A Content Centric Mobile Social Network

1. 10/04/15 110/04/15 1
A Content Centric
Mobile Social Network
Amir Krifa, Amir.Krifa@sophia.inria.fr
Chadi Barakat, Chadi.Barakat@sophia.inria.fr

2. 10/04/15 210/04/15 2
Motivations
 The most visited sites on the Internet:
 #3 MySpace
 #4 YouTube
 #5 Facebook
 #7 Wikipedia
 #11 Blogger.com
 #12 Craigs List
 #15 Photobucket
 #20 Flickr
Network use has evolved
to be DOMINATED by
content distribution and
retrieval services.

3. 10/04/15 310/04/15 3
Motivations
 Current social networking and content distribution
services architecture:
 Services are centralized
 peers’ privacy and content’ security are not well enforced
 Services access is costly (Internet access, specially for mobile
users, ..),
 average user spends more than 55 minutes per day on
Facebook,
 There are more than 65 million active users currently
accessing Facebook through their mobile devices.
 Not Green (more than 350 million active users on Facebook)
 Time consuming while users are not sure to find the correct info
they are looking for or meet the right person,…

4. 10/04/15 410/04/15 4
Motivations
 The provider of the content you are looking for can be just
close !
• Ingenious solution:
• Due to the congestion
on its network, the
AT&T website has
stopped offering phones
to the New York
metropolitan area !

5. 10/04/15 510/04/15 5
Our Approach
 We propose overcome the described challenges by:
 Projecting/Updating people’ online/on board social
networks,
 Your online social networks = People you meet more then X
times/day + Others ( People you do not meet frequently or never
meet)
 Such projection is needed (as initialization step) for understanding
whether an exchange is desirable
 Integrating a “tit for tat” mechanism within each group of
friends in order to:
 Enforce them to share their mobiles’ storage capacities and
wireless connections ( Bluetooth +/ Wi-Fi)
 Setting up a content centric architecture on top of the
mobile social network for content distribution and retrieval

6. 10/04/15 6
 We propose to reduce as much as possible the time
people spend looking for content.
 A user can just express his interests locally and count on his mobility
as well as his friends mobility towards attracting the right content.
Our Approach
A
B
C
D
1
2
3
4
Interested
in FEJ
I propose
and EJ
Private Circle
Find one
content

7. 10/04/15 710/04/15 7
Our Approach
 We propose to extend your private circle of
frequently met friends based on redundant meetings
with unknown people.
 It is a possibility to extend your on board social network starting from
real life meetings
D
C
B
A
4
3
2
1
I post
house
music
I’m looking for
house music
Private Circle
Common Interest + Frequently met
= Potential link, alarm the user

8. 10/04/15 8
Our Approach
 It is also possible that one peer of your private circle
proposes to you a potential new friend.
 One user of your private circle meet frequently an unknown
peer and finds that he satisfies lot of your interests…
 You are notified and it remains up to you to decide
 It is another possibility to extend your real on board social
network…

9. 10/04/15 910/04/15 9
Projecting/Updating people’
online/on board social networks
 Based on redundant /day meetings we can identify
the possible content carries on which we can count.
But,
 Initialization step: Take into consideration people desire
to exchange which is already expressed via online social
networks,
 Then, notify the user once a potential friend is found.
 And it is up to him to decide whether to update his real/on
board social network or not.

10. 10/04/15 10
Per Private Circle “Tit for Tat”
Rules
 Initially, a user private circle = people you meet
frequently who already belong to your online social
network.
 Then, the private circle is extended.
 “Tit for Tat“ rules:
 Each member of your private circle must carries your
interest and try to answer them starting from his daily
meetings.
 Members has to suggest to each others possible new real
life links.

11. 10/04/15 11
Per Private Circle “Tit for Tat”
Rules
 “Tit for Tat“ rules:
 NDCij : number of downloaded
contents from node j to node I
 NUIij : number of uploaded interests
from node I to node j
 NMij : number of meetings between
node I and node j
 DEij = 0/1 : desire to exchange
between node I and node j
 We propose to the user the ability to
access to the rank list of his private
circle’ members and to decide whether
to discard or not a given user from his
list.
ijij
ij
ijj
NMNUI
NDC
DERank
1
∗∗=

12. 10/04/15 12
Scheduling/Drop policy
 In the case of a limited contact opportunity a node
has to:
 First: Try to respectively forward/ask for his local user
contents/interests
 Second: Ask for the interests of his private circle users in
decreasing order of their ranks.
 In the case of a local storage overflow a node has
to:
 Start by dropping the contents/interests of his private circle
users who has the smallest rank.

13. 10/04/15 1310/04/15 13
A Content Centric Architecture
 Reuse the data tagging schema
proposed for content centric networks.
 Users are able to ask/publish either a
specific piece of data or a complete
content category.

14. 10/04/15 14
Node Architecture
Wi-Fi Bluetooth
Social
Links
Store
Content
Store
StoreManager
+DropPolicies
Forwarding Manager
+ Scheduling Policies
Social Network
Manager
Data Manager
Interest
Store
Interest Manager
ApplicationInterface
SQLite
Databases

15. 10/04/15 1510/04/15 15
Summarize: What do you need
to do ?
- Run your agent in your Smartphone.
- Describe what you are looking for.
- Publish your announcements/
contents.
- Keep you Bluetooth adapter on.
- Enjoy your day and forget about the
social application running in your
Smartphone.
- Once at home, at the end of the day, you can
look at the announcements/contents collected
by your agent.

16. 10/04/15 1610/04/15 16
Experimental Facilities and
Challenges
 Control the battery consumption.
 How to manage the network adapter (Keep it on all
the day …)?
 How to manage a large number of opportunistic
contacts happening at the same period of time ?
 How to define the group of friends ? People you
meet in average more than X times/week ? What is
the value of X?
 …

17. 10/04/15 1710/04/15 17
Which Mobile platform shall
we target ?
 Smartphone market share numbers from 2008, and then
2009, with the % change in parenthesis afterwards:
 Android – 0% to 3.9%
 BlackBerry OS – 16% to 20.8%
 iPhone – 12.9% to 17.1%
 Symbian – 49.7% to 44.6%
 WebOS – 0% to 1.1%

Windows Mobile – 11% to 7.9%
 So Android, BlackBerry OS, iPhone OS and WebOS are all
eating Symbian and WinMo market share.
 Prevision for 2010
 Android – 11.3% BlackBerry – 21.2% iPhone – 19.3%
 Symbian – 35.7% WebOS – 2.7% WinMo – 5.6%

18. 10/04/15 1810/04/15 18
IPhone Vs Android
 Android’s platform and developer tools are excellent. Leveraging
Java and the Eclipse IDE are major winning factors for Android.
Apple’s developer tools are shockingly bad by comparison.
 The Objective-C language and platform APIs are cumbersome and
poorly organized. These factors combined in my estimation make
application development about three times more expensive when
developing for iPhone.
 The only area where Apple’s developer tools excelled was in
profiling and heap analysis.
 Apple’s app store from a user’s standpoint and from a worldwide
coverage standpoint are excellent. In this area Google market for
Android is weak.

19. 10/04/15 19
IPhone Vs Android
 Development for iPhone may improve as tools such as
iphonical (MDD for iPhone) and objectiveeclipse (Eclipse plug-in for
Objective-C) emerge.
 We may see a shake-up in the mobile market, with at least 18 new
Android handsets being released this year.

20. 10/04/15 20
THANKS