IoT Service Selection Based on Physical Service Model and Absolute Dominance Relationship

The Internet of Things (IoT) is a paradigm where real-world entities can be connected to the Internet and provide services with the help of attached devices. With the development of IoT technologies, the number of devices deployed around the world as well as their services are increasing rapidly. Thus, selecting an appropriate service which satisfies a user's requirements from such many services becomes a time consuming challenge. Therefore, to address this issue we propose a Physical Service Model (PSM) to describe heterogeneous IoT physical services. PSM contains three core concepts (Device, Resource and Service) and specifies their relationships. Based on PSM, we define four quality of service (QoS) attributes and rate candidate services according to user requirements. In order to dynamically aggregate individual QoS ratings and select physical services, we propose a Physical Service Selection (PSS) method which takes a user preference and an absolute dominance relationship among physical services into account. Finally, experiments are conducted to evaluate the performance of the proposed method.

[1]  Martin Bauer,et al.  Proceedings of the Federated Conference on Computer Science and Information Systems pp. 949–955 ISBN 978-83-60810-22-4 Service Modelling for the Internet of Things , 2022 .

[2]  François Carrez,et al.  A Domain Model for the Internet of Things , 2013, 2013 IEEE International Conference on Green Computing and Communications and IEEE Internet of Things and IEEE Cyber, Physical and Social Computing.

[3]  Amit P. Sheth,et al.  The SSN ontology of the W3C semantic sensor network incubator group , 2012, J. Web Semant..

[4]  Vikas Agarwal,et al.  From Specification to Adaptation: An Integrated QoS-driven Approach for Dynamic Adaptation of Web Service Compositions , 2010, 2010 IEEE International Conference on Web Services.

[5]  Dhananjay Singh,et al.  A survey of Internet-of-Things: Future vision, architecture, challenges and services , 2014, 2014 IEEE World Forum on Internet of Things (WF-IoT).

[6]  Joseph G. Davis,et al.  Service Selection in Web Service Composition: A Comparative Review of Existing Approaches , 2014, Web Services Foundations.

[7]  Anthony K. H. Tung,et al.  Finding k-dominant skylines in high dimensional space , 2006, SIGMOD Conference.

[8]  Athman Bouguettaya,et al.  Efficient Service Skyline Computation for Composite Service Selection , 2013, IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering.

[9]  Anurag Agarwal,et al.  The Internet of Things—A survey of topics and trends , 2014, Information Systems Frontiers.

[10]  Arun Iyengar,et al.  Combining Quality of Service and Social Information for Ranking Services , 2009, ICSOC/ServiceWave.

[11]  Jinjun Chen,et al.  Selecting Top-k Composite Web Services Using Preference-Aware Dominance Relationship , 2013, 2013 IEEE 20th International Conference on Web Services.

[12]  Kyong-Ho Lee,et al.  Fast Quality Driven Selection of Composite Web Services , 2006, 2006 European Conference on Web Services (ECOWS'06).

[13]  Kyong-Ho Lee,et al.  Poster Abstract: Semantically Enriched Object Identification for Internet of Things , 2014, 2014 IEEE International Conference on Distributed Computing in Sensor Systems.

[14]  Lars Mönch,et al.  Tactical Service Selection with Runtime Aspects , 2013, ICSOC.

[15]  Asit Dan,et al.  PANDA: Specifying Policies for Automated Negotiations of Service Contracts , 2003, ICSOC.

[16]  Jerry R. Hobbs,et al.  DAML-S: Semantic Markup for Web Services , 2001, SWWS.

[17]  Thomas Risse,et al.  Selecting skyline services for QoS-based web service composition , 2010, WWW '10.

[18]  Kyong-Ho Lee,et al.  Short paper: Semantic URI-based event-driven physical mashup , 2014, 2014 IEEE World Forum on Internet of Things (WF-IoT).

[19]  Kyong-Ho Lee,et al.  Semantic web services discovery based on I/O parameter relations , 2012, Int. J. Web Grid Serv..