive summary.
  4. 4.
    Ashton K (2009) That ‘internet of things’ thing. RFID J.
  5. 5.
    SRI Consulting Business Intelligence (2008) Appendix F: the internet of things (background). In: Disruptive civil technologies conference report (CR 2008–07), National Intelligence Council.
  6. 6.
    European Research Cluster on the Internet of Things (2011) Internet of things strategic research roadmap.
  7. 7.
    Internet-of-Things Architecture (IoT-A) Consortium (2011) Project deliverable D3.1—initial M2M API analysis.
  8. 8.
    Stockman H (1948) Communication by means of reflected power. Proc Inst Radio Eng 36(10):1196–1204. doi: 10.1109/JRPROC.1948.226245 Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cardullo M (2003) Genesis of the versatile RFID tag. RFID J.
  10. 10.
    Roussos G, Kostakos V (2009) RFID in pervasive computing: state-of-the-art and outlook. Pervasive Mobile Comput 5:110–131. doi: 10.1016/j.pmcj.2008.11.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Siciliano B, Khatib O (eds) (2008) Springer handbook of robotics. Springer, BerlinzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    AWARE Consortium (2011) AWARE project webpage.
  13. 13.
    EC-SAFEMOBIL Consortium (2011) EC-SAFEMOBIL project webpage.
  14. 14.
    PLANET Consortium (2011) PLANET project webpage.
  15. 15.
    Karnouskos S, Savio D, Spiess P, Guinard D, Trifa V, Baecker O (2010) Real world service interaction with enterprise systems in dynamic manufacturing environments. In: Benyoucef L, Grabot B (eds) Artificial intelligence techniques for networked manufacturing enterprises management. Springer, ISBN 978-1-84996-118-9Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Spiess P, Karnouskos S, Guinard D, Savio D, Baecker O, Souza LMSD, Trifa V (2009) Soa-based integration of the internet of things in enterprise services. In: IEEE international conference on web services, ICWS 2009, Los Angeles, CA, USA, pp 968–975. doi:  10.1109/ICWS.2009.98
  17. 17.
    Karnouskos S (2010) The cooperative internet of things enabled smart grid. In: Proceedings of the 14th IEEE international symposium on consumer electronics (ISCE2010), Braunschweig, Germany, 07 June 2010Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wooldridge MJ (2009) An introduction to multiagent systems. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sterritt R, Parashar M, Tianfield H, Unland R (2005) A concise introduction to autonomic computing. Adv Eng Inform 19(3):181–187. doi: 10.1016/j.aei.2005.05.012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kephart JO, Chess DM (2003) The vision of autonomic computing. IEEE Comput 36(1):41–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Maier MW (1998) Architecting principles for systems-of-systems. Syst Eng 1(4):267–284. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1520–6858(1998)1:4<267::AID-SYS3>3.0.CO;2-D Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    DeLaurentis DA (2005) Understanding transportation as a system-of-systems design problem. In: 43rd AIAA aerospace sciences meeting, Reno NV, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, pp 1–14.
  23. 23.
    Karnouskos S (2011) Cyber-physical systems in the SmartGrid. In: IEEE 9th international conference on industrial informatics (INDIN), Lisbon, PortugalGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Karnouskos S, Colombo AW (2011) Architecting the next generation of service-based SCADA/DCS system of systems. In: 37th annual conference of the IEEE industrial electronics society (IECON 2011), Melbourne, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Jennings R (2011) Analyst: nearly half of all PCs to use graphics processors.
  26. 26.
    Karnouskos S, Terzidis O (2007) Towards an information infrastructure for the future internet of energy. In: Kommunikation in Verteilten Systemen, KiVS (2007) conference, Bern, Switzerland. VDE Verlag, ISBN 978-3-8007-2980-7Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Colombo AW, Karnouskos S (2009) Towards the factory of the future: a service-oriented cross-layer infrastructure. In: ETSI (ed) ICT shaping the world: a scientific view, vol 65–81. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pedro José Marrón
    • 1
  • Daniel Minder
    • 1
  • Stamatis Karnouskos
    • 2
  1. 1.Networked Embedded Systems GroupUniversity of Duisburg-EssenDuisburgGermany
  2. 2.SAP ResearchSAP AGKarlsruheGermany

Personalised recommendations