pith. sign in

arxiv: 1906.10497 · v1 · pith:26IVDSMDnew · submitted 2019-06-23 · 💻 cs.OH

Characterizing IoT Data and its Quality for Use

Nashez Zubair , Niranjan A , Kiran Hebbar , Yogesh Simmhan This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-25 17:56 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.OH
keywords Internet of Thingsdata characteristicsdata qualitytaxonomyIoT domainsbig data management
0
0 comments X

The pith

A ground-up taxonomy organizes essential IoT data characteristics and quality factors from reviewed domains.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper reviews diverse IoT domains and applications to build a taxonomy of data characteristics starting from those real-world cases. It focuses only on the essential features required to handle large data volumes and extract useful insights, while also covering data quality issues tied to physical environments. Traditional scientific and big data methods are noted as potentially inadequate, so the taxonomy aims to guide IoT managers, data handlers, and application developers in practical data use. Big data platform creators can draw on it to design better solutions for IoT specifics.

Core claim

We offer a taxonomy of IoT data characteristics, along with data quality considerations, that are constructed from the ground-up based on the diverse IoT domains and applications we review. We emphasize on the essential features, rather than a vast array of attributes. We also indicate factors that influence the data quality.

What carries the argument

Ground-up taxonomy of IoT data characteristics and data quality considerations built from diverse IoT domains and applications.

If this is right

  • IoT managers and data handlers gain structured guidance for managing vast data and gaining insights.
  • Application composers can apply the essential characteristics to make meaningful use of IoT data.
  • Big data platform developers receive considerations to address when building solutions for IoT environments.
  • Factors affecting data quality allow evaluation of how deployment settings impact usability.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The taxonomy could be tested by applying it to emerging areas like edge computing or 5G-enabled IoT to check if new essential traits appear.
  • It may link to analytics challenges by showing how specific data traits affect real-time decision making across domains.
  • Integration with privacy or security requirements could extend the quality considerations for regulated IoT uses.

Load-bearing premise

The reviewed IoT domains and applications are representative and diverse enough to support a general taxonomy of essential features without major omissions.

What would settle it

Identification of an IoT domain or application whose data exhibits important characteristics absent from the taxonomy would indicate incompleteness in the ground-up construction.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1906.10497 by Kiran Hebbar, Nashez Zubair, Niranjan A, Yogesh Simmhan.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: IoT Data Characteristics a multitude of sensors, in most cases. Several factors affect the velocity of IoT data. It is directly influenced by the sampling rates as well as the number of sensors monitoring a particular environment [12]. E.g., phasor measurement units (PMU) in smart grids sample the power quality at 50 − 60 Hz to ensure grid stability, and hundreds of these may be present in a network, with … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: IoT Data Quality Characteristics 5.1 Inaccuracy Inaccuracy is the degree of incorrectness of the data, and perhaps the most commonly used notion for quality that is widely mentioned. The importance of inaccuracy as a quality dimension for IoT is evident from the fact that most sensing systems can only capture 33% of correct data [12]. Inaccuracy has the following 3 aspects: 5.1.1 Noisy data Data values tha… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Factors affecting IoT Data Quality 6.1 Heterogeneity An IoT system is a complex construct of various infrastructures and devices and hence possesses significant heterogeneity in its ecosystem. As a result, data management and quality enforcement becomes difficult. This partly results from a lack of standards for IoT [67], and thus makes data interoperability and a common understanding of quality difficult … view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The Internet of Things (IoT) is a cyber physical social system that encompasses science, enterprise and societal domains. Data is the most important commodity in IoT, enabling the "smarts" through analytics and decision making. IoT environments can generate and consume vast amounts of data. But managing this data effectively and gaining meaningful insights from it requires us to understand its characteristics. Traditional scientific, enterprise and big data management approaches may not be adequate, and have to evolve. Further, these characteristics and the physical deployment environments also impact the quality of the data for use. In this paper, we offer a taxonomy of IoT data characteristics, along with data quality considerations, that are constructed from the ground-up based on the diverse IoT domains and applications we review. We emphasize on the essential features, rather than a vast array of attributes. We also indicate factors that influence the data quality. Such a review is of value to IoT managers, data handlers and application composers in managing and making meaningful use of data, and for big data platform developers to offer meaningful solutions to address these considerations.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 0 minor

Summary. The paper offers a taxonomy of IoT data characteristics together with data quality considerations. The taxonomy is constructed from the ground up via a review of diverse IoT domains and applications, with emphasis on essential features rather than exhaustive attributes; factors influencing data quality for use are also indicated.

Significance. A representative ground-up taxonomy would be useful to IoT managers, data handlers, and platform developers for managing and exploiting IoT data. The review-based construction is a methodological strength when the sampled domains are shown to be sufficiently diverse; without that demonstration the taxonomy's generality remains unverified.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The central claim that the taxonomy captures essential features 'from the ground-up based on the diverse IoT domains and applications we review' rests on an untested sampling assumption. No section provides an explicit list of reviewed domains, selection criteria, or completeness argument (e.g., coverage of high-velocity control loops or long-term environmental sensing), making it impossible to assess whether omitted domains would alter the essential-feature set.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thoughtful review and for highlighting the need to strengthen the methodological transparency of our taxonomy construction. We address the major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] The central claim that the taxonomy captures essential features 'from the ground-up based on the diverse IoT domains and applications we review' rests on an untested sampling assumption. No section provides an explicit list of reviewed domains, selection criteria, or completeness argument (e.g., coverage of high-velocity control loops or long-term environmental sensing), making it impossible to assess whether omitted domains would alter the essential-feature set.

    Authors: We acknowledge the validity of this observation. The manuscript reviews applications from a variety of IoT domains to derive the essential features, but does not explicitly document the sampling process or provide a completeness argument. To address this, we will revise the paper by adding a dedicated subsection that enumerates the specific domains and applications reviewed (e.g., industrial IoT, smart cities, healthcare IoT, environmental monitoring), outlines the selection criteria focused on diversity of data velocity, volume, and context, and includes a discussion of how the taxonomy accounts for or remains stable across high-velocity control loops and long-term sensing scenarios. This revision will be made without changing the core taxonomy. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: literature review taxonomy with no derivations or fitted claims

full rationale

The paper is a literature review that synthesizes IoT data characteristics from reviewed domains and applications, with no equations, parameters, predictions, or uniqueness theorems. The central claim is a ground-up taxonomy based on the reviewed set; this is a methodological synthesis rather than a derivation that reduces to its inputs by construction. No self-citations are invoked as load-bearing external facts, and the patterns enumerated for circularity (self-definitional, fitted-input-as-prediction, etc.) do not apply. The paper is self-contained as a review and receives the default non-finding.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper is a literature review and taxonomy synthesis. It introduces no fitted parameters, mathematical axioms, or new postulated entities.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5727 in / 1007 out tokens · 23986 ms · 2026-05-25T17:56:51.983114+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

76 extracted references · 76 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Putting the ’smarts’ into the smart grid: A grand challenge for artificial intelligence,

    S. D. Ramchurn, P. Vytelingum, A. Rogers, and N. R. Jennings, “Putting the ’smarts’ into the smart grid: A grand challenge for artificial intelligence,”Commun. ACM, vol. 55, no. 4, 2012

    work page 2012

  2. [2]

    Data quality in internet of things: A state-of-the-art survey,

    A. Karkouch, H. Mousannif, H. A. Moatassime, and T. Noel, “Data quality in internet of things: A state-of-the-art survey,” Journal of Network and Computer Applications (JNCA), vol. 73, pp. 57 – 81, 2016

    work page 2016

  3. [3]

    Provenance in sensor data management,

    Z. Hensley, J. Sanyal, and J. New, “Provenance in sensor data management,” Communications of the ACM, vol. 57, no. 2, pp. 55–62, Feb 2014

    work page 2014

  4. [4]

    When things matter: A data-centric view of the internet of things,

    Y . Qin, Q. Z. Sheng, N. J. Falkner, S. Dustdar, H. Wang, and A. V . Vasilakos, “When things matter: A data-centric view of the internet of things,” Journal of Network and Computer Applications (JNCA), vol. 64, pp. 137 – 153, 2016

    work page 2016

  5. [5]

    Data-intensive applications, challenges, techniques and technologies: A survey on big data,

    C. P. Chen and C.-Y . Zhang, “Data-intensive applications, challenges, techniques and technologies: A survey on big data,” Information Sciences, vol. 275, pp. 314 – 347, 2014

    work page 2014

  6. [6]

    Beyond accuracy: What data quality means to data consumers,

    R. Y . Wang and D. M. Strong, “Beyond accuracy: What data quality means to data consumers,” Journal of Management Information Systems (JMIS), vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 5–33, 1996

    work page 1996

  7. [7]

    Cloud-based software platform for big data analytics in smart grids,

    Y . Simmhan, S. Aman, A. Kumbhare, R. Liu, S. Stevens, Q. Zhou, and V . Prasanna, “Cloud-based software platform for big data analytics in smart grids,” Computing in Science and Engineering, vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 38 – 47, 2013. ACKNOWLEDGMENT : This work was supported in part by a research grant from NetApp, Inc. 13 A PREPRINT - J UNE 26, 2019

    work page 2013

  8. [8]

    Towards a data-driven iot software architecture for smart city utilities,

    Y . Simmhan, P. Ravindra, S. Chaturvedi, M. Hegde, and R. Ballamajalu, “Towards a data-driven iot software architecture for smart city utilities,” Software: Practice and Experience, vol. 48, no. 7, pp. 1390–1416, Jul. 2018

    work page 2018

  9. [9]

    A survey of data provenance in e-science,

    Y . Simmhan, B. Plale, and D. Gannon, “A survey of data provenance in e-science,” SIGMOD Record, vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 31–36, 2005

    work page 2005

  10. [10]

    Using provenance for personalized quality ranking of scientific datasets,

    Y . Simmhan and B. Plale, “Using provenance for personalized quality ranking of scientific datasets,”International Journal of Computers and Their Applications (IJCA), vol. 18, no. 3, 2011

    work page 2011

  11. [11]

    A security-and quality-aware system architecture for internet of things,

    S. Sicari, C. Cappiello, F. De Pellegrini, D. Miorandi, and A. Coen-Porisini, “A security-and quality-aware system architecture for internet of things,” Information Systems Frontiers, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 665–677, 2016

    work page 2016

  12. [12]

    Iot-based big data storage systems in cloud computing: Perspectives and challenges,

    H. Cai, B. Xu, L. Jiang, and A. V . Vasilakos, “Iot-based big data storage systems in cloud computing: Perspectives and challenges,” IEEE Internet of Things Journal (JIOT), vol. 4, no. 1, 2017

    work page 2017

  13. [13]

    3d data management: Controlling data volume, velocity and variety,

    D. Laney, “3d data management: Controlling data volume, velocity and variety,” META Group Research Note, vol. 6, no. 70, 2001

    work page 2001

  14. [14]

    Addressing big data issues in scientific data infrastructure,

    Y . Demchenko, P. Grosso, C. De Laat, and P. Membrey, “Addressing big data issues in scientific data infrastructure,” in International Conference on Collaboration Technologies and Systems (CTS). IEEE, 2013, pp. 48–55

    work page 2013

  15. [15]

    Representing data quality in sensor data streaming environments,

    A. Klein and W. Lehner, “Representing data quality in sensor data streaming environments,” Journal of Data and Information Quality (JDIQ), vol. 1, no. 2, p. 10, 2009

    work page 2009

  16. [16]

    A data quality in use model for big data,

    J. Merino, I. Caballero, B. Rivas, M. Serrano, and M. Piattini, “A data quality in use model for big data,” Future Generation Computer Systems, vol. 63, pp. 123–130, 2016

    work page 2016

  17. [17]

    Big data quality,

    S. Thota, “Big data quality,” Encyclopedia of Big Data, pp. 1–5, 2017

    work page 2017

  18. [18]

    A data-driven urban research environment for australia,

    R. O. Sinnott, C. Bayliss, G. Galang, P. Greenwood, G. Koetsier, D. Mannix, L. Morandini, M. Nino-Ruiz, C. J. Pettit, M. Tomko, M. Sarwar, R. Stimson, W. V oorsluys, and I. Widjaja, “A data-driven urban research environment for australia,” in IEEE International Conference on E-Science (e-Science), 2012, pp. 1–8

    work page 2012

  19. [19]

    Current trends in smart city initiatives: Some stylised facts,

    P. Neirotti, A. De Marco, A. C. Cagliano, G. Mangano, and F. Scorrano, “Current trends in smart city initiatives: Some stylised facts,” Cities, vol. 38, pp. 25–36, 2014

    work page 2014

  20. [20]

    Smart cities as an application of internet of things: Experiences and lessons learnt in barcelona,

    T. Gea, J. Paradells, M. Lamarca, and D. Roldan, “Smart cities as an application of internet of things: Experiences and lessons learnt in barcelona,” in IEEE International Conference On Innovative Mobile and Internet Services in Ubiquitous Computing (IMIS). IEEE, 2013, pp. 552–557

    work page 2013

  21. [21]

    The role of smart city characteristics in the plans of fifteen cities,

    M. Angelidou, “The role of smart city characteristics in the plans of fifteen cities,” Journal of Urban Technology, vol. 24, no. 4, 2017

    work page 2017

  22. [22]

    Security issues and challenges for the iot-based smart grid,

    C. Bekara, “Security issues and challenges for the iot-based smart grid,” Procedia Computer Science, vol. 34, pp. 532 – 537, 2014

    work page 2014

  23. [23]

    A survey on smart grid communication infrastructures: Motivations, requirements and challenges,

    Y . Yan, Y . Qian, H. Sharif, and D. Tipper, “A survey on smart grid communication infrastructures: Motivations, requirements and challenges,” IEEE communications surveys & tutorials, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 5–20, 2013

    work page 2013

  24. [24]

    Opportunities and challenges of wireless sensor networks in smart grid,

    V . C. Gungor, B. Lu, and G. P. Hancke, “Opportunities and challenges of wireless sensor networks in smart grid,” IEEE transactions on industrial electronics, vol. 57, no. 10, pp. 3557–3564, 2010

    work page 2010

  25. [25]

    Holistic measures for evaluating prediction models in smart grids,

    S. Aman, Y . Simmhan, and V . Prasanna, “Holistic measures for evaluating prediction models in smart grids,”IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering (TKDE), vol. 27, no. 2, 2015

    work page 2015

  26. [26]

    Opportunities and challenges of wireless communication technologies for smart grid applications,

    P. P. Parikh, M. G. Kanabar, and T. S. Sidhu, “Opportunities and challenges of wireless communication technologies for smart grid applications,” in IEEE PES General Meeting, July 2010, pp. 1–7

    work page 2010

  27. [27]

    A methodological framework for benchmarking smart transport cities,

    A. K. Debnath, H. C. Chin, M. M. Haque, and B. Yuen, “A methodological framework for benchmarking smart transport cities,” Cities, vol. 37, pp. 47–56, 2014

    work page 2014

  28. [28]

    A smart transport application of cyber-physical systems: Road surface monitoring with mobile devices,

    B. Syed, A. Pal, K. Srinivasarengan, and P. Balamuralidhar, “A smart transport application of cyber-physical systems: Road surface monitoring with mobile devices,” in IEEE International Conference on Sensing Technology (ICST). IEEE, Dec 2012, pp. 8–12

    work page 2012

  29. [29]

    Autonomous driving: Smart transportation,

    H. Moustafa, M. Gorlatova, C. Byers, K. Bartfai-Walcott, J. Acharya, A. Mosenia, B. Murphy, C. Vasters, and S. Kambhatia, “Autonomous driving: Smart transportation,” Open Fog Consortium (OFC), Tech. Rep., 2017

    work page 2017

  30. [30]

    Vehicular fog computing: A viewpoint of vehicles as the infrastructures,

    X. Hou, Y . Li, M. Chen, D. Wu, D. Jin, and S. Chen, “Vehicular fog computing: A viewpoint of vehicles as the infrastructures,” IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, vol. 65, no. 6, 2016

    work page 2016

  31. [31]

    Privacy-protected social media user trajectories calibration,

    S. Wang, R. O. Sinnott, and S. Nepal, “Privacy-protected social media user trajectories calibration,” in IEEE International Conference on e-Science (e-Science), 2016, pp. 293–302

    work page 2016

  32. [32]

    Smart buildings: Smart spaces,

    R. Gentry and C. Byers, “Smart buildings: Smart spaces,” Open Fog Consortium (OFC), Tech. Rep., 2017. 14 A PREPRINT - J UNE 26, 2019

    work page 2017

  33. [33]

    Iot considerations, requirements, and architectures for smart buildings,

    D. Minoli, K. Sohraby, and B. Occhiogrosso, “Iot considerations, requirements, and architectures for smart buildings,” IEEE Internet of Things Journal (JIOT), vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 269–283, 2017

    work page 2017

  34. [34]

    Distributed building evacuation simulator for smart emergency management,

    N. Dimakis, A. Filippoupolitis, and E. Gelenbe, “Distributed building evacuation simulator for smart emergency management,” The Computer Journal, vol. 53, no. 9, pp. 1384–1400, 2010

    work page 2010

  35. [35]

    Survey in smart grid and smart home security: Issues, challenges and countermeasures,

    N. Komninos, E. Philippou, and A. Pitsillides, “Survey in smart grid and smart home security: Issues, challenges and countermeasures,” IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 1933–1954, 2014

    work page 1933

  36. [36]

    Toward software defined smart home,

    K. Xu, X. Wang, W. Wei, H. Song, and B. Mao, “Toward software defined smart home,”IEEE Communications Magazine, vol. 54, no. 5, pp. 116–122, 2016

    work page 2016

  37. [37]

    Technologies for an aging society: a systematic review of “smart home

    G. Demiris, B. K. Hensel et al., “Technologies for an aging society: a systematic review of “smart home” applications,” Yearb Med Inform, vol. 3, pp. 33–40, 2008

    work page 2008

  38. [38]

    Iot quality control for data and application needs,

    T. Banerjee and A. Sheth, “Iot quality control for data and application needs,” IEEE Intelligent Systems, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 68–73, Mar 2017

    work page 2017

  39. [39]

    Slice&dice: Recognizing food preparation activities using embedded accelerometers,

    C. Pham and P. Olivier, “Slice&dice: Recognizing food preparation activities using embedded accelerometers,” in European Conference on Ambient Intelligence. Springer-Verlag, 2009, pp. 34–43

    work page 2009

  40. [40]

    Patient monitoring: Smart healthcare,

    B. Murphy, H. Soroush, D. Niewolny, and P. Pazandak, “Patient monitoring: Smart healthcare,” Open Fog Consortium (OFC), Tech. Rep., 2017

    work page 2017

  41. [41]

    Iot-based smart rehabilitation system,

    Y . J. Fan, Y . H. Yin, L. Da Xu, Y . Zeng, and F. Wu, “Iot-based smart rehabilitation system,”IEEE transactions on industrial informatics, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 1568–1577, 2014

    work page 2014

  42. [42]

    The internet of things for health care: a comprehensive survey,

    S. R. Islam, D. Kwak, M. H. Kabir, M. Hossain, and K.-S. Kwak, “The internet of things for health care: a comprehensive survey,” IEEE Access, vol. 3, pp. 678–708, 2015

    work page 2015

  43. [43]

    Developing cloud applications using the e-science central platform,

    H. Hiden, S. Woodman, P. Watson, and J. Cala, “Developing cloud applications using the e-science central platform,” Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A, vol. 371, no. 1983, 2013

    work page 1983

  44. [44]

    Health monitoring and management using internet-of-things (iot) sensing with cloud-based processing: Opportunities and challenges,

    M. Hassanalieragh, A. Page, T. Soyata, G. Sharma, M. Aktas, G. Mateos, B. Kantarci, and S. Andreescu, “Health monitoring and management using internet-of-things (iot) sensing with cloud-based processing: Opportunities and challenges,” in IEEE International Conference on Services Computing (SCC). IEEE, 2015, pp. 285–292

    work page 2015

  45. [45]

    The race to build a real-life tricorder,

    E. Ackerman, “The race to build a real-life tricorder,” IEEE Spectrum, vol. 52, no. 6, pp. 46–85, 2015

    work page 2015

  46. [46]

    A review of privacy and consent management in healthcare: A focus on emerging data sources,

    M. R. Asghar, T. Lee, M. M. Baig, E. Ullah, G. Russello, and G. Dobbie, “A review of privacy and consent management in healthcare: A focus on emerging data sources,” in IEEE International Conference on e-Science (e-Science), 2017, pp. 518–522

    work page 2017

  47. [47]

    Scientific development of smart farming technologies and their application in brazil,

    D. Pivoto, P. D. Waquil, E. Talamini, C. P. S. Finocchio, V . F. Dalla Corte, and G. de Vargas Mores, “Scientific development of smart farming technologies and their application in brazil,” Information Processing in Agriculture, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 21 – 32, 2017

    work page 2017

  48. [48]

    Data analysis workflow for experiments in sugarcane precision agriculture,

    C. E. Driemeier, L. Y . Ling, A. O. Pontes, G. M. Sanches, H. C. J. Franco, P. S. G. Magalhães, and J. E. Ferreira, “Data analysis workflow for experiments in sugarcane precision agriculture,” in IEEE International Conference on e-Science (eScience), 2014, pp. 163–168

    work page 2014

  49. [49]

    Do-it-yourself digital agriculture applications with semantically enhanced iot platform,

    P. P. Jayaraman, D. Palmer, A. Zaslavsky, and D. Georgakopoulos, “Do-it-yourself digital agriculture applications with semantically enhanced iot platform,” in IEEE International Conference on Intelligent Sensors, Sensor Networks and Information Processing (ISSNIP). IEEE, April 2015, pp. 1–6

    work page 2015

  50. [50]

    A review on the practice of big data analysis in agriculture,

    A. Kamilaris, A. Kartakoullis, and F. X. Prenafeta-Boldú, “A review on the practice of big data analysis in agriculture,” Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, vol. 143, pp. 23–37, 2017

    work page 2017

  51. [51]

    Big and meta data management for u-agriculture mobile services,

    C. S. Nandyala and H.-K. Kim, “Big and meta data management for u-agriculture mobile services,” International Journal of Software Engineering and Its Applications, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 257–270, 2016

    work page 2016

  52. [52]

    Internet of animal health things (ioaht) opportunities and challenges,

    D. Smith, S. Lyle, A. Berry, N. Manning, M. Zaki, and A. Neely, “Internet of animal health things (ioaht) opportunities and challenges,” University of Cambridge, Tech. Rep., 2015

    work page 2015

  53. [53]

    Smart industry: How ict will change the game!

    B. R. Haverkort and A. Zimmermann, “Smart industry: How ict will change the game!” IEEE Internet Computing, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 8–10, 2017

    work page 2017

  54. [54]

    Using LSTM recurrent neural networks to predict excess vibration events in aircraft engines,

    A. ElSaid, B. Wild, J. Higgins, and T. Desell, “Using LSTM recurrent neural networks to predict excess vibration events in aircraft engines,” in IEEE International Conference on e-Science (e-Science), 2016, pp. 260–269

    work page 2016

  55. [55]

    Subsurface imaging for oil and gas exploration energy: Energy,

    W. Song and M. Valero, “Subsurface imaging for oil and gas exploration energy: Energy,” Open Fog Consortium (OFC), Tech. Rep., 2017. 15 A PREPRINT - J UNE 26, 2019

    work page 2017

  56. [56]

    Large-scale indexing, discovery, and ranking for the internet of things (iot),

    Y . Fathy, P. Barnaghi, and R. Tafazolli, “Large-scale indexing, discovery, and ranking for the internet of things (iot),” ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), vol. 51, no. 2, pp. 29:1–29:53, 2018

    work page 2018

  57. [57]

    A platform for the analysis of qualitative and quantitative data about the built environment and its users,

    M. Simpson, S. Woodman, H. Hiden, S. Stein, S. Dowsland, M. Turner, V . L. Hanson, and P. Watson, “A platform for the analysis of qualitative and quantitative data about the built environment and its users,” inIEEE International Conference on e-Science (e-Science). IEEE, 2017, pp. 228–237

    work page 2017

  58. [58]

    Semantic information modeling for emerging applications in smart grid,

    Q. Zhou, S. Natarajan, Y . Simmhan, and V . Prasanna, “Semantic information modeling for emerging applications in smart grid,” in International Conference on Information Technology : New Generations (ITNG) , 2012, pp. 775–782

    work page 2012

  59. [59]

    Integration of heterogeneous devices and communi- cation models via the cloud in the constrained internet of things,

    F. V . den Abeele, J. Hoebeke, I. Moerman, and P. Demeester, “Integration of heterogeneous devices and communi- cation models via the cloud in the constrained internet of things,” International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks, vol. 11, no. 10, p. 683425, 2015

    work page 2015

  60. [60]

    Practical edge analytics: Architectural approach and use cases,

    N. Anand, A. Chintalapally, C. Puri, and T. Tung, “Practical edge analytics: Architectural approach and use cases,” in IEEE International Conference on Edge Computing (EDGE). IEEE, 2017, pp. 236–239

    work page 2017

  61. [61]

    Iot analytics across edge and cloud platforms,

    Y . Simmhan, “Iot analytics across edge and cloud platforms,” IEEE Internet of Things Newsletter, 2017

    work page 2017

  62. [62]

    Towards a practical architecture for internet of things: An india-centric view,

    P. Misra, Y . Simmhan, and J. Warrior, “Towards a practical architecture for internet of things: An india-centric view,” IEEE Internet of Things Newsletter, pp. 1–2, 2015

    work page 2015

  63. [63]

    Iot data compression: Sensor-agnostic approach,

    A. Ukil, S. Bandyopadhyay, and A. Pal, “Iot data compression: Sensor-agnostic approach,” in Conference on Data Compression (DCC), April 2015, pp. 303–312

    work page 2015

  64. [64]

    Big data: A survey,

    M. Chen, S. Mao, and Y . Liu, “Big data: A survey,”Mobile Networks and Applications, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 171–209, Apr 2014

    work page 2014

  65. [65]

    Optimizing hidden markov models for the internet of things,

    M. Zachrisson, “Optimizing hidden markov models for the internet of things,” Master’s thesis, KTH, 2017

    work page 2017

  66. [66]

    A vision of iot: Applications, challenges, and opportunities with china perspective,

    S. Chen, H. Xu, D. Liu, B. Hu, and H. Wang, “A vision of iot: Applications, challenges, and opportunities with china perspective,” IEEE Internet of Things Journal (JIOT), vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 349–359, 2014

    work page 2014

  67. [67]

    Reference architectures for the internet of things,

    M. Weyrich and C. Ebert, “Reference architectures for the internet of things,” IEEE Software, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 112–116, 2016

    work page 2016

  68. [68]

    The internet of things vision: Key features, applications and open issues,

    E. Borgia, “The internet of things vision: Key features, applications and open issues,” Computer Communications, vol. 54, 2014

    work page 2014

  69. [69]

    Internet of things: Vision, applications and research challenges,

    D. Miorandi, S. Sicari, F. D. Pellegrini, and I. Chlamtac, “Internet of things: Vision, applications and research challenges,” Ad Hoc Networks, vol. 10, no. 7, pp. 1497 – 1516, 2012

    work page 2012

  70. [70]

    How to optimize the quality of sensor data streams,

    A. Klein and W. Lehner, “How to optimize the quality of sensor data streams,” in IEEE International Multi- Conference on Computing in the Global Information Technology (ICCGI). IEEE, 2009, pp. 13–19

    work page 2009

  71. [71]

    Provenance and scientific workflows: challenges and opportunities,

    S. B. Davidson and J. Freire, “Provenance and scientific workflows: challenges and opportunities,” in ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of data. ACM, 2008, pp. 1345–1350

    work page 2008

  72. [72]

    Inferring fine-grained data provenance in stream data processing: Reduced storage cost, high accuracy,

    M. R. Huq, A. Wombacher, and P. M. Apers, “Inferring fine-grained data provenance in stream data processing: Reduced storage cost, high accuracy,” in International Conference on Database and Expert Systems Applications. Springer, 2011, pp. 118–127

    work page 2011

  73. [73]

    Using web data provenance for quality assessment,

    O. Hartig and J. Zhao, “Using web data provenance for quality assessment,” in International Conference on Semantic Web in Provenance Management (SWPM), 2009

    work page 2009

  74. [74]

    Data provenance in the internet of things,

    S. Bauer and D. Schreckling, “Data provenance in the internet of things,” in EU Project COMPOSE, Conference 2013, 2013

    work page 2013

  75. [75]

    A trust model for data sharing in smart cities,

    Q. H. Cao, I. Khan, R. Farahbakhsh, G. Madhusudan, G. M. Lee, and N. Crespi, “A trust model for data sharing in smart cities,” in IEEE International Conference on Communications (ICC), May 2016

    work page 2016

  76. [76]

    Introducing secure provenance in iot: Requirements and challenges,

    S. Suhail, C. S. Hong, Z. U. Ahmad, F. Zafar, and A. Khan, “Introducing secure provenance in iot: Requirements and challenges,” in IEEE International Workshop on Secure Internet of Things (SIoT). IEEE, 2016, pp. 39–46. 16

    work page 2016