Collaborative Working Architecture for IoT-Based Applications †
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Background of IoT Distributed Computing
2.1. Framework Design for Distributed Computing
2.2. IoT and Cloud Computing Combination
2.3. Security
2.4. Distributed Applications Design
2.5. Findings
- The number of connected things is increasing significantly. This increases the possibilities of designing advanced applications that take advantage of their ubiquitous sensing and computing possibilities.
- The computing resources of the whole network can be used for enhancing the performance of IoT-based applications by sharing the processing load among the available platforms, and a way to leverage more intensively the deployed infrastructure.
- Despite the progress achieved by recent research, the proper distribution of the application workload remains a challenge. There is a lack of formalization and commonly agreed mechanisms to implement real collaborative applications for IoT environments.
3. Distributed Computational Architecture
3.1. General Scheme
- 𝕌 <vertex> represents the execution units of the application. Therefore, the IoT application can be broken down into a list of execution units: 𝕌 = {u0, u2, …, un−1}.
- 𝔽 <edge> represents the data flows exchanged between the execution units. The data flows set the precedence between the execution units and the volume of exchanged data. F(i,j) ∈ 𝔽 defines the volume of data exchanged between the execution unit i and j.
- Let S be the set of sensor devices. These devices do not have computing capabilities themselves. Their work consists in sensing and communicating the data to other devices or the cloud.
- Let P be the set of available computing platforms. This set includes the things that have processing capabilities. The devices of the P set can also acquire the data and process it.
- Let C be the set of cloud computing resources. In this set the remote servers where the processing load is outsourced are located.That is: ⅅ = {S} ⋃ {P} ⋃ {C}
3.2. IoT Scheduler
- (1)
- The ‘Candidate_devices’ component obtains a list of the available devices that can process the execution unit (ui). This list comes from the discovered devices in the system ⅅ. According to the execution unit features, this function selects the feasible devices than can process it.Here, a first device filter is introduced, setting up the best chances for processing. The high heterogeneity of IoT resources needs an information model to represent it containing unambiguous and machine-interpretable descriptions of the available resources. In this way, the computing platforms discovered should be described in terms of metadata such as resource type, computing power, memory, location, etc. as well as information to reach its exposed services. If there is a new type of device, then it needs to be registered in the system by cataloguing its features by type of execution unit. Then, when a new execution unit arrives (ui), the system knows the set of devices that it is able to compute. Based on this information, this function selects the set of candidate devices.When only one device is available for this execution unit, it is selected for processing it. If more than one is listed, it is necessary to decide which to select. The lists of candidate devices are established by default for each type of execution unit according to their capabilities and features.
- (2)
- The ‘Performance_function’ component calculates the Perf function for that list of devices. This function determines the best option. For devices with static rates the function can read the data from Perf-LUT. This is a fast operation. Next, if the static data is not available, then it is necessary to estimate or evaluate it for each device by means of an evaluation function. These evaluations can be processed in parallel. Finally, once the performance data is ready, the system chooses the best option. If there are no available devices, the task must to be processed on the device itself or an error flag must be raised.
- (3)
- The ‘Performance_evaluation’ component evaluates or estimates the performance of the selected devices on_the_fly. The delay at this stage depends on the method used. For example, in order to evaluate network performance, a number of multiplatform tools are available. One simple solution is the Iperf (http://iperf.fr) tool. It allows target nodes to be set by running an Iperf process on each platform. As a result, the response time and the transfer rate can be obtained for each available platform. The delay of this calculation can be constrained and then a suboptimal decision is preferable in order to meet the deadline. At this point, other strategies and policies could be addressed, mainly by adapting the successful results from previous and future research. As a result of our previous research on distributed and mobile systems, in [28] a proposal is introduced that combines imprecise computing strategies with cloud computing, which can be used to design a real-time component.
- (4)
- The ‘Perf-LUT’ component stores the static performance data of the devices. It consists of a memory located near the Perf function calculation module with precalculated results for each device and each instance of the <d> vector. The size of this module depends on the knowledge stored about the devices performance.When the list of available devices is fixed and the network performance is stable, for example in a controlled environment, the job of the scheduler module is considerably simplified since it can work as a priority list stored in memory. That is, the devices are ordered by features and performance, and then they are selected according to their availability.
4. Case Study
- Sensors set {S} = {si: High resolution camera of classroom i}
- Computing platforms {P} = {pij: computing platform i of classroom j, p: school workstation}
- Cloud server {C} = {c0}
- Candidate devices: The instructor can have tablet and/or smartphone able to take part of this application. Thus, this module obtains the list of platforms present on the classroom (classroom mobile PC, table PC, smartphone), the school workstation and the cloud server.
- Performance evaluation module: The performance of the involved devices in this case study is known, and additional devices can not join this application ecosystem in each classroom. Therefore, this function simply obtains the available capacity of every device according to their current workload.
- Perf-LUT: The smartphone and tablet of the instructors are evaluated offline to update this module. At high level, an example of the content of this module is shown in Table 2. More deeply, this LUT stores the computing time of each stage (execution unit) of the method for analyzing the attention degrees of students. The parallelism feature of this application allows the handling of the portion of frame of each student as an execution unit.
- Performance function (Perf): The behaviour of this function can be set to allow the processing as close as possible to where the data are obtained. Therefore, the devices are sorted by proximity and the result retrieved from the performance evaluation module. In general terms, the classroom mobile PC should be selected in the first place, next the tablet PC, and next the smartphone. When these devices are busy, the workload can be outsourced to the centralized workstation and cloud server.
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Calvaresi, D.; Cesarini, D.; Sernani, P.; Marinoni, M.; Dragoni, A.F.; Sturm, A. Exploring the ambient assisted living domain: A systematic review. J. Ambient Intell. Hum. Comput. 2017, 8, 239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mora, H.; Gilart-Iglesias, V.; Pérez-del Hoyo, R.; Andújar-Montoya, M.D. A Comprehensive System for Monitoring Urban Accessibility in Smart Cities. Sensors 2017, 17, 1834. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sun, K.; Ryoo, I. A Smart Sensor Data Transmission Technique for Logistics and Intelligent Transportation Systems. Informatics 2018, 5, 15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mora, H.; Gilart-Iglesias, V.; Pérez-delHoyo, R.; Andújar-Montoya, M.D.; Gabucio, H.C. Interactive cloud system for the analysis of accessibility in smart cities. Int. J. Des. Nat. Ecodyn. 2016, 11, 447–458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Mahdavinejad, M.S.; Rezvan, M.; Barekatain, M.; Adibi, P.; Barnaghi, P.; Sheth, A.P. Machine learning for Internet of Things data analysis: A survey. Dig. Commun. Netw. 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Klumpp, M. Innovation Potentials and Pathways Merging AI, CPS, and IoT. Appl. Syst. Innov. 2018, 1, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shi, F.; Li, Q.; Zhu, T.; Ning, H. A Survey of Data Semantization in Internet of Things. Sensors 2018, 18, 313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ruan, J.; Chan, F.; Zhu, F.; Wang, X.; Yang, J. A Visualization Review of Cloud Computing Algorithms in the Last Decade. Sustainability 2016, 8, 1008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shukla, A.; Simmhan, Y. Model-driven scheduling for distributed stream processing systems. J. Parallel Distrib. Comput. 2018, 117, 98–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chien, S.-Y.; Chan, W.-K.; Tseng, Y.-H.; Lee, C.-H.; Somayazulu, V.S.; Chen, Y.-K. Distributed computing in IoT: System-on-a-chip for smart cameras as an example. In Proceedings of the Asia and South Pacific Design Automation Conference (ASP-DAC), Chiba, Japan, 9–22 January 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Mora, H.; Signes-Pont, M.T.; Gil-Méndez, D.; Ferrández-Pastor, F.J. A Proposal for a Distributed Computational Framework in IoT Context. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Ubiquitous Computing and Ambient Intelligence, UCAmI 2017, Philadelphia, PA, USA, 10–15 July 2015; pp. 194–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cao, Y.; Long, C.; Jiang, T.; Mao, S. Share communication and computation resources on mobile devices: A social awareness perspective. IEEE Wirel. Commun. 2016, 23, 52–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, S.; Kim, D.-Y.; Park, J.-H. Traffic management in the mobile edge cloud to improve the quality of experience of mobile video. Comput. Commun. 2018, 118, 40–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zenith’s Mobile Advertising Forecast Report, Smartphone Penetration to Reach 66% in 2018. Available online: https://www.zenithmedia.com/smartphone-penetration-reach-66-2018/ (accessed on 12 April 2018).
- Li, L.; Li, S.; Zhao, S. QoS-Aware Scheduling of Services-Oriented Internet of Things. IEEE Trans. Ind. Inform. 2014, 10, 1497–1505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Floris, A.; Atzori, L. Managing the Quality of Experience in the Multimedia Internet of Things: A Layered-Based Approach. Sensors 2016, 16, 2057. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Colom, J.F.; Mora, H.; Gil, D.; Signes-Pont, M.T. Collaborative building of behavioural models based on internet of things. Comput. Electr. Eng. 2016, 58, 385–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mora, H.; Colom, J.F.; Gil, D.; Jimeno-Morenilla, A. Distributed computational model for shared processing on Cyber-Physical System environments. Comput. Commun. 2017, 111, 68–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mora, H.; Gil, D.; Terol, R.M.; Azorín, J.; Szymanski, J. An IoT-Based Computational Framework for Healthcare Monitoring in Mobile Environments. Sensors 2017, 17, 2302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kim-Hung, L.; Datta, S.K.; Bonnet, C.; Hamon, F.; Boudonne, A. A scalable IoT framework to design logical data flow using virtual sensor. In Proceedings of the Wireless and Mobile Computing, Networking and Communications (WiMob), Rome, Italy, 9–11 October 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Martínez-Rodríguez, M.C.; Prada-Delgado, M.A.; Brox, P.; Baturone, I. VLSI Design of Trusted Virtual Sensors. Sensors 2018, 18, 347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Razzaque, M.A.; Milojevic-Jevric, M.; Palade, A.; Clarke, S. Middleware for Internet of Things: A Survey. IEEE Internet Things J. 2016, 3, 2327–4662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jeon, S.; Jung, I. MinT: Middleware for Cooperative Interaction of Things. Sensors 2017, 17, 1452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- El-Sayed, H.; Sankar, S.; Prasad, M.; Puthal, D.; Gupta, A.; Mohanty, M.; Lin, C.-L. Edge of Things: The Big Picture on the Integration of Edge, IoT and the Cloud in a Distributed Computing Environment. IEEE Access 2017, 6, 1706–1717. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Narman, H.S.; Hossain, M.S.; Atiquzzaman, M.; Shen, H. Scheduling internet of things applications in cloud computing. Ann. Telecommun. 2017, 72, 79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Haferkamp, M.; Sliwa, B.; Ide, C.; Wietfeld, C. Payload-Size and Deadline-Aware scheduling for time-critical Cyber Physical Systems. In Proceedings of the Wireless Days, Porto, Portugal, 29–31 March 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bharti, S.; Pattanaik, K.K. Task Requirement Aware Pre-processing and Scheduling for IoT Sensory Environments. Ad Hoc Netw. 2016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mora, H.; Gil Mendez, D.; Colom López, J.F.; Signes Pont, M.T. Flexible framework for real-time embedded systems based on mobile cloud computing paradigm. Mob. Inf. Syst. 2015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cavalcante, E.; Pereira, J.; Alves, M.P.; Maia, P.; Moura, R.; Batista, T.; Delicato, F.C.; Pires, P.F. On the interplay of Internet of Things and Cloud Computing: A systematic mapping study. Comput. Commun. 2016, 89–90, 17–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dinh, T.; Kim, Y.; Lee, H. A Location-Based Interactive Model of Internet of Things and Cloud (IoT-Cloud) for Mobile Cloud Computing Applications. Sensors 2017, 17, 489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Babu, S.M.; Lakshmi, A.J.; Rao, B.T. A study on cloud based Internet of Things: CloudIoT. In Proceedings of the Global Conference on Communication Technologies (GCCT), Kanya Kumari District, India, 23–24 April 2015; pp. 60–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Botta, A.; Donato, W.; Persico, V.; Pescapé, A. Integration of Cloud computing and Internet of Things: A survey. Future Gener. Comput. Syst. 2016, 56, 684–700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Malik, A.; Om, H. Cloud Computing and Internet of Things Integration: Architecture, Applications, Issues, and Challenges. Sustain. Cloud Energy Serv. 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, X.; Chen, S.; Zeng, X.; Zheng, X.; Zhang, Y.; Rong, C. Framework for context-aware computation offloading in mobile cloud computing, Journal of Cloud Computing Advances. Syst. Appl. 2017, 6, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Akherfi, K.; Gerndt, M.; Harroud, H. Mobile cloud computing for computation offloading: Issues and challenges. Appl. Comput. Inform. 2018, 14, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bangui, H.; Ge, M.; Buhnova, B.; Rakrak, S.; Raghay, S.; Pitner, T. Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis Methods in the Mobile Cloud Offloading Paradigm. J. Sens. Actuator Netw. 2017, 6, 25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, H.; Wolter, K. Stochastic Analysis of Delayed Mobile Offloading in Heterogeneous Networks. IEEE Trans. Mob. Comput. 2018, 17, 461–471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tseng, F.; Cho, H.; Chang, K.; Li, J.; Shih, T.K. Application-oriented offloading in heterogeneous networks for mobile cloud computing. Enterp. Inf. Syst. 2017, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gheith, A.; Rajamony, R.; Bohrer, P.; Agarwal, K.; Kistler, M.; Eagle, B.L.W.; Hambridge, C.A.; Carter, J.B.; Kaplinger, T. IBM Bluemix Mobile Cloud Services. IBM J. Res. Dev. 2016, 60, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guo, J.; Chen, I.-R.; Tsai Jeffrey, J.P. A survey of trust computation models for service management in internet of things systems. Comput. Commun. 2017, 97, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stergiou, C.; Psannis, K.E.; Kim, B.-G.; Gupta, B. Secure integration of IoT and Cloud Computing. Future Gener. Comput. Syst. 2018, 78, 964–975. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mollah, M.B.; Azad, M.A.K.; Vasilakos, A. Security and privacy challenges in mobile cloud computing: Survey and way ahead. J. Netw. Comput. Appl. 2017, 84, 38–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sicari, S.; Rizzardi, A.; Grieco, L.A.; Coen-Porisini, A. Security, privacy and trust in Internet of Things: The road ahead. Comput. Netw. 2015, 76, 146–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sani, A.S.; Yuan, D.; Jin, J.; Gao, L.; Yu, S.; Dong, Z. Cyber security framework for Internet of Things-based Energy Internet. Future Gener. Comput. Syst. 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- EU GDPR Portal: Site Overview. Available online: https://www.eugdpr.org/ (accessed on 8 May 2018).
- Wachter, S. GDPR and the Internet of Things: Guidelines to Protect Users’ Identity and Privacy. SSRN 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wachter, S. Normative challenges of identification in the Internet of Things: Privacy, profiling, discrimination, and the GDPR. Comput. Law Secur. Rev. 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sanz, R.M.C. Your Guide to the GDPR, IEEE Spectrum. Available online: https://spectrum.ieee.org/telecom/internet/your-guide-to-the-gdpr (accessed on 8 May 2018).
- Khan, S.; Parkinson, S.; Qin, Y. Fog computing security: A review of current applications and security solutions. J. Cloud Comput. 2017, 6, 19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Colom, J.F.; Gil, D.; Mora, H.; Volckaert, B.; Jimeno, A. Scheduling framework for distributed intrusion detection systems over heterogeneous network architectures. J. Netw. Comput. Appl. 2018, 108, 76–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lekidis, A.; Stachtiari, E.; Katsaros, P.; Bozga, M.; Georgiadis, C.K. Model-based design of IoT systems with the BIP component framework. J. Softw. Pract. Exp. 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zeng, D.; Guo, S.; Cheng, Z. The web of things: A survey. J. Commun. 2011, 6, 424–438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Girau, R.; Martis, S.; Atzori, L. Lysis: A platform for IoT distributed applications over socially connected objects. IEEE Internet Things J. 2017, 4, 40–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Derhamy, H.; Eliasson, J.; Delsing, J.; Priller, P. A survey of commercial frameworks for the internet of things. In Proceedings of the IEEE 20th Conference on Emerging Technologies & Factory Automation (ETFA), Luxembourg, 8–11 September 2015; pp. 1–8. [Google Scholar]
- Khazaei, H.; Bannazadeh, H.; Leon-Garcia, A. SAVI-IoT: A Self-Managing Containerized IoT Platform. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Future Internet of Things and Cloud (FiCloud), Prague, Czech Republic, 21–23 August 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Qanbari, S.; Pezeshki, S.; Raisi, R.; Mahdizadeh, S.; Rahimzadeh, R.; Behinaein, N.; Mahmoudi, F. IoT Design Patterns: Computational Constructs to Design, Build and Engineer Edge Applications. In Proceedings of the IEEE First International Conference on Internet-of-Things Design and Implementation, Berlin, Germany, 4–8 April 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Muthusamy, V.; Slominski, A.; Ishakian, V.; Khalaf, R.; Reason, J.; Rozsnyai, S. Lessons learned using a process mining approach to analyze events from distributed applications. In Proceedings of the 10th ACM International Conference on Distributed and Event-based Systems, Irvine, CA, USA, 20–24 June 2016; pp. 199–204. [Google Scholar]
- Robert, J.; Kubler, S.; Kolbe, N.; Cerioni, A.; Gastaud, E.; Främling, K. Open IoT Ecosystem for Enhanced Interoperability in Smart Cities—Example of Métropole De Lyon. Sensors 2017, 17, 2849. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Rahman, H.; Rahmani, R. Enabling distributed intelligence assisted Future Internet of Things Controller (FITC). Appl. Comput. Inform. 2018, 14, 73–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Singh, M.P.; Chopra, A.K. The Internet of Things and Multiagent Systems: Decentralized Intelligence in Distributed Computing. In Proceedings of the IEEE 37th International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems (ICDCS), Atlanta, GA, USA, 5–8 June 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Fortino, G.; Lackovic, M.; Russo, W.; Trunfio, P. A discovery service for smart objects over an agent-based middleware. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Internet and Distributed Computing Systems, Hangzhou, China, 28–30 October 2013; pp. 281–293. [Google Scholar]
- Gomes, P.; Cavalcante, E.; Rodrigues, T.; Batista, T.; Delicato, F.C.; Pires, P.F. A Federated Discovery Service for the Internet of Things. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Middleware for Context-Aware Applications in the IoT, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 7–11 December 2015; pp. 25–30. [Google Scholar]
- Datta, S.K.; Da Costa, R.P.F.; Bonnet, C. Resource discovery in Internet of Things: Current trends and future standardization aspects. In Proceedings of the IEEE 2nd World Forum on Internet of Things (WF-IoT), Milan, Italy, 14–16 December 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Ccori, P.C.; De Biase, L.C.C.; Knorich Zuffo, M.; da Silva, F.S.C. Device discovery strategies for the IoT. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Symposium on Consumer Electronics (ISCE), Sao Paulo, Brazil, 28–30 September 2016. [Google Scholar]
- D’Orazio, T.; Leo, M.; Guaragnella, C.; Distante, A. A visual approach for driver inattention detection. Pattern Recognit. 2007, 40, 2341–2355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sun, W.; Zhang, X.; Peeta, S.; He, X.; Li, Y. A Real-Time Fatigue Driving Recognition Method Incorporating Contextual Features and Two Fusion Levels. IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst. 2017, 18, 3408–3420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hemadri, V.B.; Kulkarni, U.P. Detection of Drowsiness Using Fusion of Yawning and Eyelid Movements. In Advances in Computing, Communication, and Control; Communications in Computer and Information Science; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2013; Volume 361. [Google Scholar]
Research Line | Main Contribution Area |
---|---|
(i) Framework design for distributed computing | |
Managing the quality of experience in the multimedia IoT [16] | Quality of Experience |
QoS-Aware scheduling of services-oriented IoT [17] | Scheduling method |
Distributed computational model for shared processing [18] | Distributed computing model |
IoT-Based Computational Framework [19] | Distributed computing model |
A scalable IoT framework using virtual sensor [20] | Virtual sensor framework |
Middleware for Internet of Things [22] | Middleware |
MinT: Middleware for Cooperative Interaction of Things [23] | Middleware |
Integration of Edge, IoT and the Cloud [24] | Edge of Things |
Scheduling internet of things Apps in cloud computing [25] | Scheduling method |
Payload-size and deadline-aware scheduling [26] | Scheduling method |
Task Requirement Aware Pre-processing and Scheduling [27] | Scheduling method |
Flexible framework for real-time embedded systems [28] | Scheduling method |
(ii) Integration with Cloud Computing resources | |
IoT and Cloud Computing [29] | General analysis |
Machine learning for IoT [5] | Cloud-based Intelligence |
Model of Internet of Things and Cloud (IoT-Cloud) [30] | Mobile cloud computing |
A study on cloud-based Internet of Things: CloudIoT [31] | General analysis |
Integration of Cloud computing and IoT [32] | Survey |
Cloud Computing and Internet of Things Integration [33] | General analysis |
Framework for computation offloading [34] | Mobile Cloud Computing |
MCC for computation offloading [35] | Mobile Cloud Computing |
Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis Methods [36] | Offloading process analysis |
Stochastic Analysis of Delayed Mobile Offloading [37] | Offloading process analysis |
Application-oriented offloading [38] | Offloading process analysis |
Mobile Cloud Services [39] | Mobile Cloud Services |
(iii) Security | |
Trust computation models for service management in IoT [40] | Survey |
Secure integration of IoT and Cloud Computing [41] | IoT-Cloud security |
Security and privacy challenges in MCC [42] | MCC security |
Security, privacy and trust in IoT [43] | Survey |
Cyber security framework for IoT-based Energy Internet [44] | Intelligent Security System |
Fog computing security [49] | Fog computing security |
Distributed intrusion detection system [50] | Distributed system security |
GDPR and the Internet of Things [46] | GDPR |
Normative challenges of identification [47] | GDPR |
(iv) Distributed applications design | |
Design flow for web service applications [51] | Model-based design |
The web of things [52] | Web service -based design |
Cloud-based platform for distributed IoT applications [53] | Deployment platform |
Commercial frameworks for the IoT [54] | Survey of design platforms |
A Self-Managing Containerized IoT Platform [55] | Design platform |
IoT Design Patterns [56] | Design patterns |
Data Mining proposal of distributed applications events [57] | Data Mining |
Open IoT Ecosystem [58] | Deployment platform |
Future Internet of Things Controller [59] | Decentralized Intelligence |
IoT and Multiagent Systems [60] | Decentralized Intelligence |
Computing Platform | Frame Computing Cost | Threshold = 5 |
---|---|---|
Classroom Mobile PC 1 | 25 s | ~2 min |
Classroom Tablet PC 1 | 50 s | ~4 min |
Classroom Smartphone 1 | 50 s | ~4 min |
School Workstation 2 | 5 min | 25 min |
Classroom resources 1 | 13 s | ~1 min |
Cloud Server 3 | 25 s + 5 s | 2.5 min |
© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Mora, H.; Signes-Pont, M.T.; Gil, D.; Johnsson, M. Collaborative Working Architecture for IoT-Based Applications. Sensors 2018, 18, 1676. https://doi.org/10.3390/s18061676
Mora H, Signes-Pont MT, Gil D, Johnsson M. Collaborative Working Architecture for IoT-Based Applications. Sensors. 2018; 18(6):1676. https://doi.org/10.3390/s18061676
Chicago/Turabian StyleMora, Higinio, María Teresa Signes-Pont, David Gil, and Magnus Johnsson. 2018. "Collaborative Working Architecture for IoT-Based Applications" Sensors 18, no. 6: 1676. https://doi.org/10.3390/s18061676
APA StyleMora, H., Signes-Pont, M. T., Gil, D., & Johnsson, M. (2018). Collaborative Working Architecture for IoT-Based Applications. Sensors, 18(6), 1676. https://doi.org/10.3390/s18061676