In recent years, new classes of highly dynamic, complex systems are gaining momentum. These classes include, but are not limited to IoT, smart cities, cyber-physical systems and sensor networks. These systems are characterized by the need to express behaviors driven by external and/or internal changes, i.e. they are reactive and context-aware. A desirable design feature of these systems is the ability of adapting their behavior to environment changes. In this paper, we propose an approach to support adaptive, reactive systems based on semantic runtime representations of their context, enabling the selection of equivalent behaviors, i.e. behaviors that have the same effect on the environment. The context representation and the related knowledge are managed by an engine designed according to a reference architecture and programmable through a declarative definition of sensors and actuators. The knowledge base of sensors and actuators (hosted by an RDF triplestore) is bound to the real world by grounding semantic elements to physical devices via REST APIs. The proposed architecture along with the defined ontology tries to address the main problems of dynamically re-configurable systems by exploiting a declarative, queryable approach to enable runtime reconfiguration with the help of (a) semantics to support discovery in heterogeneous environment, (b) composition logic to define alternative behaviors for variation points, (c) bi-causal connection life-cycle to avoid dangling links with the external environment. The proposal is validated in a case study aimed at designing an edge node for smart buildings dedicated to cultural heritage preservation.

Keywords:

References

1. D. Harel and A. Pnueli , On the development of reactive systems, in Logics and Models of Concurrent Systems (Springer, 1985), pp. 477–498. Crossref, Google Scholar
2. N. Halbwachs , Synchronous programming of reactive systems, in Computer Aided Verification, eds. A. J. Hu and M. Y. Vardi (Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1998), pp. 1–16. Crossref, Google Scholar
3. A. Furno and E. Zimeo , Context-aware composition of semantic web services, Mobile Netw. Appl. 19(2) (2014) 235–248. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
4. A. Haller, K. Janowicz, S. Cox, D. Le Phuoc, K. Taylor and M. Lefrançois , Semantic sensor network ontology, W3C Recommendation W3C (2017). Google Scholar
5. R. J. Wieringa , Design Methods for Reactive Systems: Yourdon, Statemate, and the UML (Elsevier, 2003). Google Scholar
6. R. Kuhn, B. Hanafee and J. Allen , Reactive Design Patterns (Manning Publications, 2017). Google Scholar
7. M. Szvetits and U. Zdun , Systematic literature review of the objectives, techniques, kinds, and architectures of models at runtime, Softw. Syst. Model. 15(1) (2016) 31–69. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
8. H. B. Pötter and A. Sztajnberg , Adapting heterogeneous devices into an iot context-aware infrastructure, in IEEE/ACM 11th Int. Symp. Software Engineering for Adaptive and Self-Managing Systems, 2016, pp. 64–74. Crossref, Google Scholar
9. G. Tamura, N. M. Villegas, H. A. Muller, L. Duchien and L. Seinturier , Improving context-awareness in self-adaptation using the DYNAMICO reference model, in Software Engineering for Adaptive and Self-Managing Systems, 2013, pp. 153–162. Crossref, Google Scholar
10. R. Seiger, S. Herrmann and U. Aßmann , Self-healing for distributed workflows in the internet of things, in IEEE Int. Conf. Software Architecture Workshops, 2017, pp. 72–79. Crossref, Google Scholar
11. F. Poggi, D. Rossi and P. Ciancarini , Integrating semantic run-time models for adaptive software systems, J. Web Eng. 18(1–3) (2019) 1–42, https://doi.org/10.13052/jwe1540-9589.18131. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
12. D. Rossi, F. Poggi and P. Ciancarini , Dynamic high-level in self-adaptive systems, in 6th Int. Conf. Reliability, Infocom Technologies and Optimization (Trends and Future Directions), 2017, pp. 49–60, https://doi.org/10.1109/ICRITO.2017.8342398. Crossref, Google Scholar
13. F. Poggi, D. Rossi, P. Ciancarini and L. Bompani , Semantic run-time models for self-adaptive systems: a case study, in 25th IEEE Int. Conf. Enabling Technologies: Infrastructure for Collaborative Enterprises, 2016, pp. 50–55, https://doi.org/10.1109/WETICE.2016.20. Crossref, Google Scholar
14. F. Poggi, D. Rossi, P. Ciancarini and L. Bompani , An application of semantic technologies to self adaptations, in IEEE 2nd Int. Forum on Research and Technologies for Society and Industry Leveraging a Better Tomorrow, 2016, pp. 1–6, https://doi.org/10.1109/RTSI.2016.7740548. Crossref, Google Scholar
15. K. Angelopoulos, V. E. S. Souza and J. Mylopoulos , Capturing variability in adaptation spaces: A three-peaks approach, in Int. Conf. Conceptual Modeling, Springer, 2015, pp. 384–398. Crossref, Google Scholar
16. A. C. Shaw , Software descriptions with flow expressions, IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. SE-4(3) (1978) 242–254. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
17. J. Whittle, P. Sawyer, N. Bencomo, B. H. Cheng and J.-M. Bruel , Relax: Incorporating uncertainty into the specification of self-adaptive systems, in 17th IEEE Int. Requirements Engineering Conf., 2009, pp. 79–88. Crossref, Google Scholar
18. A. U. Frank , Tiers of ontology and consistency constraints in geographical information systems, Int. J. Geograph. Inf. Sci. 15(7) (2001) 667–678. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
19. C. Bettini, O. Brdiczka, K. Henricksen, J. Indulska, D. Nicklas, A. Ranganathan and D. Riboni , A survey of context modelling and reasoning techniques, Pervasive Mobile Comput. 6(2) (2010) 161–180. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
20. T. Pederson, C. Ardito, P. Bottoni and M. F. Costabile , A general-purpose context modeling architecture for adaptive mobile services, in Int. Conf. Conceptual Modeling, 2008, pp. 208–217. Crossref, Google Scholar
21. H. Chen, F. Perich, T. Finin and A. Joshi , Soupa: Standard ontology for ubiquitous and pervasive applications, in The First Annual Int. Conf. Mobile and Ubiquitous Systems: Networking and Services, 2004, pp. 258–267. Crossref, Google Scholar
22. C. Perera, A. Zaslavsky, P. Christen and D. Georgakopoulos , Context aware computing for the internet of things: A survey, IEEE Commun. Surveys Tutorials 16(1) (2014) 414–454. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
23. S. Kaebisch, T. Kamiya, M. McCool, V. Charpenay and M. Kovatsch, Web of things (WoT) thing description, W3C Recommendation, 9 April 2020 (link errors corrected 23 June 2020), W3C, 2020. Google Scholar
24. K. Janowicz, A. Haller, S. J. Cox, D. Le Phuoc and M. Lefrançois , SOSA: A lightweight ontology for sensors, observations, samples, and actuators, J. Web Semantics 56 (2019) 1–10. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
25. S. Sagar, M. Lefrançois, I. Rebai, M. Khemaja, S. Garlatti, J. Feki and L. Médini , Modeling smart sensors on top of SOSA/SSN and WOT TD with the semantic smart sensor network (S3N) modular ontology, in 9th Int. Semantic Sensor Network Workshop, Monterey, United States, 2018. Google Scholar
26. M. Hölzl and T. Gabor , Reasoning and learning for awareness and adaptation, in Software Engineering for Collective Autonomic Systems, Springer, 2015, pp. 249–290. Crossref, Google Scholar
27. R. Falco, A. Gangemi, S. Peroni, D. Shotton and F. Vitali , Modelling owl ontologies with graffoo, in European Semantic Web Conference, 2014, pp. 320–325. Crossref, Google Scholar
28. D. Martin, M. Burstein, J. Hobbs, O. Lassila, D. McDermott, S. McIlraith, S. Narayanan, M. Paolucci, B. Parsia, T. Payne et al., OWL-S: Semantic markup for web services, W3C Member Submission 2004, https://www.w3.org/Submission/OWL-S/. Google Scholar
29. M. Rospocher, C. Ghidini and L. Serafini , An ontology for the business process modelling notation. in Formal Ontology in Information Systems, 2014, pp. 133–146. Google Scholar
30. M. Lefrançois , Planned etsi saref extensions based on the w3c&ogc sosa/ssn-compatible seas ontology paaerns, in Proc. Workshop on Semantic Interoperability and Standardization in the IoT, 2017, p. 11. Google Scholar
31. E. Giallonardo, C. Sorrentino and E. Zimeo , Querying a complex web-based kb for cultural heritage preservation, in 2nd Int. Conf. Knowledge Engineering and Applications, 2017, pp. 183–188. Crossref, Google Scholar
32. E. Prud’hommeaux, G. Carothers, D. Beckett and T. Berners-Lee, Turtle–terse rdf triple language, 2013, https://www.w3.org/TR/2013/CR-turtle-20130219/. Google Scholar
33. E. Giallonardo, F. Poggi, D. Rossi and E. Zimeo , Resilient reactive systems based on runtime semantic models, in IEEE Int. Symp. Software Reliability Engineering Workshops, 2019, pp. 177–184, https://doi.org/10.1109/ISSREW.2019.00069. Crossref, Google Scholar
34. E. Giallonardo, F. Poggi, D. Rossi and E. Zimeo , Context-aware reactive systems based on runtime semantic models, in Proc. 31st Int. Conf. Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering, 2019, pp. 301–306, https://doi.org/10.18293/SEKE2019-169. Crossref, Google Scholar
35. D. Rossi, F. Poggi and P. Ciancarini , Dynamic high-level requirements in self-adaptive systems, Proc. 33rd Annual ACM Symp. Applied Computing, 2018, pp. 128–137, https://doi.org/10.1145/3167132.3167143. Crossref, Google Scholar
36. G. Barabucci, A. Di Iorio, S. Peroni, F. Poggi and F. Vitali , Annotations with EARMARK in practice: A fairy tale, in Proc. 1st Int. Workshop on Collaborative Annotations in Shared Environment: Metadata, Vocabularies and Techniques in the Digital Humanities, 2013, pp. 11–18, https://doi.org/10.1145/2517978.2517990. Crossref, Google Scholar