Leila Fatmasari Rahman

The first step in a system design process is to perform domain analysis. This entails acquiring stakeholder concerns throughout the life cycle of the system. The second step is to design solutions addressing those stakeholder concerns. This entails applying patterns for solving known, recurring problems. For these there are architecture patterns and design patterns for architecture design and detailed design respectively. For Internet of Things (IoT) systems such patterns are hardly defined yet… Show more

The first step in a system design process is to perform domain analysis. This entails acquiring stakeholder concerns throughout the life cycle of the system. The second step is to design solutions addressing those stakeholder concerns. This entails applying patterns for solving known, recurring problems. For these there are architecture patterns and design patterns for architecture design and detailed design respectively. For Internet of Things (IoT) systems such patterns are hardly defined yet since experience is just evolving. In this paper, we propose our definition of an IoT pattern along with its formal specification, explained by a running example. IoT systems are characterized by the variety of stakeholders involved throughout their life cycle, therefore our pattern specification includes means for identifying possible conflicts between these stakeholders. Show less

Internet of Things (IoT) systems and the corresponding network architectures are complex due to distributed services on many IoT devices collaboratively fulfilling common goals of IoT applications. System requirements for different types of IoT application domains are still not well-established. The life cycle view is one of the views used for system architecting, showing different stakeholders’ concerns at every stage of the life cycle to derive system requirements. We employ the life cycle… Show more

Internet of Things (IoT) systems and the corresponding network architectures are complex due to distributed services on many IoT devices collaboratively fulfilling common goals of IoT applications. System requirements for different types of IoT application domains are still not well-established. The life cycle view is one of the views used for system architecting, showing different stakeholders’ concerns at every stage of the life cycle to derive system requirements. We employ the life cycle view to understand IoT systems in different IoT application domains. Our contribution is the definition of a generic life cycle model for IoT, which is specified by observations on life cycles of existing IoT solutions and generalizations taking into account important IoT functionalities and quality attributes. Such generic life cycle model for IoT was non-existent. Show less

The Internet of Things (IoT) is turning into practice. To drive innovations, it is crucial that programmers have means to develop IoT applications in the form of IoT programming frameworks. These are toolkits to develop applications according to a certain style or method and that let developers focus on the essence of their applications. New IoT programming frameworks are emerging frequently and this can be overwhelming. To gain useful insights on these frameworks, we define a taxonomy that… Show more

The Internet of Things (IoT) is turning into practice. To drive innovations, it is crucial that programmers have means to develop IoT applications in the form of IoT programming frameworks. These are toolkits to develop applications according to a certain style or method and that let developers focus on the essence of their applications. New IoT programming frameworks are emerging frequently and this can be overwhelming. To gain useful insights on these frameworks, we define a taxonomy that classifies their architecture. At the same time, the process of developing this taxonomy makes the essential architectural aspects of these frameworks explicit. For each of these aspects, we provide discriminating categories with respect to the effects each category has on certain extra-functional (quality) properties in IoT. We apply the taxonomy on three IoT programming frameworks, namely Works with Nest [1], ARM mbed IoT Device Platform [2] and Alljoyn [3]. Our analysis results in useful insights not only on the architecture of the frameworks but also on the basic differences between the frameworks. Comparing multiple candidate frameworks based on the taxonomy helps to find the most suitable framework for a desired IoT application. Show less