skip to main content
research-article

Spinel: An Opportunistic Proxy for Connecting Sensors to the Internet of Things

Published:27 March 2017Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Nowadays, various static wireless sensor networks (WSN) are deployed in the environment for many purposes: traffic control, pollution monitoring, and so on. The willingness to open these legacy WSNs to the users is emerging, by integrating them to the Internet network as part of the future Internet of Things (IoT), for example, in the context of smart cities and open data policies. While legacy sensors cannot be directly connected to the Internet in general, emerging standards such as 6LoWPAN are aimed at solving this issue but require us to update or replace the existing devices. As a solution to connect legacy sensors to the IoT, we propose to take advantage of the multi-modal connectivity as well as the mobility of smartphones to use phones as opportunistic proxies, that is, mobile proxies that opportunistically discover closeby static sensors and act as intermediaries with the IoT, with the additional benefit of bringing fresh information about the environment to the smartphones’ owners. However, this requires us to monitor the smartphone’s mobility and further infer when to discover and register the sensors to guarantee the efficiency and reliability of opportunistic proxies. To that end, we introduce and evaluate an approach based on mobility analysis that uses a novel path prediction technique to predict when and where the user is not moving, and thereby serves to anticipate the registration of sensors within communication range. We show that this technique enables the deployment of low-cost resource-efficient mobile proxies to connect legacy WSNs with the IoT.

References

  1. Luigi Atzori, Antonio Iera, and Giacomo Morabito. 2010. The internet of things: A survey. Comput. Netw. 54, 15 (2010), 2787--2805. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Paul Baumann, Wilhelm Kleiminger, and Silvia Santini. 2013. How long are you staying?: Predicting residence time from human mobility traces. In Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Mobile Computing 8 Networking (MobiCom’13). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Benjamin Billet and Valérie Issarny. 2014. Dioptase: A distributed data streaming middleware for the future web of things. J. Internet Serv. Appl. 5, 13 (2014), 13--32.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Niels Brouwers and Koen Langendoen. 2012. Pogo, a middleware for mobile phone sensing. In Proceedings of the 13th International Middleware Conference. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. J. Burke, D. Estrin, M. Hansen, A. Parker, N. Ramanathan, S. Reddy, and M. B. Srivastava. 2006. Participatory sensing. In Proceedings of the 4th Workshop on World-Sensor-Web: Mobile Device Centric Sensor Networks and Applications.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Alberto Coen-Porisini, Pietro Colombo, and Sabrina Sicari. 2010. Dealing with anonymity in wireless sensor networks. In Proceedings of the 25th ACM Symposium on Applied Computing. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Eduardo Cuervo, Aruna Balasubramanian, Dae-ki Cho, Alec Wolman, Stefan Saroiu, Ranveer Chandra, and Paramvir Bahl. 2010. MAUI: Making smartphones last longer with code offload. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Mobile Systems, Applications, and Services. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Adam Dunkels, Juan Alonso, Thiemo Voigt, Hartmut Ritter, and Jochen Schiller. 2004. Connecting wireless sensornets with TCP/IP networks. In Wired/Wireless Internet Communications. Springer, Berlin.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. EPCglobal. 2014. The GS1 EPCglobal Architecture Framework v1.6. Retrieved from www.gs1.org/gsmp/kc/epcglobal/architecture.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Marta C Gonzalez, Cesar A Hidalgo, and Albert-Laszlo Barabasi. 2008. Understanding individual human mobility patterns. Nature 453, 7196 (2008), 779--782.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Sara Hachem, Vivien Mallet, Ventura Raphaël, Pierre-Guillaume Raverdy, Animesh Pathak, Valérie Issarny, and Rajiv Bhatia. 2015. Monitoring noise pollution using the urban civics middleware. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Big Data Computing Service and Applications (BDS’15). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Sara Hachem, Animesh Pathak, and Valerie Issarny. 2014. Service-oriented middleware for large-scale mobile participatory sensing. Perv. Mobile Comput. 10, 1 (2014), 66--82. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Samuli Hemminki, Petteri Nurmi, and Sasu Tarkoma. 2013. Accelerometer-based transportation mode detection on smartphones. In Proceedings of the 11th ACM Conference on Embedded Networked Sensor Systems. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Charles F. F. Karney. 2013. Algorithms for geodesics. J. Geodesy 87, 1 (2013).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. A. M. Khan, Y. K. Lee, S. Y. Lee, and T. S. Kim. 2010. Human activity recognition via an accelerometer-enabled-smartphone using kernel discriminant analysis. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Future Information Technology.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Nicholas D. Lane, Shane B. Eisenman, Mirco Musolesi, Emiliano Miluzzo, and Andrew T. Campbell. 2008. Urban sensing systems: Opportunistic or participatory? In Proceedings of the 9th Workshop on Mobile Computing Systems and Applications. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. HyungJune Lee, Martin Wicke, Branislav Kusy, Omprakash Gnawali, and Leonidas Guibas. 2010. Data stashing: Energy-efficient information delivery to mobile sinks through trajectory prediction. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Information Processing in Sensor Networks (IPSN’10). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Xin Lu, Erik Wetter, Nita Bharti, Andrew J. Tatem, and Linus Bengtsson. 2013. Approaching the limit of predictability in human mobility. Sci. Rep. 3, 2923 (2013), 44--53.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Samuel R. Madden, Michael J. Franklin, Joseph M. Hellerstein, and Wei Hong. 2005. TinyDB: An acquisitional query processing system for sensor networks. Trans. Database Syst. 30, 1 (2005), 122--173. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Liam McNamara, Cecilia Mascolo, and Licia Capra. 2008. Media sharing based on colocation prediction in urban transport. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Mobile Computing and Networking. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Luca Mottola and Gian Pietro Picco. 2011. Programming wireless sensor networks: Fundamental concepts and state of the art. ACM Comput. Surv. 43, 3 (2011), 19--76. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Geoff Mulligan. 2007. The 6LoWPAN architecture. In Proceedings of the 4th Workshop on Embedded Networked Sensors. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Jeongyeup Paek, Joongheon Kim, and Ramesh Govindan. 2010. Energy-efficient rate-adaptive GPS-based positioning for smartphones. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Mobile Systems, Applications, and Services. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. M. Papandrea, M. Zignani, S. Gaito, S. Giordano, and G. P. Rossi. 2013. How many places do you visit a day? In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Pervasive Computing and Communications Workshops.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Injong Rhee, Minsu Shin, Seongik Hong, Kyunghan Lee, Seong Joon Kim, and Song Chong. 2011. On the levy-walk nature of human mobility. Trans. Netw. 19, 3 (2011), 630--643. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. M. Satyanarayanan, G. Lewis, E. Morris, S. Simanta, J. Boleng, and Kiryong Ha. 2013. The role of cloudlets in hostile environments. IEEE Perv. Comput. 12, 4 (2013), 40--49. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Mohsen Sharifi, Somayeh Kafaie, and Omid Kashefi. 2012. A survey and taxonomy of cyber foraging of mobile devices. IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutor. 14, 4 (2012), 1232--1243.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. Zach Shelby, Klaus Hartke, and Carsten Bormann. 2014. RFC 7252—Constrained application protocol (CoAP). Retrieved from tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7252.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Soumya Simanta, Grace A. Lewis, Ed Morris, Kiryong Ha, and Mahadev Satyanarayanan. 2012. A reference architecture for mobile code offload in hostile environments. In Proceedings of the 9th Working IEEE/IFIP Conference on Software Architecture. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Allan Stisen, Henrik Blunck, Sourav Bhattacharya, Thor Siiger Prentow, Mikkel Baun Kjærgaard, Anind Dey, Tobias Sonne, and Mads Møller Jensen. 2015. Smart devices are different: Assessing and mitigatingmobile sensing heterogeneities for activity recognition. In Proceedings of the 13th ACM Conference on Embedded Networked Sensor Systems. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. G. S. Thakur and A. Helmy. 2013. COBRA: A framework for the analysis of realistic mobility models. In Proceedings of the 32th International Conference on Computer Communications.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Tim Verbelen, Pieter Simoens, Filip De Turck, and Bart Dhoedt. 2012. Cloudlets: Bringing the cloud to the mobile user. In Proceedings of the 3rd ACM Workshop on Mobile Cloud Computing and Services. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Vladimir Vukadinović, Ólafur Ragnar Helgason, and Gunnar Karlsson. 2013. An analytical model for pedestrian content distribution in a grid of streets. Math. Comput. Model. 57, 11--12 (2013), 2933--2944.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  34. Guangtao Xue, Yuan Luo, Jiadi Yu, and Minglu Li. 2012. A novel vehicular location prediction based on mobility patterns for routing in urban VANET. J. Wireless Commun. Netw. 2012, 1 (2012), 222--236.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  35. Zhiwei Yan, Ning Kong, Ye Tian, and Yong-Jin Park. 2013. A universal object name resolution scheme for IoT. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Green Computing and Communications/Internet of Things/Cyber, Physical and Social Computing. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Jennifer Yick, Biswanath Mukherjee, and Dipak Ghosal. 2008. Wireless sensor network survey. Comput. Netw. 52, 12 (2008), 2292--2330. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. Taebok Yoon and Jee-Hyong Lee. 2008. Goal and path prediction based on user’s moving path data. In Proceedings of the 2nd Conference on Ubiquitous Information Management and Communication. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. Yu Zheng, Lizhu Zhang, Xing Xie, and Wei-Ying Ma. 2009. Mining interesting locations and travel sequences from GPS trajectories. In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on World Wide Web. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Spinel: An Opportunistic Proxy for Connecting Sensors to the Internet of Things

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in

      Full Access

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader
      About Cookies On This Site

      We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.

      Learn more

      Got it!