Semantic interoperability in the Internet of Things: An overview from the INTER-IoT perspective

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnca.2016.08.007Get rights and content

Abstract

The Internet of Things (IoT) idea, explored across the globe, brings about an important issue: how to achieve interoperability among multiple existing (and constantly created) IoT platforms. In this context, in January 2016, the European Commission has funded seven projects that are to deal with various aspects of interoperability in the Internet of Things. Among them, the INTER-IoT project is aiming at the design and implementation of, and experimentation with, an open cross-layer framework and associated methodology to provide voluntary interoperability among heterogeneous IoT platforms. While the project considers interoperability across all layers of the software stack, we are particularly interested in answering the question: how ontologies and semantic data processing can be harnessed to facilitate interoperability across the IoT landscape. Henceforth, we have engaged in a “fact finding mission” to establish what is currently at our disposal when semantic interoperability is concerned. Since the INTER-IoT project is initially driven by two use cases originating from (i) (e/m)Health and (ii) transportation and logistics, these two application domains were used to provide context for our search. The paper summarizes our findings and provides foundation for developing methods and tools for supporting semantic interoperability in the INTER-IoT project (and beyond).

Introduction

The Internet of Things (IoT), conceptualized as an omnipresent network, consisting of physical or virtual objects/resources, equipped with sensing, computing, communication and actuating capabilities, can be seen as the most recent incarnation of, so-called, ubiquitous computing (Weiser, 1991, Friedewald and Raabe, 2011). With billions of sensors and actuators (things) already deployed, and combined into a number of domain-specific platforms, the vision of the hyper-connected world is closer than ever before.

Dealing with the vast amount of data produced by the things, their varying capabilities, and an exploding number of services, which they can offer (or require, to be “useful”), are among the biggest conceptual and technological challenges of our time. This challenge is further magnified by the typical ills of early-stage technology. With not much exaggeration it can be stated that “every IoT domain and every IoT vendor produces its own IoT platform.” As a matter of fact, different “vendor groups” can be found in different domains, while not a single vendor can be seen as having an “upper hand” in being positioned across all IoT domains. Even the, EU “sponsored,” FIWARE platform (https://www.fiware.org/) has only a limited uptake. Furthermore, as typically happens in early stages of technology adoption, no real (accepted by most players) standards can be found and none can be expected to materialize in the near future.

It is possible to deal with the interoperability challenge on multiple levels of the software stack. However, it is our belief that the key to solving the problem is on the “highest” level. Specifically, common description and data representation frameworks, which will characterize the things, their capabilities and data they produce, in machine-readable and machine-interpretable forms, are needed. Since the IoT can naturally be perceived as a “successor” of “the Web,” it should not come as a surprise that approaches, which are believed to have a chance to be successful in the case of the latter, should be considered for the former. Henceforth, it is reasonable (today—June 2016) to believe that semantic technologies, based on application of ontologies (Staab and Studer, 2009) have the best chance to facilitate interoperability among the things, as well as across the IoT platforms. Thus, ontologies should be used for semantic annotation, managing access, and resource discovery in the IoT. As a result, common interpretation of data and information, based on a shared ontology (or, more likely, multiple shared ontologies), is the best pathway to achieve semantic interoperability, which allows to exchange information such that the meaning of it will be automatically interpreted by the receiver in order to produce useful results.

We make these claims knowing very well that the original vision of the Semantic Web is still to be realized. For instance, as one can see from the, three-volume report, Internet of Things Success Stories (Cousin, 2014), published by the Internet of Things European Research Cluster and Smart Action, actual semantic methods are still used almost exclusively within the research community. However, recent developments in the “world of information processing” (e.g. success of the Linked Data Bizer et al., 2009) make us believe that widespread practical application of semantic technologies is just a matter of time. Note also that semantic technologies are often utilized within multi-agent systems (MAS). At the same time, MAS may provide the right set of mechanisms for implementing IoT interoperability (see, for instance, Fortino et al., 2012a, Fortino et al., 2013c, Fortino et al., 2014c, Fortino et al., 2012b, Underbrink et al., 2008). Therefore, the “push” to introduce semantic technologies into the IoT domain will come not only from within. It will also be facilitated by “outside technologies” that will be tried in the context of IoT interoperability.

This being the case, we have decided to take the bottom-up approach. To be able to apply semantic technologies, one has to have ontologies available. Therefore, we have delved into the state-of-the-art of ontologies in three areas: (1) general ontologies applicable to virtually any IoT platform, (2) ontologies in (e/m)Health and (3) ontologies in transportation and logistics. These ontologies, described in 3 Ontologies in the Internet of Things, 4 (e/m)Health ontologies, 5 Transportation/logistics ontologies, are considered in the context of use case scenarios introduced in Section 2. Finally, in Section 7, we outline a possible approach to use ontologies to achieve semantic interoperability among heterogeneous IoT platforms.

Section snippets

Application scenarios

We consider the issue of semantic interoperability in the IoT from the view point of two use cases related to different application domains. In general, the situation is as follows. We assume that two or more IoT platforms have been instantiated, likely by different vendors, using different technologies, to reach somewhat different goals. Due to the technical progress/change in the business model, stakeholders of these IoT platforms come to the conclusion that it would be beneficial if their

Ontologies in the Internet of Things

Keeping in mind the two use case areas, let us now focus our attention on more general issues concerning interoperability in IoT systems. Obviously, this problem has been (and still is) addressed by researchers on many levels/layers, including device (http://www.onem2m.org/), middleware (FIWARE,, GAMBAS,), and service (http://ict-iotest.eu/iotest/), while the semantic layer has received considerably less attention. Here, the integration of IoT data into the Web with semantic modeling and linked

(e/m)Health ontologies

As mentioned, the (e/m)Health use case aims at providing healthcare services for ambulatory and remote patient monitoring, where data is collected from different IoT platforms and integrated to provide homogeneous view on patient health record.

In this context, main sources of clinical information for both eHealth, in general, and mHealth, in particular are considered to be: body sensor networks based systems, non-wearable sensors instantiated in medical devices, and Electronic Health Records

Transportation/logistics ontologies

Let us now complete our survey by looking into existing ontologies in the transportation and logistics domain. As it turns out, found ontologies span business perspectives of freight and production companies, transportation hubs (e.g. airports, train stations), transport infrastructure, mass transit, personal and business travel, and others. As mentioned before (see, Section 2.2), due to the nature of our project, we are not interested in the generic or personal travel perspective, instead we

Semantic interoperability

Thus far we have reviewed state-of-the-art in semantic representation of knowledge for: (i) the Internet of Things, (ii) medical applications, and (iii) transport and logistics. The main conclusions were that (a) in each area a number of ontologies/vocabularies/standards exist, and (b) further work to achieve semantic interoperability will be required. This work may involve, among others, extraction of a “full-blown ontology” from messages exchanged within an IoT platform or database schema

Concluding remarks

The aim of this paper was to summarize results of our attempt at answering the question: What ontologies are available (and “ready to use”) for the development of interoperable applications in the Internet of Things. We were particularly interested in (a) “general” IoT ontologies, and ontologies for our use case applications (b) (e/m)Health and (c) port transportation/logistics. The key results of our investigations are as follows.

There exist a number of ontologies dealing with various aspects

References (180)

  • Arnold, U., Oberländer, J., Schwarzbach, B., 2012. LOGICAL—development of cloud computing platforms and tools for...
  • ATC—Anatomic Therapeutic Chemical Classification of Drugs....
  • G. Atemezing et al.

    Transforming meteorological data into Linked Data

    Semant. Web

    (2013)
  • Baader, F., Calvanese, D., McGuinness, D.L., Nardi, D., Patel-Schneider P.F., (Eds.), 2003. The Description Logic...
  • M. Barlow

    Real-time Big Data Analytics: Emerging Architecture

    (2013)
  • P.M. Barnaghi et al.

    Semantics for the Internet of thingsearly progress and back to the future

    Int. J. Semant. Web Inf. Syst.

    (2012)
  • R. Bashshur et al.

    The taxonomy of telemedicine

    Telemed. e-Health

    (2011)
  • Basic Geo (WGS84 lat/long) Vocabulary,...
  • Bendadouche, R., Roussey, C., Sousa, G.D., Chanet, J., Hou, K.M., 2012. Extension of the semantic sensor network...
  • Bender, D., Sartipi, K., 2013. HL7 FHIR: an Agile and RESTful approach to healthcare information exchange. In: 2013...
  • Beredimas, N., Kilintzis, V., Chouvarda, I., Maglaveras, N., 2015. A reusable ontology for primitive and complex HL7...
  • Bioontology a Repository of Biomedical Ontologies,...
  • C. Bizer et al.

    Linked data—the story so far

    Int. J. Semant. Web Inf. Syst.

    (2009)
  • Blackstock, M., Lea, R., 2014. Iot interoperability: a hub-based approach. In: 2014 4th International Conference on the...
  • Bock, J., Haase, P., Ji, Q., Volz, R., 2008. Benchmarking OWL reasoners, in: van Harmelen, F., Herzig, A., Hitzler, P.,...
  • Brakatsoulas, S., Pfoser, D., Salas, R., Wenk, C., 2005. On map-matching vehicle tracking data. In: Proceedings of the...
  • Brown, A.K., Sturza, M.A., 1993. Vehicle Tracking System Employing Global Positioning System (GPS) Satellites, US...
  • Cafezeiro, I., Haeusler, E. H., 2007. Semantic interoperability via category theory. In: Tutorials, Posters, Panels and...
  • B. Calabrese et al.

    Cloud computing in healthcare and biomedicine

    Scalable Comput.: Pract. Exp.

    (2015)
  • Calbimonte, J., Sarni, S., Eberle, J., Aberer, K., 2014. XGSN: an open-source semantic sensing middleware for the web...
  • Cameron, J., Ramaprasad, A., Syn, T., 2015. An ontology of mhealth. In: Proceedings of the 21st Americas Conference on...
  • Carchiolo, V., Longheu, A., Malgeri, M., Mangioni, G., 2015. Multisource agent-based healthcare data gathering. In:...
  • CASSANDRA—Common Assessment and Analysis of Risk in Global Supply Chains,...
  • Cassandra Project Deliverable d3.2.2,...
  • Codescu, M., Mossakowski, T., Kutz, O., 2014. A categorical approach to ontologyalignment, in: P. Shvaiko, J. Euzenat,...
  • Cousin, P. (Ed.), Internet of Things Success Stories, Series 1–3, Internet of Things European Research Cluster (IERC)...
  • CPT—Current Procedural Terminology,...
  • Crystal—Critical System Engineering Acceleration,...
  • CSIRO Sensor Ontology,...
  • Daniele, L., Ferreira Pires, L., 2013. An ontological approach to logistics. In: Zelm, M., van Sinderen, M.,...
  • Datex ii,...
  • S. De et al.

    An Internet of Things platform for real-world and digital objects

    Scalable Comput.: Pract. Exp.

    (2012)
  • J.P. de Sousa

    Distributed planning and control systems for the virtual enterpriseorganizational requirements and development life-cycle

    J. Intell. Manuf.

    (2000)
  • K. Dentler et al.

    Comparison of Reasoners for Large Ontologies in the OWL 2 EL profile

    Semant. web

    (2011)
  • Ding, W., 2013. Study of smart warehouse management system based on the iot. In: Intelligence Computation and...
  • DOLCE+DnS Ultralite,...
  • M. Drozdowicz et al.

    Ontology for Contract Negotiations in Agent-based Grid Resource Management System

    (2011)
  • J. Euzenat et al.

    Ontology Matching

    (2007)
  • Fiesta-IoT Achieves Semantic Interoperability Between FIWARE and OneM2M,...
  • Cited by (153)

    • Direct interface circuits for resistive sensors affected by lead wire resistances

      2023, Measurement: Journal of the International Measurement Confederation
    View all citing articles on Scopus

    This research has been partially supported by EU-H2020-ICT Grant INTER-IoT 687283. Work presented here is an extension of results and continuation of the work reported in a conference paper (Ganzha et al., 2016a).

    View full text