1. Enabling High-Level Application
Development for Internet of Things
Pankesh Patel, Animesh Pathak, Damien Cassou, and Valerie Issarny
Inria Paris Rocquencourt, France
S-CUBE, 12th June, 2013

2. Outline
 Characteristics of Internet of Things
 Application development challenges
 Related work
 Our approach
 Overview
 A simple example
 Evaluation
 Conclusions
 Ongoing and future work
Pankesh Patel et. al.2

3. Characteristics of ``things’’
 May have sensors
attached
 May have actuators
attached
 Can communicate with
other things
 Can be involved in
information exchange
between physical and
virtual world
Pankesh Patel et. al.3

4. Internet of Things
 A networked infrastructure that connects physical
and virtual things.
[CASAGRAS project] http://www.grifs-project.eu/data/File/CASAGRAS%20FinalReport%20(2).pdf
Pankesh Patel et. al.4

5. Marriage of sensor network and pervasive
computing
Pankesh Patel et. al.5
Internet of things
Sensor network Pervasive computing
Large
Scale
Heterogeneity
[IoTRoadMap] Antoine de Saint-Exupery, Internet of Things Strategic Research Roadmap,
2009

6. Multiple application domains
Pankesh Patel et. al.6
Building
Automation
Traffic Control
and Management Health-care
Internet of things
[IoTSurvey] Luigi Atzori, Antonio lera, Giacomo Morabito, The internet of Things Survey,
2010

7. Outline
 Characteristics of Internet of Things
 Application development challenges
 Related work
 Our approach
 Overview
 A simple example
 Evaluation
 Conclusion
 Ongoing and future work
Pankesh Patel et. al.7

8. Application Development Challenges
 Heterogeneity
 Types (e.g., sensor, actuator,
storage).
 Implementations (e.g., android,
iOS).
 Unit of measurement (e.g., C,
F).
 Interaction modes
(e.g., publish/subscribe,
request/response, command).
8 Pankesh Patel et. al.
Ideally, it should not be the developer's responsibility
to handle this heterogeneity.

9. Application Development Challenges
 Heterogeneity
 Large Scale
 Hundreds to thousands
of devices equipped with
sensors, actuators,
storages.
9 Pankesh Patel et. al.
Need of adequate abstractions to present the large
scale in suitable manner .

10. Application Development Challenges
 Heterogeneity
 Large Scale
 Multiple expertise
Application domain
Software design
Programming
Language
Distributed system
Device-specific
knowledge
10 Pankesh Patel et. al.
Need of separating all development concerns
according to the stakeholders expertise and skills

11. Application Development Challenges
 Heterogeneity
 Large Scale
 Multiple Expertise
 Poor Automation
 Interface hardware and
software components
 Interface software and
middleware components
 Deployment
11 Pankesh Patel et. al.
Ideally, the glue code should be generated, allowing
the stakeholders to focus only on the application
logic.
Distributed Systems
(i.e., middleware)
Application logic
(e.g., calculating avg.
temperature)
Device drivers
(e.g. code for accessing sensor
data from android device)
Application logic
(e.g., calculating avg.
temperature)

12. Outline
 Characteristics of IoT
 Application development challenges
 Related work
 Our approach
 Overview
 A simple example
 Evaluation
 Conclusion
 Ongoing and future work
Pankesh Patel et. al.12

13. Related work
Approaches Motivation Examples Disadvantages
Database • Provide SQL-like
interface
• Address scale for data-
collecting application
• TinyDB
• Cougar
• SINA
• Largely for homogeneous
devices
• Missing development life-
cycle
Library- or
toolkit based
• Offer abstractions to
implement applications
• Address heterogeneity
partially
• Gaia with Olympus
• Context toolkit
• Lots of glue code
• Poor automation at
deployment
• No separation of concerns
for stakeholders
• Missing development life-
cycle
Model-driven • Raise the level of
abstractions in program
specifications (in
UML/textual language)
and transforms into
working implementations
• ATaG
• DiaSuite
• PervML
• Only cover a limited
subset of requirements
Pankesh Patel et. al.13

14. Outline
 Characteristics of IoT
 Application development challenges
 Related work
 Our approach
 Overview
 A simple example
 Evaluation
 Conclusion
 Ongoing and future work
Pankesh Patel et. al.14

15. Application development methodology
Pankesh Patel et. al.15
Research Challenges Solution
Multiple expertise Clear division of roles of stakeholders.
Poor Automation Code generators and deployment modules
(mapper and linker).
Heterogeneity Abstractions in modeling languages.
Scale Abstractions in modeling language.

16. Pankesh Patel et. al.16
Domain
Expert
Domain
Specification
Specify
Input
Refer
Output
1 Application domain specification using
vocabulary language
• Regions (e.g., room, floor, building)
• Sensors (e.g. temp. sensor, smoke
detector)
• Actuators (e.g., heater, alarm)
• Storages
Domain Specification

17. Pankesh Patel et. al.17
Architecture Specification
Application
Designer
Architecture
Specification
2
Domain
Expert
Vocabulary
Specification
1
Architecture specification using architecture
language.
• Computational components (e.g., calculating
avg. temp, detecting fire)
• Interactions among computational
components
Specify
Input
Refer
Output

18. Pankesh Patel et. al.18
Implementing Software Component
System
Designer
Architecture
Specification
2
Application
Logic
Application
Developer
Framework
Generator
Application
Framework
3
4
Domain
Expert
Vocabulary
Specification
1
Generated application framework in
general purpose language.
Application developers writes application logic
(e.g. Java code for calculating avg. temp. ) on
top of programming framework.
Specify
Input
Refer
Output

19. Pankesh Patel et. al.19
Target Deployment Specification
System
Designer
Architecture
Specification
2
Application
Logic
Application
Developer
Framework
Generator
Application
Framework
4
Network
Manager
Deployment
description
Domain
Expert
Vocabulary
Specification
1
3
5
Target deployment using deployment language.
• Device region
• Device properties
• Type ( android, Sunspot)
• Name
• Mobile ( true or false)
• Identification
Specify
Input
Refer
Output

20. Pankesh Patel et. al.20
Mapping
Application
Designer
Architecture
Specification
2
Application
Logic
Application
Developer
Framework
Generator
Application
Framework
3
4
Network
Manager
5
Network
description
Mapper
Mapping
files
6
Decides the specific device where
each software component will be
running.
Domain
Expert
Vocabulary
Specification
1
Specify
Input
Refer
Output

21. Pankesh Patel et. al.21
Writing Device-Drivers
Application
Designer
Architecture
Specification
2
Application
Logic
Application
Developer
Framework
Generator
Application
Framework
3
4
Network
Manager
5
Deployment
description
Mapper
Mapping
files
6
Domain
Expert
Vocabulary
Specification
1
Device
DeveloperDevice
Drivers
7
Writes device drivers
• sensor driver
• actuator driver
• storage driver
Specify
Input
Refer
Output

22. Pankesh Patel et. al.22
Linking
Application
Designer
Architecture
Specification
2
Application
Logic
Application
Developer
Framework
Generator
Application
Framework
3
4
7
Device
DeveloperDevice
Drivers
Network
Manager
5
Deployment
description
Mapper
Mapping
files
6
System Linker
8 Combines the generated code
into the actual code to be
deployed on the real devices.
Domain
Expert
Vocabulary
Specification
1
Specify
Input
Refer
Output

23. Pankesh Patel et. al.23
Application development methodology
Application
Designer
Architecture
Specification
2
Application
Logic
Application
Developer
Framework
Generator
Application
Framework
3
4
7
Device
DeveloperDevice
Drivers
Network
Manager
5
Deployment
description
Mapper
Mapping
files
6
System Linker
8
Domain
Expert
Vocabulary
Specification
1
Specify
Input
Refer
Output

24. Example:
Smart Buildings

25. Smart Buildings
Building 1
Alarm
25 Pankesh Patel et. al.
Building 2
Building 3

26. Smart Buildings
Building 1
Smoke detector Temperature sensor
Fire Computation
Fire Computation
Fire Computation
Alarm
Temperature
Sensor
Smoke
Detector
FireStat
e
FireStat
e
FireStat
e
Fire
Computation
Fire
State
Fire
Detect
Fire
Detect
Alarm
Room
Floor
Information
Sources
(E.g., Sensor, Storage)
Computational
components
On( )
temp
Measurement
Smoke
Presence
26 Pankesh Patel et. al.
Actuators
(e.g., alarm, twitter )
Buildin
g

27. Domain Specification: Information sources
Temperature
Sensor
Smoke
Detector
Fire
Computation
Fire
State
Fire
Detect
Alarm
Room
Buildin
g
Floor
Information
Sources
(E.g., Sensor, Storage)
Computational
components
On( )
temp
Measurement
Smoke
Presence
TempStruct
tempValue : double ;
unitOfMeasurement : String ;
TemperatureSensor
generate tempMeasurement: TempStruct;
• One entity description for many
implementations (e.g., Android, SunSpot).
• One entity description for many instances.
27 Pankesh Patel et. al.
Actuators
(e.g., alarm, twitter )

28. Domain Specification: Actuators
Temperature
Sensor
Smoke
Detector
Fire
Computation
Fire
State
Fire
Detect
Alarm
Room
Buildin
g
Floor
Information
Sources
(E.g., Sensor, Storage)
Computational
components
On( )
temp
Measurement
Smoke
Presence
Alarm
action On();
28 Pankesh Patel et. al.
Actuators
(e.g., alarm, twitter )

29. Architecture Specification:
computational components
Temperature
Sensor
Smoke
Detector
Fire
Computation
Fire
State
Fire
Detect
Alarm
Room
Buildin
g
Floor
Information
Sources
(E.g., Sensor, Storage)
Computational
components
On( )
temp
Measurement
Smoke
Presence
FireComputation
consume tempMeasurement from hops : 0 : Room;
consume smokePresence from hops : 0 : Room;
generate FireComputation : FireStruct ;
in-region : Room
Scope of consuming
data.
Scope of
Deployment
Scope of consuming and scope of deployment
enables hierarchical clustering.
29 Pankesh Patel et. al.
Actuators
(e.g., alarm, twitter )

30. Generating framework and implementing
application logic
FireComputation
consume tempMeasurement from hops : 0 : Room;
consume smokePresence from hops : 0 : Room;
generate FireComputation : FireStruct ;
in-region : Room
public void notifiedReceived (String event Name, Object arg,
Device deviceInfo) {
if (eventName.equals(“tempMeasurement”) {
onNewSmokePresence ((TempStruct) arg) ;
}
}
public abstract void onNewSmokePresence(TempStruct arg);
Compiler
generates
Programme
r
implements
application
logic
30 Pankesh Patel et. al.

31. Evaluation of our approach (1/2)
31
Goal of our evaluation:
• To demonstrate the advantage of our approach over manual
application development approach.
Pankesh Patel et. al.
Component
Type
Office environment
application
Fire
Detect
Sensing Temperature Sensor,
BadgeReader
Temperature Sensor
Smoke Detector
Actuating Heater
Monitor
Door, Alarm,
SprinklerSystem,
Light
Storage ProfileDB -
Computational RoomAvgTemp,
FloorAvgTemp,
BuildingAvgTemp,
Proximity,
RegulateTemp,
DisplayTemp
HouseFireComputatio
n,
HouseFireComputatio
n,
HcFireComputation,
HouseFireController
HcFireController

32. Evaluation of our approach (2/2)
32
*Lines of code using Metrics 1.3.6 Eclipse plugin, ** Code coverage using EclEmma Eclipse plugin.
Development efforts:
• It is directly proportional to the lines of code.
• The more hand-written lines of code there is, the efforts required to
develop application is longer.
Pankesh Patel et. al.
Specificati
on
7%
Application
logic
10%
Device
Drivers
9%
Generated
code*
74%
Lines of Code
Office environment
management
Executed code**
90.7 %
Fire Detect
Specificatio
n
7% Application
logic
9%
Device
drivers
12%
Generated
code
72%
Lines of code
Executed code**
93.7 %

33. Outline
 Characteristics of IoT
 Application development challenges
 Related work
 Our approach
 Overview
 A simple example
 Evaluation
 Conclusion
 Ongoing and future work
Pankesh Patel et. al.33

34. Conclusion
Challenges Solved in our approach
Abstracting
Heterogeneity
• Vocabulary language (Different types of resources ,
Different types of implementations)
• Architecture language (different types of interactions)
Abstracting Scale • Architecture and vocabulary language ( Scope constructs)
Multiple Expertise • Separation of concern
Poor Automation • Compiler generates Programming framework, mapper and
linker module
34 Pankesh Patel et. al.

35. Outline
 Characteristics of IoT
 Application development challenges
 Related work
 Our approach
 Overview
 A simple example
 Evaluation
 Conclusion
 Ongoing and future work
Pankesh Patel et. al.35

36. Ongoing and future work
Pankesh Patel et. al.36
 Evaluation
 Current evaluation is
preliminary.
 Need to look at
 Reusability
 Expressiveness of our
modeling languages.
 Development efforts on
real devices and real
middleware

37. Ongoing and future work
Pankesh Patel et. al.37
 Evaluation
 Development life-cycle
and future changes
 Change in application
requirements
 Change in deployment
infrastructure
 Evolution in device
drivers
Design
Implementation
Deployment
Future changes

38. Ongoing and future work
Pankesh Patel38
 Evaluation
 Development life-cycle
and future changes
 End-user applications
 Originator: an user
triggers an event or
query to the application.
 Recipient: an user is
notified a final results by
the application.
 Abstractions for
specifying end-user
interfaces.
 Possible User interface
description languages
(UIDLs) to look
 UIML
 UsiXML
 XUL
 Others

39. Ongoing and future work
Pankesh Patel et. al.39
 Evaluation
 Development life-cycle
and future changes
 End-user applications
 Integrated Toolkit
 Eclipse plugin for the
stakeholders involved in
application development
process

40. Thanks for listening to me 
pankesh.patel@inria.fr
Pankesh Patel et. al.40