Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 56 references

Bridding OT and PaaS in Edge-to-Cloud Continuum

T0 review · 5 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read OTPaaS argues that a containerized, orchestrated PaaS can carry Operational Technology across the edge-to-cloud continuum while improving latency, security, sovereignty, and energy efficiency.

desk verdict A decent project-overview note whose simulations do not back the abstract's performance claims—an easy desk reject for a technical venue, but useful context for anyone tracking the OTPaaS initiative. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.21072 v1 pith:HBQ43K3T submitted 2025-06-26 cs.DC cs.PF

Carlos J Barrios (LIG , UIS , CITI) , Yves Denneulin (LIG , Grenoble INP) This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.DCcs.PF
keywords OperationalTechnologyPlatformasaServiceEdge-to-CloudContinuumContainersIndustrialIoTOrchestrationAutonomicComputingEnergy
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper argues that Operational Technology and Platform as a Service can be merged into one platform, called OTPaaS, that spans the whole edge-to-cloud path from sensors and edge devices to cloud data centers. The authors claim that doing this yields fast response times, stronger security and reliability, data and technology sovereignty, robustness, and better energy efficiency, and they illustrate the claim with three use cases covering industrial communication, orchestration, and energy-aware task placement. The paper is a design proposal rather than a proof: its support comes from architecture diagrams and simulations, and the authors list open challenges such as device instability, aggregation delays, and missing standards.

What carries the argument

The mechanism that carries the argument is the OTPaaS architecture itself: a three-layer structure of orchestration portal, edge and cloud clusters, and containerized applications, tied together by agents that synchronize with the portal. Around this core sit two named mechanisms: CaaS (Containers as a Service) for packaging applications so they run identically on premises and in the cloud, and MAPE-K (Monitor, Analyse, Plan, Execute, Knowledge) control loops, here organized as multiple autonomic managers that allocate resources and choose between edge execution and cloud offloading. These components are what the paper credits for fast response, reliability, energy efficiency, and sovereignty.

What would settle it

A concrete test would re-run the two quantitative scenarios on real equipment, three industrial nodes exchanging protocol reads for about a minute and edge devices executing AI tasks with random completion times, and compare measured per-read latency and energy-per-task curves with the simulation outputs; if real latency is not clearly better than a cloud-only baseline, or energy does not fall as the autonomic managers engage, the central claims fail.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a PaaS adapted to Operational Technology can serve as the unifying layer of the Edge-to-Cloud Continuum. In the OTPaaS proposal, industrial applications are packaged as containers and managed by a portal that coordinates orchestration agents in edge and cloud clusters; agents handle deployment, scaling, and configuration, while autonomic managers continuously decide where to run tasks. The authors assert that this combination produces low-latency access to operational data, protects data sovereignty by keeping processing close to its source and aligning with a European federated data-sovereignty framework, and reduces energy consumption as workloads evolve. Three simulated use cases are offered as illustrations: a three-node industrial communication measurement, an orchestration-usage scenario, and an energy-consumption study of AI tasks.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the architecture diagrams and the three simulations represent what a real industrial edge-to-cloud deployment would do, since the reported latency, orchestration, and energy results are used as evidence without measured data.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Industrial applications can be packaged once and run on premises or in the cloud, so the edge-to-cloud path behaves as one platform rather than two disconnected stacks.
  • Data security and sovereignty can be built into the platform by keeping processing near data sources and aligning with a federated European data-sovereignty framework.
  • Automated orchestration can absorb routine interruptions, with the paper's simulation holding 5% to 10% downtime, so usage keeps growing despite some platform unavailability.
  • Autonomic managers can lower energy per task by deciding when to run AI workloads on edge devices and when to offload them to the cloud.
  • The same architecture can serve large industrial IoT users, mid-sized scientific institutions, and small specialized companies without redesigning the platform.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The decisive evidence would be a direct comparison of per-request latency at the protocol layer and energy-per-task at the edge in a real deployment against a cloud-only baseline; the paper's simulations suggest both improve but do not measure either.
  • The sovereignty claim is architectural rather than measured, so a concrete test would be running the platform across two clouds with different data-location rules and verifying that no cross-boundary data movement occurs.
  • The multi-manager control-loop mechanism is not specific to industrial automation; it could be applied to any latency- and energy-sensitive placement problem, although the paper only demonstrates it for AI tasks at the edge.
  • Until raw latency, workload, and energy traces are published, the benefits should be read as design goals; the paper itself lists unresolved issues including device instability, aggregation delays, and missing standards.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes OTPaaS, a Platform-as-a-Service framework for Operational Technology in an edge-to-cloud continuum. It claims in the abstract to ensure excellent response times while improving security, reliability, data and technology sovereignty, robustness, and energy efficiency, and to illustrate successful deployment, adaptable application management, and various integration components for Edge and Cloud environments. The body describes three use cases: an OPC-UA simulation with three nodes over 50 seconds (§4.1), a Kubernetes-based orchestration simulation with a 20% baseline utilization and 5–10% downtime (§4.2), and an energy-aware autonomic-management simulation using randomly generated task completion times (§4.3). The paper also discusses GAIA-X alignment and concludes with open challenges in Section 7. The central performance claims are asserted rather than demonstrated: the supporting evidence consists of three qualitatively described simulations without measured data, baselines, or reproducible methodology.

Significance. If substantiated, an OTPaaS architecture delivering the claimed response-time, security, sovereignty, robustness, and energy-efficiency benefits would be a valuable contribution to industrial edge-to-cloud platforms, particularly in the GAIA-X European context. The paper does not, however, provide the evidence needed to establish these benefits. The three simulations are illustrative rather than evaluative: none is compared against a baseline or an external workload, and none reports the raw data, parameters, or statistical summaries that would permit verification. The paper also candidly acknowledges in Section 7 that network reliability and latency remain key concerns and that edge resource constraints restrict deployment, which is in tension with the unconditional claims in the abstract. As a position paper describing an architecture, it has some interest, but as a validation of the stated performance and efficiency claims it falls short.

major comments (5)
  1. [§4.1, Figure 5] The OPC-UA simulation is described only as a 50-second simulation with 3 nodes; no latency values, network topology, message sizes, hardware specifications, or baseline comparison are reported, so the figure cannot support the abstract's claim of 'excellent response times'.
  2. [§4.2, Figure 7] The orchestration simulation treats a 20% baseline utilization and a 5–10% downtime as input assumptions, yet the text presents the monotonic utilization growth as evidence of OTPaaS efficiency; without any specification of the simulation model, workload arrival process, or comparison to an alternative orchestration approach, this is not a valid demonstration.
  3. [§4.3, Figure 10] The energy-consumption result is derived from randomly generated task completion times drawn from a normal distribution, with no energy model, power measurements, hardware details, or statistical analysis; the decreasing energy-per-task curve is therefore an artifact of the assumed model rather than a measurement of OTPaaS energy efficiency.
  4. [Section 7] The paper acknowledges that network reliability and latency are key concerns, that edge-cloud integration can cause delays in large-scale aggregation, and that resource constraints at the edge restrict on-site computing; these unresolved challenges are in direct tension with the unconditional claims in the abstract about excellent response times, reliability, and robustness, and the paper must either qualify those claims or provide evidence that OTPaaS overcomes these challenges.
  5. [Section 4 (introduction) and abstract] The claim of 'successful deployment' is not supported by any deployment artifact; the three use cases are simulations, and the real deployments at Eviden and Schneider Electric are mentioned only as background context without any measured outcomes, so the deployment claim should be removed or substantiated.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Title and abstract] 'Bridding' is a typo for 'Bridging'; the same typo appears in the paper title at the top of the abstract.
  2. [§4.1] The text refers to 'the architecture in Figure ??', which is an unresolved cross-reference.
  3. [§4.3] The normal-distribution parameters for task completion times are not given; specify mean, standard deviation, and sample size for reproducibility.
  4. [References] Reference [29] contains a malformed DOI ('https://doi.org10.1109/SYNASC.2012.65') and reference [33] is an informal Zenodo citation; check these against the bibliography style.
  5. [Figure 7 caption] The caption reads 'OTTPaaS Simulated and Orchested Use', which contains a typo and should read 'OTPaaS Simulated and Orchestrated Use'.
  6. [Throughout] The paper alternates between 'OTPaaS' and 'OTTPaaS' (e.g., Section 4.2 heading and Figure 7); standardize the acronym.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular reduction found: the paper's three simulations are explicitly illustrative, and its central benefits are asserted rather than derived from fitted inputs, self-citations, or imported uniqueness theorems.

full rationale

The paper does not present a derivation chain in the sense required by the circularity criteria; it asserts architectural benefits and illustrates them with simulations. Section 4.1 says 'we propose a 50-second simulation with 3 nodes' and describes measuring latency, which is a description of a synthetic scenario, not a prediction obtained from fitted parameters. Section 4.2 explicitly calls Figure 7 'a simulation of the use case' and reports the simulated baseline usage and downtime; reading those values back from the plot is an evidentiary weakness, not a circular reduction. Section 4.3 states that 'energy usage per task decreases over iterations due to improved efficiency' where the 'improvements' are the modelled autonomic managers' assumed behavior; again, the result is entailed by the simulation design but is not a fitted parameter relabeled as a prediction. There are no self-citations by the authors, no uniqueness theorem imported from prior work, and no equation or fitted quantity that reduces to the claimed output by construction. The Discussion itself acknowledges unresolved limits such as 'network reliability and latency' and 'Resource constraints at the Edge,' which confirms the claims are programmatic rather than demonstrated. Unsupported or non-reproducible evidence is a correctness and reproducibility problem, but under the stated rules it is not circularity. Therefore the appropriate circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claims rely on a chain of unverified assumptions: that PaaS/CaaS management benefits OT, that GAIA-X yields sovereignty guarantees, that a prior autonomic manager framework [25] applies directly, and that short in-house simulations are representative. The only explicit numeric inputs are hand-chosen simulation parameters (20% baseline, 5-10% downtime, 50 seconds, 3 nodes), and the findings are generated by the model rather than measured from a system.

free parameters (3)
  • Baseline platform utilization and downtime fraction in orchestration simulation = 20% baseline, 5-10% downtime
    Stated in §4.2 as minimal utilization and downtime; used to generate the usage growth plot in Figure 7.
  • Task completion time distribution parameters = not specified (normal distribution)
    §4.3: 'generates random task completion times following a normal distribution' without mean/variance; the distribution drives the energy and latency variation shown in Figure 10.
  • Simulation duration and node count for IoT case = 50 seconds, 3 nodes
    §4.1: chosen for the OPC-UA read-loop simulation; no justification that this workload is representative.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption PaaS and CaaS orchestration improve efficiency, scalability, and autonomy in OT settings.
    Adopted from prior citations in §3; the paper does not test this in an OT deployment.
  • domain assumption GAIA-X guarantees security, sovereignty, efficiency, and legacy support for OTPaaS.
    Stated in §2 as a guarantee, with no verification mechanism described.
  • ad hoc to paper The autonomic manager framework from [25] transfers to OTPaaS without loss.
    §4.3 bases the energy model on reference [25] as if directly inherited, without describing an implementation in OTPaaS.
  • ad hoc to paper A 50-second, 3-node OPC-UA simulation is representative of industrial IoT workloads.
    §4.1 sets this as the only IoT experiment; no evidence of representativeness.
invented entities (1)
  • OTPaaS platform framework
    purpose: A project-specific PaaS layer linking OT, edge, and cloud with orchestration and autonomic management.
    The framework is the paper's main artifact, but no deployed instance or externally verifiable interface, API, or release is provided. Its claimed benefits cannot be falsified from the paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Bridding OT and PaaS in Edge-to-Cloud Continuum." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HBQ43K3T

@misc{pith2026250621072,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Bridding OT and PaaS in Edge-to-Cloud Continuum},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HBQ43K3T}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.21072}
}
read the original abstract

The Operational Technology Platform as a Service (OTPaaS) initiative provides a structured framework for the efficient management and storage of data. It ensures excellent response times while improving security, reliability, data and technology sovereignty, robustness, and energy efficiency, which are crucial for industrial transformation and data sovereignty. This paper illustrates successful deployment, adaptable application management, and various integration components catering to Edge and Cloud environments. It leverages the advantages of the Platform as a Service model and highlights key challenges that have been addressed for specific use cases.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 46 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Bridding OT and PaaS in Edge-to-Cloud Continuum

    Introduction Digital transformation drives organizations to enhance efficiency and reduce costs by integra- ting technologies within a hierarchical structure. This integration is vital for adapting to digital changes, allowing companies to seize opportunities [1]. In Industry 4.0, it merges physical and digital realms through big data, automation, and clo...

    work page Pith review arXiv 2025

  2. [2]

    Compas’2025 : Parallélisme / Architecture/ Système Centre Inria de l’université de Bordeaux - Bordeaux - France, 24-27 juin 2025

    More information in : https://gaia-x.eu. Compas’2025 : Parallélisme / Architecture/ Système Centre Inria de l’université de Bordeaux - Bordeaux - France, 24-27 juin 2025

    work page 2025

  3. [3]

    Through various experiences, including those within the realm of video games, this strategy has been developed and evolved, as referenced in previous studies [17] [18]

    From Specificity To Open Cloud Solutions : The OTPAAS Concept The utilization of Open Cloud is not a recent development ; it has been in existence for over a decade. Through various experiences, including those within the realm of video games, this strategy has been developed and evolved, as referenced in previous studies [17] [18]. The ad- vantages of fl...

    work page

  4. [4]

    Efficient Operation Technology Integrating CaaS in PaaS Orchestration requires deployment, monitoring, and computation offloading through on-premise or virtual setups. Figure 3 illustrates that, despite different use cases, they share orchestration needs addressed by the OTPaaS architecture, which integrates CaaS with a modular approach for specific conta...

    work page

  5. [5]

    Each module has specific containerization needs

    https://kubernetes.io/ Compas’2025 : Parallélisme / Architecture/ Système Centre Inria de l’université de Bordeaux - Bordeaux - France, 24-27 juin 2025 FIGURE 3 – PaaS Usage Requirements and OTPaaS Architecture OTPaaS architecture consists of orchestration, products (for organizations), and applications. Each module has specific containerization needs. Tw...

    work page 2025

  6. [6]

    OTPaaS offers re- liable, scalable, and secure hosted applications

    OTPaaS Deployment and Uses Cases The test scales show effectiveness across a range of organizations, including large industrial IoT users, mid-sized scientific institutions, and small specialized companies. OTPaaS offers re- liable, scalable, and secure hosted applications. This paper discusses challenges such as service integration, automated configurati...

    work page

  7. [7]

    Application packages can be deployed through containers using the Edge runtime

    https://www.se.com/ww/fr/work/campaign/innovation/overview.jsp Compas’2025 : Parallélisme / Architecture/ Système Centre Inria de l’université de Bordeaux - Bordeaux - France, 24-27 juin 2025 FIGURE 4 – Use Case 1 : Operational Architecture over OP CUA devices. Application packages can be deployed through containers using the Edge runtime. In OTPaaS, impr...

    work page 2025

  8. [8]

    https://www.rabbitmq.com/

    work page

Show all 56 references
  1. [9]

    Communication between the agent and the Cloud platform is established through pu- blic access, while the Edge cluster agent can also synchronize with the portal

    https://eviden.com/ Compas’2025 : Parallélisme / Architecture/ Système Centre Inria de l’université de Bordeaux - Bordeaux - France, 24-27 juin 2025 portal. Communication between the agent and the Cloud platform is established through pu- blic access, while the Edge cluster ag...

    2025

  2. [10]

    Background Cloud Platforms as a Service are evolving in industrial settings. For over two decades, indus- tries have utilized cloud-based technologies, with innovations like IoT, cyber-physical systems, big data, and AI driving productive environmental trends [27]. To leverage...

  3. [11]

    Operations Techno- logy (OT) and Platforms as a Service (PaaS) are distinct yet linked within modern IT and Cloud Computing

    Conclusion OTPaaS offers numerous benefits, and the Computing Continuum has great potential for di- gital transformation, but industry-academia partnerships face challenges. Operations Techno- logy (OT) and Platforms as a Service (PaaS) are distinct yet linked within modern IT...

  4. [12]

    It methodologically fosters interaction among various sectors of the productive and scientific ecosystem, enhancing DevOps tasks and user

    Discussion and Further Work The OTTPaaS project is vital for implementing technological solutions for digital transforma- tion and competitiveness in France and Europe. It methodologically fosters interaction among various sectors of the productive and scientific ecosystem, en...

  5. [13]

    https://euprogigant.com

  6. [14]

    https://nextCloud.com/

  7. [15]

    https://internationaldataspaces.org/

  8. [16]

    However, it also presents challenges regarding conclusions that guide future efforts and approaches to digital transformation

    https://www.openstack.org/ Compas’2025 : Parallélisme / Architecture/ Système Centre Inria de l’université de Bordeaux - Bordeaux - France, 24-27 juin 2025 experience. However, it also presents challenges regarding conclusions that guide future efforts and approaches to digita...

    2025

  9. [17]

    Faraboschi, E

    P . Faraboschi, E. Frachtenberg, P . Laplante, D. Milojicic and R. Saracco, Digital Trans- formation : Lights and Shadows, in Computer, vol. 56, no. 4, pp. 123-130, April 2023. https://doi.org/10.1109/MC.2023.3241726

    2023

  10. [18]

    L., Lemus-Aguilar, I., and Peimbert-García, R

    Zamora Iribarren, M., Garay-Rondero, C. L., Lemus-Aguilar, I., and Peimbert-García, R. E. (2024). A Review of Industry 4.0 Assessment Instruments for Digital Transformation. Applied Sciences, 14(5), 1693. https://doi.org/10.3390/app14051693

    2024 doi

  11. [19]

    and Benlian, A

    Matt, C., Hess, T. and Benlian, A. Digital Transformation Strategies. Bus Inf Syst Eng 57, 339–343 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-015-0401-5

    2015 doi

  12. [20]

    Mittal, N

    S. Mittal, N. Negi and R. Chauhan, Integration of Edge computing with Cloud compu- ting, 2017 International Conference on Emerging Trends in Computing and Communica- tion Technologies (ICETCCT), Dehradun, India, 2017, pp. 1-6. https://doi.org/10. 1109/ICETCCT.2017.8280340

    2017

  13. [21]

    K. Cao, Y. Liu, G. Meng and Q. Sun, An Overview on Edge Computing Research, Compas’2025 : Parallélisme / Architecture/ Système Centre Inria de l’université de Bordeaux - Bordeaux - France, 24-27 juin 2025 in IEEE Access, vol. 8, pp. 85714-85728, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1109/A...

    2025

  14. [22]

    K. Cao, S. Hu, Y. Shi, A. W. Colombo, S. Karnouskos and X. Li, A Survey on Edge and Edge- Cloud Computing Assisted Cyber-Physical Systems, in IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics, vol. 17, no. 11, pp. 7806-7819, Nov. 2021. https://10.1109/TII.2021. 3073066

    2021 doi

  15. [23]

    M. N. Jamil, O. Schelén, A. Afif Monrat and K. Andersson, Enabling Industrial Internet of Things by Leveraging Distributed Edge-to-Cloud Computing : Challenges and Opportuni- ties, in IEEE Access, vol. 12, pp. 127294-127308, 2024.https://10.1109/ACCESS.2024. 3454812

    2024 doi

  16. [24]

    Design and implementation of an intelligent digital manufacturing system based on PaaS and virtual reality technology

    Li, L., Tang, C. Design and implementation of an intelligent digital manufacturing system based on PaaS and virtual reality technology. Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2024). https: //doi.org/10.1007/s00170-024-14287-z

    2024 doi

  17. [25]

    Grogan, J., Mulready, C., McDermott, J., Urbanavicius, M., Yilmaz, M., Abgaz, Y., McCar- ren, A., Togneri MacMahon, S., Garousi, V ., Elger, P ., and Clarke, P . (2020). A multivocal literature review of function-as-a-service (faas) infrastructures and implications for soft- w...

    2020

  18. [26]

    Moreschini, S., Pecorelli, F., Li, X., Naz, S., Hästbacka, D., and Taibi, D. (2022). Cloud Conti- nuum : The definition. IEEE Access, 10, 131876-131886

    2022

  19. [27]

    Milojicic, D. (2020). The Edge-to-Cloud Continuum. Computer, 53(11), 16-25

    2020

  20. [28]

    Rosendo, D., Costan, A., Valduriez, P ., and Antoniu, G. (2022). Distributed intelligence on the Edge-to-Cloud Continuum : A systematic literature review. Journal of Parallel and Dis- tributed Computing, 166, 71-94

    2022

  21. [29]

    Gkonis, P ., Giannopoulos, A., Trakadas, P ., Masip-Bruin, X., and D’Andria, F. (2023). A sur- vey on IoT-Edge-Cloud Continuum systems : status, challenges, use cases, and open issues. Future Internet, 15(12), 383

    2023

  22. [30]

    Pahl and B

    C. Pahl and B. Lee, Containers and Clusters for Edge Cloud Architectures – A Technology Review, 2015 3rd International Conference on Future Internet of Things and Cloud, Rome, Italy, 2015, pp. 379-386. https://doi.org/10.1109/FiCloud.2015.35

    2015 doi

  23. [31]

    (2016, April)

    Tong, L., Li, Y., and Gao, W. (2016, April). A hierarchical Edge Cloud architecture for mobile computing. In IEEE INFOCOM 2016-The 35th Annual IEEE International Conference on Computer Communications (pp. 1-9). IEEE

    2016

  24. [32]

    Bhandari, G. P . and Gupta, R. (2021). An Overview of Cloud and Edge Computing Ar- chitecture and Its Current Issues and Challenges. In I. Management Association (Ed.), Research Anthology on Architectures, Frameworks, and Integration Strategies for Distri- buted and Cloud Comp...

    2021 doi

  25. [33]

    Chun-Ying Huang, Cheng-Hsin Hsu, Yu-Chun Chang, and Kuan-Ta Chen. 2013. Gamin- gAnywhere : an open Cloud gaming system. In Proceedings of the 4th ACM Multimedia Systems Conference (MMSys ’13). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 36–47. https://doi.org/10.11...

    2013

  26. [34]

    Edmonds, T

    A. Edmonds, T. Metsch, A. Papaspyrou and A. Richardson, Toward an Open Cloud Stan- dard, in IEEE Internet Computing, vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 15-25, July-Aug. 2012. https: //doi.org/10.1109/MIC.2012.65

    2012 doi

  27. [35]

    K., and Dhurwe, H

    Soni, P . K., and Dhurwe, H. (2024). Challenges and Open Issues in Cloud Computing Ser- vices. In Advanced Computing Techniques for Optimization in Cloud (pp. 19-37). Chap- Compas’2025 : Parallélisme / Architecture/ Système Centre Inria de l’université de Bordeaux - Bordeaux -...

    2024

  28. [36]

    Busboom, A. (2024). Automated generation of OPC UA information models—A review and outlook. Journal of Industrial Information Integration, 100602. ISSN 2452-414X. https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.jii.2024.100602

    2024

  29. [37]

    FaaS for IoT : Evolving Serverless towards Deviceless in I/OClouds, Future Generation Computer Systems, Volume 154, 2024, Pages 189-205, ISSN 0167-739X

    Giovanni Merlino, Giuseppe Tricomi, Luca D’Agati, Zakaria Benomar, Francesco Longo, Antonio Puliafito. FaaS for IoT : Evolving Serverless towards Deviceless in I/OClouds, Future Generation Computer Systems, Volume 154, 2024, Pages 189-205, ISSN 0167-739X. https://doi.org/10.10...

    2024 doi

  30. [38]

    A systematic mapping study of infrastructure as code research

    Akond Rahman, Rezvan Mahdavi-Hezaveh, Laurie Williams. A systematic mapping study of infrastructure as code research. Information and Software Technology, Volume 108, 2019, Pages 65-77, ISSN 0950-5849. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2018.12.004

    2019 doi

  31. [39]

    (2022, December)

    Yousif, M. (2022, December). The Edge, the Cloud, and the Continuum. In 2022 Cloud Continuum (pp. 1-2). IEEE

    2022

  32. [40]

    Alvares, Frederico, Sharrock, Rémi, and Ledoux, Thomas. (2012). Synchronization of Mul- tiple Autonomic Control Loops : Application to Cloud Computing. 7274. 29-43. https: //doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-30829-1_3

    2012 doi

  33. [41]

    Alvares, Frederico, Ledoux, Thomas, Sharrock, Rémi. (2013). A Framework for the Coordi- nation of Multiple Autonomic Managers in Cloud Environments. International Conference on Self-Adaptive and Self-Organizing Systems, SASO. 179-188. https://doi.org/10. 1109/SASO.2013.27

    2013

  34. [42]

    Kephart, Jeffrey, and Chess, D.M.. (2003). The Vision Of Autonomic Computing. Computer

    2003

  35. [43]

    https://doi.org/10.1109/MC.2003.1160055

    41 - 50. https://doi.org/10.1109/MC.2003.1160055

    2003 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Gharibvand, V ., Kolamroudi, M.K., Zeeshan, Q. et al. Cloud based manufacturing : A re- view of recent developments in architectures, technologies, infrastructures, platforms and associated challenges. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 131, 93–123 (2024). https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s00170...

    2024 doi

  37. [45]

    Zeginis, Dimitris ; D’Andria, Francesco ; Bocconi, Stefano ; Gorroñogoitia, Jesús ; Martin, Oriol, Gouvas ; Panagiotis, Ledakis, Giannis ; and Tarabanis, Konstantinos. (2013). A user- centric multi-PaaS application management solution for hybrid multi-Cloud scenarios. Sca- lab...

    2013 doi

  38. [46]

    DAndria, S

    F. DAndria, S. Bocconi, J. G. Cruz, J. Ahtes, and D. Zeginis. Cloud4SOA : Multi-Cloud Ap- plication Management Across PaaS Offerings. 2012 14th International Symposium on Sym- bolic and Numeric Algorithms for Scientific Computing, Timisoara, Romania, 2012, pp. 407-414. https:/...

    2012

  39. [47]

    Khalyeyev, D., Bureš, T., Hnˇ etynka, P . (2023). Towards Characterization of Edge-Cloud Continuum. In : Batista, T., Bureš, T., Raibulet, C., Muccini, H. (eds) Software Architec- ture. ECSA 2022 Tracks and Workshops. ECSA 2022. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 13928. Sp...

    2023 doi

  40. [48]

    Adler-Nissen, R., and Eggeling, K. A. (2024) The Discursive Struggle for Digital Soverei- gnty : Security, Economy, Rights and the Cloud Project Gaia-X. JCMS : Journal of Common Market Studies, 62 : 993–1011. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcms.13594

    2024 doi

  41. [49]

    Bertelli, A., Acciai, M., and Rossi, G. (2025). The European Open Science Cloud as a com- mon good Potentials and limitations of this endeavour. Open Research Europe, 5(19), 19

    2025

  42. [50]

    Leksono, E., Mardiatna, I., Setijadi, A., Budiyono, A., Joelianto, E., and Sunaryo, A. F. (2023). Energy as A Service (EaaS) : A Paradigm Shift in Energy Management. https://doi. org/10.5281/zenodo.14590808

    2023 doi

  43. [51]

    Data Sovereignty and Compliance in the Computing Continuum,

    V . Karagiannis, "Data Sovereignty and Compliance in the Computing Continuum," 2024 Compas’2025 : Parallélisme / Architecture/ Système Centre Inria de l’université de Bordeaux - Bordeaux - France, 24-27 juin 2025 11th International Conference on Future Internet of Things and C...

    2024

  44. [52]

    Challenges for Continuous, Provable Security Service Level Agreement Management in Computing Conti- nuum,

    K. Bocianiak, T. Pawlikowski, A. Podlasek, J. -P . Wary and J. Wierzbowski, "Challenges for Continuous, Provable Security Service Level Agreement Management in Computing Conti- nuum," in IEEE Access, vol. 12, pp. 152097-152107, 2024, https://10.1109/ACCESS. 2024.3480688

    2024

  45. [53]

    K., Murturi, I., Casamayor Pujol, V ., Sedlak, B., and Dustdar, S

    Donta, P . K., Murturi, I., Casamayor Pujol, V ., Sedlak, B., and Dustdar, S. (2023). Explo- ring the Potential of Distributed Computing Continuum Systems. Computers, 12(10), 198. https://doi.org/10.3390/computers12100198

    2023 doi

  46. [54]

    Reiser, Jörg Domaschka, Franz J

    Christian Berger, Philipp Eichhammer, Hans P . Reiser, Jörg Domaschka, Franz J. Hauck, and Gerhard Habiger. 2021. A Survey on Resilience in the IoT : Taxonomy, Classification, and Discussion of Resilience Mechanisms. ACM Comput. Surv. 54, 7, Article 147 (September 2022). https...

    2021 doi

  47. [55]

    Stocker, Volker and Stocker, Volker and Knieps, Guenter and Dietzel, Christoph, The Rise and Evolution of Clouds and Private Networks – Internet Interconnection, Ecosystem Frag- mentation (August 23, 2021). TPRC49 : The 49th Research Conference on Communication, Information an...

    2021 doi

  48. [56]

    Ecosystem of Things : Hardware, Software, and Architecture,

    L. Chao, X. Peng, Z. Xu and L. Zhang, "Ecosystem of Things : Hardware, Software, and Architecture," in Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 107, no. 8, pp. 1563-1583, Aug. 2019, doi : 10.1109/JPROC.2019.2925526

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.