Text
E-book The Cloud to Thing Continuum : Opportunities and Challenges in Cloud, Fog and Edge Computing
The Internet has evolved in a series of waves (Cisco 2012). The first three waves were device-centric. In the first wave, we went to a device, typically a desktop PC, to access the Internet. As mobile computing evolved, soon we brought our own devices with us and could access the Internet any-where anytime. Today, we are in the midst of the so-called Internet of Things (IoT) where devices (things) are connected to the Internet and each other. These things comprise a multitude of heterogeneous devices ranging from consumer devices, such as mobile phones and wearables, to industrial sensors and actuators. Gartner (2017) estimated only 8.4 billion things were connected in 2017 representing just over 0.5% of the total estimated connectable physical objects worldwide.This objective of this chapter is to introduce readers to the Internet of Things. The remainder of the chapter is organised as follows. First, we will explore perspectives on the definition of the Internet of Things (IoT) fol-lowed by key constructs and concepts underlying IoT including a general research framework for conceptualising IoT. Then, we will delve into a further level of granularity and present a selection of IoT Reference Architectures before concluding. The Internet of Things (IoT) has rapidly grown in prominence in the last ten years and, yet, it means different things to different people. Indeed Whitmore et al. (2015) note that there is no universal definition of IoT. Two main conceptualisations exist—the technical and socio-technical perspectives. The first, the pure technical perspective, views IoT as an assemblage and ecosystem of technical artefacts. It is defined by reference to these artefacts and their capabilities. These range in detail. For example, Weyrich and Ebert 2016, p. 1) define IoT as being “[...] about innovative functionality and better productivity by seamlessly connecting devices.” In contrast, Tarkoma and Katasonov (2011, p. 2) is significantly more detailed defining IoT as a “global network and service infrastructure of variable density and connectivity with self-configuring capabilities based on standard and interoperable protocols and formats [which] consists of hetero-geneous things that have identities, physical and virtual attributes, and are seamlessly and securely integrated into the Internet.” Similarly, Whitmore et al. (2015, p. 1) define the IoT as “a paradigm where everyday objects can be equipped with identifying, sensing, networking and processing capabilities that will allow them to communicate with one another and with other devices and services over the Internet to achieve some objective.” Unsurprisingly, given the nature of these definitions, they dominate Computer Science literature.The socio-technical perspective of IoT recognises not only the techni-cal artefacts but also the associate actors and processes with which the IoT interacts. For example, Haller et al. (2009) recognises the role of the con-nected objects as active participants in business processes. They define the IoT as “a world where physical objects are seamlessly integrated into the information network, and where the physical objects can become active par-ticipants in business processes. Services are available to interact with these ‘smart objects‘ over the Internet, query their state and any information asso-ciated with them, taking into account security and privacy issues” (Haller et al. 2009, p. 15). Shin (2014, p. 25) argues that the IoT is part of “wider, socio-technical systems, comprising humans, human activity, spaces, artefacts, tools and technologies.” Indeed, Shin et al. note that in some instances, a biological entity may, in fact, be considered the connected thing, for example a human with a heart monitor implant or a farm animal with a biochip transponder.
Tidak tersedia versi lain