Name
Abstract | ||
|---|---|---|
Wireless sensor networks(WSNs) are always deployed for monitoring and gathering physical information via lots of sensors. For facilitating the internet usage of WSN, Web service is regarded as the most promising technology to wrap the sensor functionality to form WSN service. With the growth of WSN services, making service ranking to help users select the best performance services becomes more and more important. However, traditional service ranking only considering from user's perspective does not suit WSN service any more due to the dynamic WSN environment and slow-reacting characteristic of user ratings. In order to address this problem, in this article, we propose a context-aware WSN service ranking approach by aggregating the user rating and WSN service context. Firstly, the User QoS Assessment(UQA) and Context QoS Assessment(CQA) are proposed respectively. Then through investigating the performance influence of WSN service brought by their context variation, a fuzzy-based mechanism is further developed for the aggregation of UQA and CQA. The case study and experimental evaluation show the validity of the proposed approach. |
Year | DOI | Venue |
|---|---|---|
2012 | 10.1109/GLOCOM.2012.6503973 | GLOBECOM |
Keywords | Field | DocType |
fuzzy set theory,uqa,internet usage,fuzzy-based mechanism,web services,context-aware wsn service ranking,quality of service,wireless sensor network,dynamic wsn environment,web service,context qos assessment,ubiquitous computing,user qos assessment,wireless sensor networks,wsn service context,user rating | Mobile QoS,Ranking,Computer science,Fuzzy logic,Physical information,Quality of service,Computer network,Web service,Wireless sensor network,The Internet | Conference |
Volume | Issue | ISSN |
null | null | 1930-529X E-ISBN : 978-1-4673-0919-6 |
ISBN | Citations | PageRank |
978-1-4673-0919-6 | 1 | 0.35 |
References | Authors | |
16 | 5 | |
Name | Order | Citations | PageRank |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jun Lei | 1 | 13 | 0.91 |
| Wenjia Niu | 2 | 178 | 30.33 |
| Yifang Qin | 3 | 8 | 3.28 |
| Hui Tang | 4 | 26 | 2.56 |
| Song Ci | 5 | 1086 | 106.10 |