scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Proceedings ArticleDOI

Managing things and services with semantics: A survey

TL;DR: The survey suggests that there is still a lot of heterogeneity in IoT technologies, but first indications of the use of standardized protocols exist, and participants still see many obstacles which hinder the widespread use of semantic technologies.
Abstract: This paper presents a survey on the usage, opportunities and pitfalls of semantic technologies in the Internet of Things. The survey was conducted in the context of a semantic enterprise integration platform. In total we surveyed sixty-one individuals from industry and academia on their views and current usage of IoT technologies in general, and semantic technologies in particular. Our semantic enterprise integration platform aims for interoperability at a service level, as well as at a protocol level. Therefore, also questions regarding the use of application layer protocols, network layer protocols and management protocols were integrated into the survey. The survey suggests that there is still a lot of heterogeneity in IoT technologies, but first indications of the use of standardized protocols exist. Semantic technologies are being recognized as of potential use, mainly in the management of things and services. Nonetheless, the participants still see many obstacles which hinder the widespread use of semantic technologies: Firstly, a lack of training as traditional embedded programmers are not well aware of semantic technologies. Secondly, a lack of standardization in ontologies, which would enable interoperability and thirdly, a lack of good tooling support.

Summary (2 min read)

Introduction

  • Research on semantics and semantic management of Internet of Things systems has attracted a lot of interest in the last ten years, but so far, has failed to gain widespread use in industrial applications.
  • Just to name a few, the SENSEI project [4] for example, was funded with e14.9 million.
  • Semantic technologies still are not of wide-spread use in real-world applications.
  • The authors work on linked services [6] [7] motivated surveying transport and application layer protocols, which otherwise is not much connected with semantic technologies.

II. SURVEY

  • Semantics are currently under intense research from both industry and academia.
  • The authors objective was to identify the actual needs of IoT with regard to semantic support and to identify current shortcomings.

B. Methodology

  • The survey was distributed among experts, from both industry (among others: SAP, IBM, NEC, Orange, Telefonica) and academia.
  • While some experts were recruited directly, the majority of the respondents were self-selected.
  • They survey was conducted online and anonymity was guaranteed and technically enforced by the system.
  • As IoT is a very broad field, the authors explicitly excluded all kinds of mobile phone development and limited protocol related questions specifically to systems where an ISO/OSI-like stack is being used.
  • Nonetheless, the authors also briefly surveyed the usage of other technologies.

C. Threats to internal or external validity

  • As the study was conducted anonymously it is not possible to validate that the claims made are valid.
  • The authors added sanity checks that allowed to filter non valid responses.
  • Most industrial participants worked with IoT-systems in industrial automation, retail or logistics.
  • Other sub-fields of IoT may have different requirements regarding protocols, but the authors expect the tendencies discovered in their survey to be generalizable.

D. Results

  • In the following the authors present and discuss the results of the survey.
  • Naturally, the expertness in enterprise software and systems was higher for the industry participants.
  • In terms of network/transport layer protocols there seems to be an expected shift towards IPv6/6LoWPAN and UDP/CoAP based protocols.
  • When asked why not using an existing management protocol, the vast majority answered that they expected the overhead of a standardized protocol as too high, or that they fear negative consequences with regard to performance and power consumption.
  • From those who use semantics the vast majority is using it for the description of things, devices or services.

III. CONCLUSION

  • The IoT domain remains to be highly heterogeneous.
  • Most participants see some benefit in the semantic management of things, devices and services.
  • CoAP, while currently not used at a large scale, is expected to be for IoT what was HTTP for the WWW.
  • It was also one of the very few mature enough choices available when the authors sketched their own integration platform, a view that seems to be shared by others.
  • The authors survey is only one small step towards a qualitative and quantitative understanding of real-world usage in the emerging field of the IoT.

Did you find this useful? Give us your feedback

Content maybe subject to copyright    Report

source: https://doi.org/10.7892/boris.49923 | downloaded: 10.8.2022
Managing Things and Services with Semantics:
A Survey
Matthias Thoma
Torsten Braun
Carsten Magerkurth
Alexandru-Florian Antonescu
SAP (Switzerland) Inc., Althardstrasse 80, 8105 Regensdorf, Switzerland
Communication and Distributed Systems, University of Bern, Neubr
¨
uckstrasse 10, 3012 Bern, Switzerland
matthias.thoma@sap.com, braun@iam.unibe.ch, carsten.magerkurth@sap.com, alexandru-florian.antonescu@sap.com
Abstract—This paper presents a survey on the usage, oppor-
tunities and pitfalls of semantic technologies in the Internet of
Things. The survey was conducted in the context of a semantic
enterprise integration platform. In total we surveyed sixty-one
individuals from industry and academia on their views and
current usage of IoT technologies in general, and semantic
technologies in particular. Our semantic enterprise integration
platform aims for interoperability at a service level, as well
as at a protocol level. Therefore, also questions regarding the
use of application layer protocols, network layer protocols and
management protocols were integrated into the survey. The
survey suggests that there is still a lot of heterogeneity in IoT
technologies, but first indications of the use of standardized
protocols exist. Semantic technologies are being recognized as of
potential use, mainly in the management of things and services.
Nonetheless, the participants still see many obstacles which
hinder the widespread use of semantic technologies: Firstly, a
lack of training as traditional embedded programmers are not
well aware of semantic technologies. Secondly, a lack of stan-
dardization in ontologies, which would enable interoperability
and thirdly, a lack of good tooling support.
I. INTRODUCTION
Research on semantics and semantic management of Inter-
net of Things systems has attracted a lot of interest in the
last ten years, but so far, has failed to gain widespread use
in industrial applications. From an European research point
of view (but not limited to that) a lot of resources, both
in manpower as well as in financial support, has gone into
semantic research. Most projects that have been ramped up in
past five years in the context of Future Internet [1], Internet of
Things [2] or Industry 4.0 [3] use semantic technologies in one
way or the other. Just to name a few, the SENSEI project [4]
for example, was funded with e14.9 million. The more recent
Internet-of-Things Architecture project (IOT-A) [5], which is
considered as an EU flagship project, received around e11.9
million. More semantic IoT-related projects will start as part of
HORIZON 2020. So there is definitely a lot of research being
conducted, but when looking into commercialized products it
is obvious that semantic technologies in IoT so far failed to
deliver on its promise. Semantic technologies still are not of
wide-spread use in real-world applications.
In this work, we present a recent study on semantics in
Internet-of-Things applications, that was mainly conducted to
gain insight into potential further usage cases of semantic plat-
forms and further development options. Our work on linked
services [6] [7] motivated surveying transport and application
layer protocols, which otherwise is not much connected with
semantic technologies. While the main focus of the survey
was to get a feeling about the view of the community on
semantics, it also revealed some interesting insights about ap-
plication level protocols, transport level protocols and network
management which is of interest for a broader audience.
II. SURVEY
A. Introduction
We conducted a survey on semantics with an emphasis on
integration of enterprise IT systems. Semantics are currently
under intense research from both industry and academia. Our
objective was to identify the actual needs of IoT with regard
to semantic support and to identify current shortcomings.
B. Methodology
The survey was distributed among experts, from both in-
dustry (among others: SAP, IBM, NEC, Orange, Telefonica)
and academia. While some experts were recruited directly, the
majority of the respondents were self-selected. They survey
was conducted online and anonymity was guaranteed and tech-
nically enforced by the system. As IoT is a very broad field,
we explicitly excluded all kinds of mobile phone development
and limited protocol related questions specifically to systems
where an ISO/OSI-like stack is being used. Nonetheless, we
also briefly surveyed the usage of other technologies.
C. Threats to internal or external validity
As the study was conducted anonymously it is not possible
to validate that the claims made are valid. We added sanity
checks that allowed to filter non valid responses. No incen-
tives were given for participating. Most industrial participants
worked with IoT-systems in industrial automation, retail or
logistics. The responses by participants from academia were
(if a sector was chosen) mainly from automation and logistics,
and the broad areas of smart city. Other sub-fields of IoT may
have different requirements regarding protocols, but we expect
the tendencies discovered in our survey to be generalizable.
D. Results
In the following we present and discuss the results of the
survey. We categorize the results into four groups: (i) General
statistical information about the participants and their skillsets,
(ii) Protocols, (iii) Semantics and (iv) Enterprise Integration.

1) General: The total number of participants was sixty-
one. Their experience levels, origin and skillsets are detailed
out in Table I. There were nearly as many participants from
industry as from academia. The majority of participants had
at least three years of professional experience and a more
than basic understanding of IoT and semantics. Most people
from academia had experience (skills) on the advanced or
expert level. Naturally, the expertness in enterprise software
and systems was higher for the industry participants.
TABLE I
PARTICIPANT GROUP: EXPERIENCE AND SKILLS
Participants Career level
Total 61 Entry 8
Industry 32 Advanced 17
Academia 29 Professional 36
Experience (in years) Skills (IoT)
1-2 6 No experience 0
3-5 31 Beginner 11
5-9 15 Some experience 22
10-14 5 Advanced 21
> 15 4 Expert 7
Skills (Semantics) Skills (Enterprise systems)
Beginner 26 Beginner 28
Some experience 12 Some experience 11
Advanced 17 Advanced 14
Expert 6 Expert 8
Sector
Industrial automation 14 Home automation 4
Retail 12 Transportation and logistics 7
Smart City 5 Healthcare 2
Vehicular communications 5 Other / none 12
Most of the projects were either in the area of (wireless)
sensor network or other connected (embedded) constrained
devices. While the actual devices were almost always con-
strained, the network was not. There was a large group using
802.15.4 based wireless, but also some with 802.11 networks,
a regular (Ethernet) wired connection or combinations thereof.
2) Protocols: Application layer protocols, as shown in Ta-
ble II, seem still to be dominated by custom written protocols.
Nonetheless, standardized protocols like HTTP, CoAP[8] or
MQTT[9] are used by nearly half of the participants. SOAP,
which is otherwise widely used in enterprises [10], does not
seem to play a role at all. While not adopted widespread yet,
in future, most people seem to anticipate CoAP as one of
the major players, winning shares from all other standardized
protocols and the custom ones. Nonetheless, when comparing
the protocols planned to be used in future own developments
(i. e. what the participants really plan) and the expected
future usage of the industry as a whole (i. e. what they
think the industry will move towards), than the expectations
towards CoAP are even higher. The number of people planning
with and expecting custom protocols is still quite high. In
terms of network/transport layer protocols there seems to be
an expected shift towards IPv6/6LoWPAN and UDP/CoAP
based protocols. It is surprising, given the size of the ZigBee
Alliance, that the ZigBee protocol suite is not used more often.
ZigBee was almost always selected together with 6LoWPAN,
so that most likely even within the ZigBee universe its IPv6
enhancements (Zigbee IP) are used to ensure interoperability.
TABLE II
USED PROTOCOLS
Application layer Now Future Future
(planned) (expected)
CoAP 8% 28% 44%
HTTP 14% 12% 21%
SOAP 2% 2% 6%
CAN 2% 4% 4%
MQTT 5% 6% 7%
KNX 6% 6% 7%
MODBUS 4% 6% 7%
Other/Custom 47% 38% 10%
Zigbee 8% 10% 8%
Transport layer Now Planned Expected
UDP 19% 21% 14%
Reliable UDP (non CoAP) 24% 23% 12%
TCP 13% 11% 9%
UDP + CoAP 8% 24% 39%
Custom/other (TCP-like) 13% 7% 14%
Custom/other 23% 14% 12%
Network layer Now Planned Expected
IPv4 5% 3% 2%
IPv6 21% 23% 35%
6LoWPAN 25% 45% 32%
Custom 802.15.4 protocol 21% 14% 10%
Custom (other) 22% 9% 12%
Zigbee 6% 6% 9%
(Dedicated) Network Management Now Planned Expected
CMIP/CMIS 4% 3% 5%
SNMP 15% 24% 49%
IEC104 0% 2% 8%
Custom protocol based on
application layer protocol
44% 37% 20%
Other custom protocol 37% 34% 18%
None / not at all 24% 18% 4%
The views on the community with regards to the current
IoT-protocols has been surveyed with a 4-point Likert-style
questionnaire. The Likert items as well as the responses are
illustrated in Figure 1. There seems to be consensus that most
future IoT-applications will be IP-based to some degree, and
a bias towards ReST-based architectures. This matches the
results in Table II.
Fig. 1. Usage and potential of IoT-protocols (on a 4-point Likert scale)
Dedicated management protocols, like SNMP[11] or

TABLE III
TECHNOLOGIES USED (IN PERCENT OF PARTICIPANTS), MULTIPLE
ANSWERS WERE POSSIBLE
Technology Now Future
(planned)
Future
(expected)
RFID 25% 27% 24%
QR codes 5% 8% 11%
Barcodes 12 % 10% 7%
NFC 10% 15% 39%
Bluetooth 7% 6% 19%
None 41% 34% %
CMIP/CMIS[12], seem to be not that widely used at the
moment as one would expect. Most participants, used (if at
all), a custom application-specific layer on top of the already
used application layer protocol. Most participants (>70%)
consider nowadays management protocols as not sufficient
enough (Figure 1). Interestingly, many respondents also do
not plan to use a standardized protocol in future. Generally
speaking, the need for management seems to be recognized
though, as a more widespread use is expected in future.
When asked why not using an existing management protocol,
the vast majority answered that they expected the overhead
of a standardized protocol as too high, or that they fear
negative consequences with regard to performance and power
consumption. The usage of a custom protocol, tailored towards
their specific needs, seems to give them more confidence in the
qualitative and quantitative properties of the system, even for
the price of a lack of interoperability. As these concerns are not
new, there are efforts to run (subsets) of, for example, SNMP
[13][14] and NETCONF [15] on resource constrained nodes.
CoAP-based protocols (e.g. [16]) have also been investigated,
nonetheless, these are also non standardized custom protocols
on top of the application layer protocol.
Considering that the IoT to some degree originated from
RFID, we surveyed other technologies than those based on
ISO/OSI (Internet)-like stacks. As can be seen in Table III
quite some people use RFID, Bluetooth and QR codes. NFC
still seems not that much used at the moment by the partic-
ipants. Nonetheless, this might be due to the participants as
none of them was from financial sector or mobile ticketing,
where NFC has gained some usage. Those who are using NFC
are solely from retail and industrial automation.
3) Semantics: The general attitude of the community to-
wards semantics was surveyed with a four point Likert-style
questionnaire. The individual Likert items and the distribution
of the answers are shown in Figure 2. Most participants
agree that semantics will play a role in future IoT systems.
Some nonetheless, think that it is too bloated/an academic
toy, or as one of the participants wrote ”a hype from bored
academics that noone will remember in a few years” When
asked what is needed for a widespread adoption of semantics
in the IoT (see Figure 3) the by-far most often mentioned
issues were knowledge / awareness of development staff
and standardization, followed by development tool support.
Infrastructure and tool support for domain experts did not
seem to be an issue. As illustrated in Figure 4 the main
Fig. 2. Usage and potential of semantics (on a 4-point Likert scale)
advantages of semantics is seen in high-level interoperability
and the management of things, followed by reasoning and the
management of devices. Interoperability at an endpoint level,
as suggested in our integration platform, is not yet seen as an
area where semantics can contribute.
Standardization
(Semantic web
technologies)
Standardization
(Ontologies)
Tool support
(development)
Tool support
(domain experts)
Infrastructure
(Databases,
Libraries)
Knowledge /
Awareness of
development
staff
2 24 5 3 4 62
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Percent
Fig. 3. Main obstacle for not using semantic technologies (in percent)
Given the fact that most people think that there is potential
in semantics, it is interesting to see its actual usage: As shown
in Table IV, out of all participants 41% do not use semantics
at all and 34% do not plan to use it in a further project. From
those who use semantics the vast majority is using it for the
description of things, devices or services. Reasoning on top of
the semantic data seems to be a topic that many people have on
their radar. When asked which (domain specific) ontologies are
used, most answers centered around custom/problem specific
ontologies. The only ontology that was mentioned more often
was SSN. The lack of standardization or at least of de-facto
standards has been mentioned several times.
TABLE IV
SEMANTIC TECHNOLOGY USAGE (PER PARTICPANTS NOT SELECTING
NONE), MULTIPLE ANSWERS WERE POSSIBLE
Technology Now Future
(planned)
Description of endpoint level services 7% 22%
Description of Things 67% 78%
Description of Devices 32% 48%
Description of high-level services 38% 45%
Reasoning 22% 35%
Configuration 5% 12%
None / Not at all 41% 34%

The time horizon of supporting semantics in a product or
product prototype (industry), or do research is shown in Table
V. Industry participants generally expected to not do or use
semantics in the next 2 years and more (> 70%). Participants
from academia do plan to work with semantics often and
within a timespan of less than two years (also around 70%).
TABLE V
USE OF SEMANTIC TECHNOLOGIES (TIME HORIZON)
Industry Research
not at all 5% 12%
next 6 months 8% 24%
1 year 11% 35%
2 years 24% 17%
more than 2 years 52% 12%
21
7
21
14
17
4
16
0 5 10 15 20 25
High-level (semantic) Interoperability
Interoperability at endpoint level
Management of Things
Device Management
Reasoning and Sense-Making
Self-healing
Self-management / self-configuration
Fig. 4. Attitude towards opportunities/usages of semantics in IoT
4) Enterprise Integration: Enterprise integration is still
mainly done through middleware or proxies, in cases where
appropriate. Direct communication, without an intermediary,
has not yet been widely adopted in enterprise integration
frameworks. As shown in Figure 5, only 17% of the integration
projects were done via a direct access (e. g. IPv6), while most
solutions seem still to use a gateway. This is most likely due
to historical reasons, as IoT used to use custom protocols
which required a gateway solution. Most IoT-systems run by
our participants have either a fully automated configuration
scheme or some kind of technical administrator responsible.
End-users are only in 14% of all cases solely responsible
for the configuration of their device. Most monitoring and
management (Figure 6) activities in such environments are
also done on this intermediary. Data gathering and aggregation
is mostly done either solely on the device (37%) or on the
gateway (46%). This, to some degree, might also explain why
management protocols did not gain widespread use yet. Most
monitoring platforms are centralized, and often do not yet
provide a real-time view on the system. A device-level only
monitoring (e. g. by the user only) is not very common.
III. CONCLUSION
While the survey is only a still picture of a subset of
the current situation in IoT, some conclusions can be drawn.
The IoT domain remains to be highly heterogeneous. While
semantics are expected to play a role in future IoT systems,
there is still a way to go. Most participants see some benefit
in the semantic management of things, devices and services.
83%
17%
direct access
gateway solution
1
(a) Direct access on network/transport
layer vs gateway solutions
26%
36%
24%
14%
Fully automatic configu-
ration
End-user solely responsi-
ble for configuration
Administrator responsible
for configuration on-site,
pre-rollout
Administrator responsible
for configuration, semi-
automatic rollout
1
(b) Configuration
Fig. 5. Enterprise integration
17%
46%
37%
on-device level only
gateway
backend system
1
(a) Data gathering/aggregation
25%
13%
30%
14%
18%
on-device level only
centralized monitoring
(push, time interval)
centralized monitoring
(push, event based)
centralized monitoring
(poll, time interval)
centralized monitoring
(realtime)
1
(b) Data monitoring platform
Fig. 6. Monitoring
Nonetheless, when looking into the actual situation and the
planned usage of semantics in IoT, these benefits seem not to
be strong enough to stimulate large scale usage. One reason
could be a lack of training in semantics and the more ”bit and
byte”-oriented skillset current embedded developers have.
It is obvious that semantic management of services needs
to take different protocols into account, even if there seems
to be the expectation that IPv6/6LoWPAN will play a crucial
role and finally make the IoT vision a reality. CoAP, while
currently not used at a large scale, is expected to be for IoT
what was HTTP for the WWW. Nonetheless, the number of
people using or expecting the use of custom protocols in
the future is quite high. Gateways or proxies will still be
widely used. It seems as if a convergence towards an internet
standard might not happen as soon as expected. Semantic
service descriptions could fill that gap and allow integration of
different protocols. SSN seems to have emerged to a de-facto
standard for research in sensor networks. It was also one of the
very few mature enough choices available when we sketched
our own integration platform, a view that seems to be shared
by others. The management of things and corresponding
functionality (like discovery) seemed most promising to the
participants of our study, followed by devices and services.
Here, in our opinion, the community has still a way ahead
before it stands on a common ground.
Our survey is only one small step towards a qualitative and
quantitative understanding of real-world usage in the emerging
field of the IoT. Not only in terms of the use of semantics,
but also in the use of protocols and the management of things,
services and devices. The authors suggest further empiric work
to broaden the databasis and deepen the understanding of used
protocols, needed management functionality and problems
arising in real IoT deployments. Especially, the first indus-
trial deployments of semantic platforms will lead to further
insights into the real problems arising when using semantic
technologies and if semantics can really hold its promises.

REFERENCES
[1] “European Future Internet Portal. [Online]. Available:
http://www.future-internet.eu/
[2] N. Gershenfeld, R. Krikorian, and D. Cohen, “The Internet of things.”
Scientific American, vol. 291, no. 4, p. 76, 2004.
[3] W. Dangelmaier, C. Laroque, and A. Klaas, “Industrie 4.0–
Handlungsfelder der Digitalen Fabrik zur Optimierung der
Ressourceneffizienz in der Produktion.
[4] “Sensei - Integrating the Physical with the Digital World of the Network
of the Future. [Online]. Available: http://www.sensei-project.eu/
[5] “Internet of Things Architecture (IOT-A). [Online]. Available:
http://www.iot-a.eu/public
[6] M. Thoma, K. Sperner, T. Braun, and C. Magerkurth, “Integration of
WSNs into enterprise systems based on semantic physical business
entities, in Wireless Days (WD), 2013 IFIP, 2013.
[7] M. Thoma, T. Braun, and C. Magerkurth, “Enterprise Integration of
Smart Objects using Semantic Service Descriptions, in Proc. of IEEE
Wireless Communication and Networking Conference (WCNC 2014),
Istanbul, Turkey, 2014.
[8] Z. Shelby, K. Hartke, C. Bormann, and B. Frank, “Constrained Appli-
cation Protocol (CoAP), Internet-Draft, 2011.
[9] U. Hunkeler, H. L. Truong, and A. Stanford-Clark, “MQTT-SA pub-
lish/subscribe protocol for Wireless Sensor Networks, in Communica-
tion Systems Software and Middleware and Workshops, 2008. COM-
SWARE 2008. 3rd International Conference on. IEEE, 2008, pp. 791–
798.
[10] P. Fremantle, S. Weerawarana, and R. Khalaf, “Enterprise services,
Communications of the ACM, vol. 45, no. 10, pp. 77–82, 2002.
[11] J. Case, M. Fedor, M. Schoffstall, and C. Davin, A simple network
management protocol (SNMP). Network Information Center, SRI
International, 1989.
[12] U. Warrier, L. Besaw, L. LaBarre, and B. Handspicker, “Common
management information services and protocols for the internet (CMOT
and CMIP), Request for Comments, vol. 1189, 1990.
[13] S. Kuryla and J. Sch
¨
onw
¨
alder, “Evaluation of the resource requirements
of SNMP agents on constrained devices, in Managing the Dynamics of
Networks and Services. Springer, 2011, pp. 100–111.
[14] J. Sch
¨
onw
¨
alder, H. Mukhtar, S. Joo, and K. Kim, “SNMP opti-
mizations for constrained devices, IETF draft draft-hamid-6lowpan-
snmpoptimizations-03. txt, IETF, 2010.
[15] A. Sehgal, V. Perelman, S. Kuryla, and J. Schonwalder, “Management of
resource constrained devices in the internet of things, Communications
Magazine, IEEE, vol. 50, no. 12, pp. 144–149, 2012.
[16] O. Mazhelis, M. Waldburger, G. S. Machado, B. Stiller, and P. Tyrv
¨
ainen,
“Retrieving monitoring and accounting information from constrained
devices in internet-of-things applications, in Emerging Management
Mechanisms for the Future Internet. Springer, 2013, pp. 136–147.
Citations
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Investigating the intellectual structure and trends of KM in Industry 4.0 and its consequences reveals six clusters of keywords, subsequently explored via a systematic literature review to identify potential stream of this emergent field and future research avenues capable of producing meaningful advances in managerial knowledge.
Abstract: Due to increased competitive pressure, modern organizations tend to rely on knowledge and its exploitation to sustain a long-term advantage. This calls for a precise understanding of knowledge management (KM) processes and, specifically, how knowledge is created, shared/transferred, acquired, stored/retrieved, and applied throughout an organizational system. However, since the beginning of the new millennium, such KM processes have been deeply affected and molded by the advent of the fourth industrial revolution, also called Industry 4.0, which involves the interconnectedness of machines and their ability to learn and share data autonomously. For this reason, the present article investigates the intellectual structure and trends of KM in Industry 4.0. Bibliometric analysis and a systematic literature review are conducted on a total of 90 relevant articles. The results reveal six clusters of keywords, subsequently explored via a systematic literature review to identify potential stream of this emergent field and future research avenues capable of producing meaningful advances in managerial knowledge of Industry 4.0 and its consequences.

152 citations


Cites background from "Managing things and services with s..."

  • ...This places the IoT at the core of the whole industry architecture [55]....

    [...]

Proceedings ArticleDOI
01 Feb 2016
TL;DR: This paper presents an approach to develop such a digital re presentation based on semantic knowledge representation formalisms such as RDF, RDF Schema and OWL which addresses the communication and comprehension challenges in Industry 4.0 scenarios using semantic technologies.
Abstract: In the engineering and manufacturing domain, there is currently an atmosphere of departure to a new era of digitized production. In different regions, initiatives in these directions are known under different names, such as industrie du futur in France, industrial internet in the US or Industrie 4.0 in Germany. While the vision of digitizing production and manufacturing gained much traction lately, it is still relatively unclear howthis vision can actually be implemented with concrete standardsand technologies. Within the German Industry 4.0 initiative, the concept of an Administrative Shell was devised to respond to these requirements. The Administrative Shell is planned to provide a digital representation of all information being available about and from an object which can be a hardware system or a software platform. In this paper, we present an approach to develop such a digital re presentation based on semantic knowledge representation formalisms such as RDF, RDF Schema and OWL. We present our concept of a Semantic I4.0 Component whichaddresses the communication and comprehension challenges in Industry 4.0 scenarios using semantic technologies. Our approach is illustrated with a concrete example showing its benefits in a real-world use case.

84 citations

Proceedings ArticleDOI
01 Sep 2016
TL;DR: This paper presents an approach to model and implement Industry 4.0 components with the Resource Description Framework (RDF), and addresses the challenges of interoperable communication and machine comprehension in Industry 5.0 settings using semantic technologies.
Abstract: Industry 4.0 is a global endeavor of automation and data exchange to create smart factories maximizing production capabilities and allowing for new business models. The Reference Architecture Model for Industry 4.0 (RAMI 4.0) describes the core aspects of Industry 4.0 and defines Administration Shells as digital representations of Industry 4.0 components. In this paper, we present an approach to model and implement Industry 4.0 components with the Resource Description Framework (RDF). The approach addresses the challenges of interoperable communication and machine comprehension in Industry 4.0 settings using semantic technologies. We show how related standards and vocabularies, such as IEC 62264, eCl@ss, and the Ontology of Units of Measure (OM), can be utilized along with the RDF-based representation of the RAMI 4.0 concepts. Finally, we demonstrate the applicability and benefits of the approach using an example from a real-world use case.

49 citations


Cites background from "Managing things and services with s..."

  • ...Semantic technologies play a crucial role with regard to the description and management of things, devices, and services [4], [5]....

    [...]

Proceedings ArticleDOI
07 Apr 2015
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors proposed an M2M device management framework that can be deployed in a cloud system, a gateway or even inside a mobile application, where the capabilities of the framework are exposed using RESTful web services.
Abstract: Recent years have witnessed an explosion in the number and types of physical devices connected to the Internet. This exponential growth in the volume of objects poses challenges in terms of managing the connected M2M devices. A unified approach for efficient management of the M2M devices while preserving scalability is necessary. This paper proposes an M2M device management framework that can be deployed in a cloud system, M2M gateway or even inside a mobile application. CoRE Link Format is used for lightweight description of smart M2M devices. The capabilities of CoRE Link are extended to describe legacy M2M devices as a part of Internet of Things ecosystem. Open Mobile Alliance Lightweight M2M (OMA LwM2M) Technical Specifications are used in the framework to provide M2M service enablement for end users. Self-management of the M2M device configurations is outlined. The capabilities of the framework are exposed using RESTful web services. oneM2M architecture for device management is described which integrates the proposed framework. Its software implementation is examined to be ultra-lightweight. Utilization of CoRE Link settles the heterogeneity of the managed devices and promotes interoperability. Finally the paper summarizes the contributions and concludes with future directions.

43 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: A comprehensive study of representative works on IoT network management, analyzes existing solutions for IoT low power networks management and presents a taxonomy of those solutions and compares existing research proposals based on different requirements.

37 citations

References
More filters
Proceedings Article
01 Jan 1997
TL;DR: The Hypertext Transfer Protocol is an application-level protocol for distributed, collaborative, hypermedia information systems, which can be used for many tasks beyond its use for hypertext through extension of its request methods, error codes and headers.
Abstract: The Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) is an application-level protocol for distributed, collaborative, hypermedia information systems. It is a generic, stateless, protocol which can be used for many tasks beyond its use for hypertext, such as name servers and distributed object management systems, through extension of its request methods, error codes and headers [47]. A feature of HTTP is the typing and negotiation of data representation, allowing systems to be built independently of the data being transferred.

3,881 citations


"Managing things and services with s..." refers methods in this paper

  • ...Most approaches for enabling interoperability between systems use high-level protocols like HTTP[9] or SOAP/XML[10] for integration....

    [...]

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The fields of application for IoT technologies are as numerous as they are diverse, as IoT solutions are increasingly extending to virtually all areas of everyday.
Abstract: It has been next to impossible in the past months not to come across the term ‘‘Internet of Things’’ (IoT) one way or another. Especially the past year has seen a tremendous surge of interest in the Internet of Things. Consortia have been formed to define frameworks and standards for the IoT. Companies have started to introduce numerous IoTbased products and services. And a number of IoT-related acquisitions have been making the headlines, including, e.g., the prominent takeover of Nest by Google for $3.2 billion and the subsequent acquisitions of Dropcam by Nest and of SmartThings by Samsung. Politicians as well as practitioners increasingly acknowledge the Internet of Things as a real business opportunity, and estimates currently suggest that the IoT could grow into a market worth $7.1 trillion by 2020 (IDC 2014). While the term Internet of Things is now more and more broadly used, there is no common definition or understanding today of what the IoT actually encompasses. The origins of the term date back more than 15 years and have been attributed to the work of the Auto-ID Labs at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) on networked radio-frequency identification (RFID) infrastructures (Atzori et al. 2010; Mattern and Floerkemeier 2010). Since then, visions for the Internet of Things have been further developed and extended beyond the scope of RFID technologies. The International Telecommunication Union (ITU) for instance now defines the Internet of Things as ‘‘a global infrastructure for the Information Society, enabling advanced services by interconnecting (physical and virtual) things based on, existing and evolving, interoperable information and communication technologies’’ (ITU 2012). At the same time, a multitude of alternative definitions has been proposed. Some of these definitions exhibit an emphasis on the things which become connected in the IoT. Other definitions focus on Internet-related aspects of the IoT, such as Internet protocols and network technology. And a third type centers on semantic challenges in the IoT relating to, e.g., the storage, search and organization of large volumes of information (Atzori et al. 2010). The fields of application for IoT technologies are as numerous as they are diverse, as IoT solutions are increasingly extending to virtually all areas of everyday. The most prominent areas of application include, e.g., the smart industry, where the development of intelligent production systems and connected production sites is often discussed under the heading of Industry 4.0. In the smart home or building area, intelligent thermostats and security systems are receiving a lot of attention, while smart energy applications focus on smart electricity, gas and water meters. Smart transport solutions include, e.g., vehicle fleet tracking and mobile ticketing, while in the smart health area, topics such as patients’ surveillance and chronic disease management are being addressed. And in the context of Accepted after one revision by Prof. Dr. Sinz.

3,499 citations


"Managing things and services with s..." refers background in this paper

  • ...I. INTRODUCTION Research on semantics and semantic management of Internet of Things systems has attracted a lot of interest in the last ten years, but so far, has failed to gain widespread use in industrial applications....

    [...]

  • ...A. Introduction We conducted a survey on semantics with an emphasis on integration of enterprise IT systems....

    [...]

  • ...The more recent Internet-of-Things Architecture project (IOT-A) [5], which is considered as an EU flagship project, received around e11....

    [...]

  • ...4) Enterprise Integration: Enterprise integration is still mainly done through middleware or proxies, in cases where appropriate....

    [...]

  • ...Most projects that have been ramped up in past five years in the context of Future Internet [1], Internet of Things [2] or Industry 4.0 [3] use semantic technologies in one way or the other....

    [...]

01 Apr 1989
TL;DR: This RFC is a re-release of RFC 1098, with a changed "Status of this Memo" section plus a few minor typographical corrections.
Abstract: This RFC is a re-release of RFC 1067, with a changed "Status of this Memo" section. This memo defines a simple protocol by which management information for a network element may be inspected or altered by logically remote users. In particular, together with its companion memos which describe the structure of management information along with the initial management information base, these documents provide a simple, workable architecture and system for managing TCP/IP-based internets and in particular the Internet.

1,660 citations

01 Jan 2000

1,291 citations

Frequently Asked Questions (13)
Q1. What are the contributions mentioned in the paper "Managing things and services with semantics: a survey" ?

This paper presents a survey on the usage, opportunities and pitfalls of semantic technologies in the Internet of Things. The survey suggests that there is still a lot of heterogeneity in IoT technologies, but first indications of the use of standardized protocols exist. Semantic technologies are being recognized as of potential use, mainly in the management of things and services. 

Nonetheless, the number of people using or expecting the use of custom protocols in the future is quite high. The authors suggest further empiric work to broaden the databasis and deepen the understanding of used protocols, needed management functionality and problems arising in real IoT deployments. The management of things and corresponding functionality ( like discovery ) seemed most promising to the participants of their study, followed by devices and services. Especially, the first industrial deployments of semantic platforms will lead to further insights into the real problems arising when using semantic technologies and if semantics can really hold its promises. 

The management of things and corresponding functionality (like discovery) seemed most promising to the participants of their study, followed by devices and services. 

The usage of a custom protocol, tailored towards their specific needs, seems to give them more confidence in the qualitative and quantitative properties of the system, even for the price of a lack of interoperability. 

ZigBee was almost always selected together with 6LoWPAN, so that most likely even within the ZigBee universe its IPv6 enhancements (Zigbee IP) are used to ensure interoperability. 

When asked what is needed for a widespread adoption of semantics in the IoT (see Figure 3) the by-far most often mentioned issues were knowledge / awareness of development staff and standardization, followed by development tool support. 

There seems to be consensus that most future IoT-applications will be IP-based to some degree, and a bias towards ReST-based architectures. 

Dedicated management protocols, like SNMP[11] orCMIP/CMIS[12], seem to be not that widely used at the moment as one would expect. 

The majority of participants had at least three years of professional experience and a more than basic understanding of IoT and semantics. 

One reason could be a lack of training in semantics and the more ”bit and byte”-oriented skillset current embedded developers have. 

When asked why not using an existing management protocol, the vast majority answered that they expected the overhead of a standardized protocol as too high, or that they fear negative consequences with regard to performance and power consumption. 

It is obvious that semantic management of services needs to take different protocols into account, even if there seems to be the expectation that IPv6/6LoWPAN will play a crucial role and finally make the IoT vision a reality. 

There was a large group using 802.15.4 based wireless, but also some with 802.11 networks, a regular (Ethernet) wired connection or combinations thereof.2) Protocols: Application layer protocols, as shown in Table II, seem still to be dominated by custom written protocols.