2005 Intemational Conference on Control and Automation (ICCA2005)
June 27-29, 2005, Budapest, Hungary
Data Management for Wireless Sensor
Networks: Research Issues and Challenges
Li Qun Zhuang, Jing Bing Zhang, Dan Hong Zhang and Yi Zhi Zhao
Abstract- Wireless sensor networks (WSNs) as the basic
infrastructure for pervasive computing environment are data-
centric in nature. The research issues and chalienges relating
to sensor data management are much different from those of
traditional database and wireless communication. This paper
presents a concise review of the latest technologies, research
issues, and challenges facing data management for WSNs.
1. INTRODUCTION
THE advent of WSNs is rapidly changing the way by
which data are captured, processed and disseminated
for a variety of potential applications for home, hospitals,
factory shop floors, road traffic, battlefields, and so on. As
with any other new technological development, there exist
many research issues and technical challenges relating to
sensor nodes, networks and applications [1]. WSN
applications are data-centric in nature and the sensory data
streams are usually characterized by append-only sequence
for data updates, continuous queries and approximate
results. Hence, many researchers treat WSNs as virtual
distributed databases of continuous data streams from
physical world.
Research on the modeling of data streams can be traced
back to early 1990's, when continuous queries were
developed and incorporated into the Tapestry system [2] for
filtering streams of electronic documents, such as mail
messages or articles. As shown in (1), the monotonous
query result Q,(t) denotes the total set of data retumed up
until time t by executing query Q in the Tapestry system.
QM(t) UQ(S) (1)
s<t
In NiagaraCQ [3], group optimization was applied to
both time-based and change-based continuous queries for
Internet database and Web contents. Gigascope [4] was
This work was supported by the Agency for Science, Technology and
Research (A*STAR) Science & Engineering Research Council (SERC)
TSRP Grant 04211 20028(2004)
L. Q. Zhuang is with the Singapore Institute of Manufacturing
Technology, Singapore 638075 (phone: 65-67938993; fax: 65-67916377;
e-mail: lqzhuang@simtech.a-star.edu.sg).
J. B. Zhang, D. H Zhang, Y.Z. Zhao are with the Singapore Institute of
Manufacturing Technology, Singapore 638075 (e-mail:
jbzhang(simtech.a-star.edu.sg, dzhang(simtech.a-star.edu.sg,
yzzhao~simtech.a-star.edu.sg).
208
0-7803-9137-3/05/$20.00 © 2005 IEEE
MP-2.5
developed for the purpose of network monitoring and traffic
analysis. StatStream [5] proposed efficient methods to make
decision from tens of thousands of time series data streams
in the financial market based on discrete Fourier transforms
and a three-level time interval hierarchy.
In recent years, the research attentions on continuous
queries have been focused on WSNs. For example,
COUGAR [6] defined sensor database and sensor queries
by extending the Cornell PREDATOR object-relational
database system; Aurora [7] is a data-flow system that
allows the sensor data to flow through a loop-free, directed
graph of processing operations; the Stanford stream data
manager (STREAM) [8] is a general-purpose data stream
management system for processing continuous data streams
and stored relations; and TelegraphCQ [9] provided an
adaptive dataflow architecture for streaming data.
WSNs are typically composed of a large number of
nodes each with limited resources in terms of battery life,
computational power and communication capabilities.
Hence energy-aware query dissemination and routing
techniques are required as compared to the traditional
routing technology such as flooding and gossiping [10].
The emerging Web Services Resource Framework
(WSRF) [11] under Open Grid Service Architecture has
created great opportunities to integrate resource limited
WSN applications, which generate huge amount of data,
into the powerfidl Grid computation architecture that is able
to provide immense computational power.
1I. DATA MODEL AND QUERY LANGUAGE
Most of the current WSN data stream engines proposed
by researchers can be categorized into one of the following
models: (1) workflow-based, (2) relation-based, or (3)
object-based. A general architecture of the data stream
model for WSNs is shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1: Conceptual Model for Data Stream
 The Aurora system [7] is a workflow oriented system
supported by a set of operators. The system is focused on
efficient scheduling, quality of service and the optimization
structure. Aurora supports continuous queries, sliding
windows and ad hoc queries in the unified processing
engine. The data stream in Aurora is an append-only
sequence of tuples with uniform type: (TS, Al, A2,. .., An)
where TS is the timestamp and A- is application-specific
data field. The Aurora query is built on the Aurora query
algebra including three order-agnostic operators (Filter,
Map and Union) and four order-sensitive operators (BSort,
Aggregate, Join and Resample). Borealis [12] extends the
Aurora architecture to a new data model with revisions:
(TS, tuple-type, id, A1, A2,. , An) where tuple-type is
supported by insertion, deletion and replacement operators
and id is the unique identifier of the tuple of the stream.
Borealis created a new data streaming engine with the
following features: dynamic revision of query results,
dynamic modification of queries and flexible and highly-
scalable optimization. Both Aurora and Borealis are
implemented as a distributed data stream model that is
dynamically reconfigurable with the change of network
conditions.
STREAM [8], developed by Stamford University, is a
relation-based data stream manager. It is modeled as an
unbounded, append-only bag of (tuple, timestamp) pairs
and a relation as a time-varying bag of tuples supporting
updates, deletions and insertions. These semantics rely on
three abstract blocks: relation-to-relation operators, stream-
to-relation operators and relation-to-stream operators. The
interactions among them are shown in Figure 2.
ts u
Rebia to Reat
Oper
Figure 2: Abstract Semantics Interaction in STREAM
Continuous Query Language (CQL) is an expressive
SQL-based declarative language for registering continuous
queries against streams and updatable relations in
STREAM. It is an instantiation of abstract semantics using
SQL to map from relations to relations, the sliding window
to map from streams to relations, and three operators to map
from relations to streams. These three operators (Insertion,
Deletion and Relation) are formally expressed in (2), (3)
and (4) respectively. CQL has three types of sliding
window operators: time-based, tuple-based and partitioned
window. The window specification language is based on
SQL-99.
Istream(R) = U ((R(v) - R(r - 1)) x {r})
r20
Dstream(R) = U ((R(r - 1)- R(r)) x {T}) (3)
r>-O
Rstream(R) = U(R(r) x{T}) (4)
r.O
where:R(-c) represents the time-varying relation R at timer.
COUGAR is an object-based data stream system [13],
which models sensor nodes as abstract data types (ADTs) in
an object-relational or object-oriented data model. Well-
defined semantics of long-running queries over ADT
objects are also introduced in COUGAR. Set-oriented
execution strategies were adapted to the distributed context
of a device database system. The implementation of the
Comell COUGAR device database system is based on
PREDATOR, an object relational database system [14].
A recent data streaming architecture was proposed based
on probabilistic model [15]. Probabilistic query is built on
probability density function p(XI, X2,.. ., XJ) to assign a
probability for each possible assignment to the sensor
attribute Xi. The model uses historical measurements to
improve the confidence of query answers. It is also able to
tolerate data loss, detect faulty inputs, and identify
correlations that can be used to improve query performance.
Since the relational model has a strong and well defined
mathematical foundation in relational algebra, relation-
based model with extension of windowing and sequence
operators is presently the most popular paradigm. However,
researchers are also investigating more general stream
algebra for the data streams of WSNs.
Sensor data acquisition is carried out by the query
processor or engine. In the query processing model for data
collection in a sensor network, research issues arise at all
query processing phases: query processing, query
optimization, and query dissemination. Power-based query
optimization is used to choose a query plan that will yield
the lowest overall power consumption and power-efficient
protocol is the key target for data dissemination.
III. QUERY PROCESSING AND OPTIMIZATION
Many optimization strategies for WSNs are cost-based in
terms of computation and communication. In the case of
STREAM [8], whenever a continuous query is registered a
query plan will be generated. The query plan is composed
of three components: operators, inter-operator queues and
synopses which maintain run-time states associated with
operators. The execution of query plans is controlled by a
global scheduler for the run-time resource management.
The operator scheduling strategy (known as chain
scheduling) is near-optimal in minimizing run-time memory
usage for single-stream queries. The optimization
techniques adopted by STREAM include relocating
window operators in query plans, exploiting stream
(2)
constraints to reduce window sizes and identifying
opportunities for sharing computation and memory. When
resource limitations force approximate query results, it uses
techniques such as sliding window reduction, sampling rate
209
 reduction, synopses summarization and graceful
degradation by load shedding.
A QoS (Quality of Service) model forms the basis of
resource management decisions in Borealis [12]. The QoS
defined in a vector of metrics (VM) can be predicted at any
point in a data flow. In Borealis, there are three levels of
optimization: a local optimizer for scheduling message, a
neighborhood optimizer for load balancing, and a global
optimizer for global decision making.
Another important optimization strategy is power-based.
Queries in TinyDB [16] are parsed at the base station. The
base station stores metadata information of each sensor
node, which describes the costs of processing and
delivering data, and is used in query-lifetime estimation.
Based on the metadata, TinyDB performs reordering of the
query predicate (ordering of sampling, selections and joins)
to optimize the query process. For event-based query and
periodic query, TinyDB employs multi-query optimization
technique based on rewriting which converts extemnal
events into a stream of events, and rewrite the entire set of
independent internal queries as a sliding window join
between events and sensors. The rewriting technique is also
applied to the rate-based optimization [17] where the
fundamental statistics used are estimates of the rates of the
streams in the query evaluation tree.
IV. QUERY DISSEMINATION AND ROUTING
The WSNs disseminate the query into the sensor
networks after query optimization. The dissemination
begins with a broadcast of the query from the root of the
networks. Routing in a WSN protocol is different from that
in ad-hoc networks. Most of the routing protocols can be
classified as data-centric, cluster-based or location-based,
with a few based on QoS. The following sections discuss
the different routing protocols for WSNs.
A. Data-centric Routing
The Sensor Protocol for Information via Negotiation
(SPIN) [18] family of protocols is iused to efficiently
disseminate information in a WSN. SPIN overcomes the
shortcomings of conventional approaches by making use of
the metadata negotiation and resource-adaptive algorithms.
SPIN nodes use three types of message: ADV (data
advertisement), REQ (request for data) and DATA (data
message). There are four protocols in the SPIN family:
1) SPIN-PP (protocol for point-to-point media, uses
ADV-REQ-DATA messages),
2) SPIN-EC (same as SPIN-PP, but is energy aware),
3) SPIN-BC (protocol for broadcast media, uses ADV-
REQ-DATA messages, steps are shown in Figure 3) and
4) SPIN-RL (improved on SPIN-BC which allows
nodes to retransmits REQ if it doesn't receive any data after
timeout).
210
0 0
0 o D-0 0
0
0 0
t;ep I step 2 ° te 3
0 ~ 0
J4 IN4 a ON10,
0 5 AY,
Figure 3: An Example of SPIN-BC
Directed diff-usion provides a data-centric communication
protocol [19] for sensor sources and sinks with the
following key features: data-centric dissemination,
reinforcement-based adaptation to the empirically best path,
and in-network data aggregation and caching. Figure 4
shows an example of directed diffusion.
Source Sotrce ( Source
Sink
i Sul*
Sink
Step 1: Request Diffusion Step 2: Setup Gradients Step 3: Data Transfer
Figure 4: An Example of Directed Diffusion
The concept of semantic routing tree (SRT) was
proposed in TinyDB [16] to provide a power efficient
mechanism for disseminating queries and collecting query
results. With this method, nodes in SRT choose parents
based on semantic properties as well as the link quality. For
attributes that are highly correlated amongst neighbors in
the routing tree, SRT is able to reduce the number of nodes
involved in disseminating queries and forwarding results.
B. Cluster-based Routing
Low Energy Adaptive Clustering Hierarchy (LEACH)
[20] is a self-organizing, adaptive clustering protocol that
uses randomization to distribute the energy load evenly
among the sensors in the network. LEACH involves
randomized rotation of high energy cluster heads so that it
does not drain out the battery of a single node. Figure 5
shows one routing example for LEACH. In LEACH, the
operation is divided into two phases: set-up phase and
steady-state phase. During the set-up phase, each node can
choose a random number between 0 and 1. If the number is
less than threshold T(n), this node becomes a cluster-head
for the current round. The threshold is set in formula (5).
F if ne G
T(n) = I- P* (rmod e) (5)
else
lo
where: P = desired percentage of cluster heads, r = the
current round, and G = set of nodes that have not been a
cluster head in the last 1/P rounds.
Hodlel ,- (- HNode X
Hode 6
liodle 3
(u tlode 4
Figure 5: LEACH routing protocol
Once the cluster-heads are elected, the cluster-heads
broadcast to all the sensor nodes in the networks that they
are the new cluster-heads. Upon receiving the broadcasting,
sensor nodes determine the cluster to which they want to
belong based on the signal strength of the broadcasting, and
inform the chosen cluster-heads of the willingness to be a
member of the cluster. During the steady-state phase, the
sensor nodes begin to sense and transmit data to the cluster-
heads. Upon aggregating data from the cluster nodes, the
cluster-heads send these data to the base station. After the
steady-state phase last for a certain period of time, the
network goes into the set-up phase again and entering into
another round of electing the cluster-heads.
Threshold-sensitive Energy Efficient sensor Network
(TEEN) [21] and Adaptive Periodic TEEN (APTEEN) [22]
protocols are follows-up of LEACH, with the introduction
of two thresholds: hard threshold and soft threshold. Data
are reported to the cluster-head only when the value of
sensed attribute is equal to or greater than the hard
threshold, or the change in the value of sensed attribute is
equal to or greater than the soft threshold.
Power-Efficient GAthering in Sensor Information
Systems (PEGASIS) [23] is a near optimal chain-based
protocol, which performs better than LEACH by about
100% to 300% in terms of power-efficiency. The lifetime of
sensor network supported by PEGASIS is almost twice as
that of LEACH. Figure 6 shows one example for PEGASIS.
Hode-ll() odle 2
9 J~~~~~~~~lode
Sink
" e f -~~Cuse Head
Niode 4
Figure 6: An Example of PEGASIS
The Two-Tier Data Dissemination (TTDD) [24]
approach provides scalable and efficient data delivery to
multiple mobile sinks. Each data source in TTDD
proactively constructs and maintains a grid structure with
very low overhead, which enables mobile sinks to
continuously receive data on the move by flooding queries
within a local cell only.
C. Location-based Routing
Greedy Perimeter Stateless Routing (GPSR) [25] is a
responsive and efficient routing protocol for WSNs, which
uses greedy forwarding to forward packets to nodes and
only needs local information for forwarding.
Geographic Adaptive Fidelity (GAF) [26] sets up virtual
grid based on location information, where each node of the
grid is equivalent peers from a traffic forwarding
perspective and only one node is awake in each grid at each
time. If the average number of nodes in a grid is M, GAF
reduces the energy by a factor M' which is shown in (6).
M
M =-M (6)
I1 -e
The Sleep-aWake Probabilistic Forwarding Protocol
(SW-PFR) [27] avoids flooding by favoring in a
probabilistic way certain "close to optimal" data
transmissions and also allows particles to altemate between
sleeping and awake modes to save energy.
Sequential Assignment Routing (SAR) [28] facilitates
selection of a path among multi-path by the node which
generates the packet. The objective of the SAR algorithm is
to minimize the average weighted QoS metric throughout
the lifetime of the network.
V. DATA VISUALIZATION AND SERVICE VIRTUALIZATION
To integrate WSNs into the Web-based environment, two
technical issues have to be addressed: the visibility and
serviceability that a WSN application can provide. Some
WSN applications have been reported in areas such as
medical and environmental monitoring [29, 30] to address
these challenges.
Earlier works on the visibility of wireless sensor data
were carried out by Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) of
NASA in the Sensor Web project [31]. The Sensor Web is a
dynamic infrastructure for sensors to synthesize the
knowledge from data, providing end-to-end solutions for
Intemet browser to access sensor networks for command in
6 and streaming data out.
A sensor information networking architecture (SINA)
[32] was proposed to serve as the middleware to facilitate
/
querying, monitoring, and tasking of sensor networks.
EmStar [33] realized the software reusability by providing
Hode S module-based services that support networking, sensing,
and time synchronization and it also implemented tools that
support execution, simulation and visualization of the live
environment. The Tiny Application Sensor Kit (TASK)
[34] was built on top of TinyDB to provide high level
metadata management, query configuration, sensor
networks monitoring and data visualization.
Many reported WSN applications were built on
homogenous architectures. It is difficult to integrate WSNs
with different devices and services, correlate between
heterogeneous sensor networks and provide unified
211
 services. The Stream-based Overlay Network (SBON) [35]
attempted to address the challenge of serviceability of WSN
applications. SBON provides large scale sensor resource
sharing in the development of Internet-based stream by
abstracting the details of process optimization and service
naming and discovery. SBON leverages recent researches
in overlay networks and peer-to-peer architecture to process
and deliver stream data over the Intemet. And recently, an
Internet-scale query engine called Peer-to-peer Information
Exchange and Retrieval (PIER) [36] provides general-
purpose peer-to-peer architecture including data
representation, query dissemination, query operators and
metadata management.
For maximum inter-operability, WSN applications for
any specific domain should be generalized in a service-
oriented architecture. Web services provide the fundamental
architecture for implementation. In order to manage the
Web services, WSRF has introduced a design pattern to
specify how to use Web services to access "stateful" WSNs
with the following supporting modules: WS-Resource
Property, WS-Resource Lifetime, WS-Base Faults, WS-
Renewable References, WS-Service Group and WS-
Notification [37]. To integrate resource-constrained sensor
nodes with the resource-rich grid computing environment,
the new network infrastructure should be built on WSRF.
Hourglass [38] provides grid-enabled APIs for the
heterogeneous sensors with WSRF.
VI. CONCLUDING REMARKS
This paper has presented a concise review of the
emerging technologies for WSNs. As with any new
technology, WSN is still at an early stage, and lacks
standards in various aspects. Its immaturity, however,
creates a lot of opportunities for pioneering researchers to
innovate. As its potentials for many applications have been
recognized, data management for WSNs has attracted a lot
of attentions in the international communities, and many
new approaches have been proposed by researchers.
However, there are still many challenges and open issues
for researchers to address as the highlighted points below.
A) How to satisfy the constraints inherent in WSNs in
the realization of sensor networks, such as topology change,
fault tolerance, scalability, cost, hardware, power
consumption?
B) Compared with the traditional network seven-layer
architecture, what should be the rationalized and efficient
layering in WSNs?
C) Most researchers are focusing on the energy
efficiency protocols. It is observed that most results are
empirical with very little analytical work done. Improved or
new protocols should be developed to address higher level
of robustness, scalability which involves more theoretical
works based on computational geometry, graph theory and
212
game theory.
D) Integrating wireless sensor networks with the grid
poses many challenges. More challenges are foreseen to
provide mechanisms to realize the automated orchestration
and integration of services for WSNs. More research works
are needed in the areas of ontological engineering,
orchestration and choreography of WSN services. Business
Process Execution Language (BPEL) is also needed to form
the semantic markup of Web Services for WSNs.
The research issues pertinent to data management are
summarized in Table 1.
TABLE 1: ISSUES OF DATA MANAGEMENT FOR WSNs: A TAXONOMY
Research Issue Reference
Data Modeling [6,7,8,9,12,13,14,15,16]
Query Optimization [8,12,15,16,17]
Routing Protocol [10,16,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28]
Virtualization [29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,38]
REFERENCES
[1] 1. F. Akyildiz, W. Su, Y. Sankarasubramaniam, and E.
Cayirci, "Wireless sensor networks: a survey", Computer
Networks Journal, vol. 38(4) pp.393422, 2002.
[2] D. Terry, D. Goldberg, D. Nichols and B. Oki, "Continuous
queries over append-only databases", The ACM SIGMOD of
the International Conference on Management of Data, San
Diego, USA, pp.321-330, 1992.
[3] J. Chen, D.J. Dewitt, F. Tian and Y. Wang, "NiagaraCQ: A
scalable continuous query system for Internet database", The
ACM SIGMOD of International Conference on Management
of Data, Dallas, USA, pp.379-390, 2000.
[4] C. Cranor, T. Johnson, 0. Spatscheck, and V. Shkapenyuk,
"Gigascope: A Stream Database for Network Applications",
The ACM SIGMOD of International Conference on
Management of Data, San Diego, USA, pp.647-651, 2003.
[5] Y. Zhu and D. Shasha, "StatStream: Statistical monitoring of
thousands of data streams in real time", The 28th
International Conference on Verv Large Data Bases, HK,
China, pp.358-369, 2002.
[6] P. Bonnet, J. Gehrke and P. Seshadri, "Towards sensor
database systems", The 2nd International Conference on
Mobile Data Management, HK, China, pp.3-14, 2001.
[7] D. Abadi, D. Carney, U. Cetintemel, M. Cherniack, C.
Convey, S. Lee, M. Stonebraker, N. Tatbul, and S. Zdonik,
"Aurora: A new model and architecture for data stream
management", The VLDB Journal, vol. 12(2), pp.120-139,
2003.
[8] R. Motwani, J. Widom, A. Arasu, B. Babcock, S. Babu, M.
Datar, G. Manku, C. Olston, J. Rosenstein, and R. Varma,
"Query processing, resource management, and
approximation in a data stream management system", The P1
Biennial Conference on Innovative Data Systems Research,
Asilomar, USA, pp.245-256, 2003.
[9] S. Chandrasekaran, 0. Cooper, A. Deshpande, M.J. Franklin,
J.M. Hellerstein, W. Hong, S. Krishnamurthy, S. R. Madden,
V. Raman, F. Reiss, and M.A. Shah, "TelegraphCQ:
Continuous dataflow processing for an uncertain world", The
 jS' Biennial Conference on Innovative Data Systems
Research, Asilomar, USA, pp.269-280, 2003.
[10] S. Hedetniemi and A. Liestman, "A survey of gossiping and
broadcasting in communication networks", Networks, vol.
18(4), pp.3 19-349, 1988.
[11] 1. Foster, C. Kesselman, S. Tuecke, "The anatomy of the
Grid: enabling scalable virtual organizations", International
Journal of Supercomputer Applications, vol. 15(3), pp.200-
222, 2001.
[12] D. Abadi, Y. Ahmad, M. Balazinska, U. CJetintemel, M.
Cherniack, J.-H. Hwang, W. Lindner, A. Maskey, A. Rasin,
E. Ryvkina, N. Tatbul, Y. Xing, and Stan Zdonik, "The
Design of the Borealis Stream Processing Engine", The 2nd
Biennial Conference on Innovative Data Systems Research,
Asilomar, USA, pp.277-289, 2005.
[13] A. Demers, J. Gehrke, R. Rajaraman, N. Trigoni, and Y.
Yao, "The Cougar Project: A Work-In-Progress Report",
SIGMOD Record, vol. 34(4), 2003.
[14] P. Bonnet, J. Gehrke, T. Mayrand and P. Seshadri, "Query
Processing in a Device Database System", Technical Report,
TR99-1775, Cornell University, 1999.
[15] A. Deshpande, C. Guestrin, S. R. Madden, J. M. Hellerstein
and W. Hong "Model-Driven Data Acquisition in Sensor
Network", The 30h VLDB Conference, Toronto, Canada, pp.
588-599, 2004.
[16] S. Madden, M. Franklin, J. Hellerstein, W. Hong, "The
design of an acquisitional query processor for sensor
networks", The ACM SIGMOD of International Conference
on Management ofData, San Diego,USA, pp.491-502, 2003.
[17] S. D. Viglas J. F. Naughton, "Rate-based query optimization
for streaming informnation sources", The ACM SIGMOD of
International Conference on Management of Data, Madison,
USA, pp.37-48, 2002.
[18] W. Heinzelman, J. Kulik, and H. Balakrishnan, "Adaptive
Protocols for Information Dissemination in Wireless Sensor
Networks", The 5th ACM/IEEE International Conference on
Mobile Computing and Networking, Seattle, USA, pp.1 74-
185, 1999.
[19] C. Intanagonwiwat, R. Govindan, and D. Estrin, "Directed
Diffusion: A Scalable and Robust Communication Paradigm
for Sensor Networks", The 6th ACM/IEEE International
Conference on Mobile Computing and Networking, Boston,
USA, pp.55-67, 2000.
[20] W. Heinzelman, A. Chandrakasan, and H. Balakrishnan,
"Energy-Efficient Communication Protocol for Wireless
Microsensor Networks", The 33rd Annual Hawaii
International Conference on System Sciences, Maui, USA,
pp.3005-3014, 2000.
[21] A. Manjeshwar and D.P. Agrawal, "TEEN: A routing
protocol for enhanced efficiency in wireless sensor
networks", The 15'h International Parallel and Distributed
Processing Symposium Workshops, San Francisco, USA,
p.30189a, 2001.
[22] A. Manjeshwar, Q. A. Zeng, D. P. Agrawal, "An analytical
model for information retrieval in wireless sensor networks
using enhanced APTEEN protocol", IEEE Transactions on
Parallel and Distributed Systems, vol. 13(12), pp.1290-1302,
2002.
[23] S. Lindsey and C. Raghavendra, "Pegasis: Power efficient
gathering in sensor information systems", IEEE Aerospace
Conference, Big Sky, USA, pp.31 120-31130, 2002.
213
[24] F. Ye, H. Luo, J. Cheng, S. Lu, and L. Zhang, "A Two-Tier
Data Dissemination Model for Large-scale Wireless Sensor
Networks", The 8th ACM/IEEE International Conference on
Mobile Computing and Networking, Atlanta, USA, pp.l148-
159, 2002.
[25] B. Karp and H.T. Kung, "GPSR: Greedy Perimeter Stateless
Routing for wireless networks", The 6h ACM/IEEE
International Conference on Mobile Computing and
Networking, Boston, USA, pp.243-254, 2000.
[26] Y. Xu, J. Heidemann, and D. Estrin, "Geography-informed
energy conservation for ad hoc routing", The 7th ACM/IEEE
International Conference on Mobile Computing and
Networking, Rome, Italy, pp.70-84, 2001.
[27] A. Boukerchey, I. Chatzigiannakis and S. Nikoletseas,
"Efficient data propagation protocols in wireless sensor
networks", Wireless communications systems and networks,
ISBN: 0-306-48190-1, pp.23-51, Plenum Press, New York,
USA, 2004.
[28] K. Sohrabi, J. Gao, V. Ailawadhi and G. J. Pottie, "Protocols
for Self-Organization of a Wireless Sensor Network", IEEE
Personal Communications, vol. 7(5), pp.16-27, 2000.
[29] E. Jovanov, "Patient monitoring using personal area
networks of wireless intelligent sensors", Biomedical
Sciences Instrumentation, vol. 37, pp.373-378, 2001
[30] A. Kevin, Delin and S. P. Jackson "Sensor Web for In Situ
Exploration of Gaseous Biosignatures", IEEE Aerospace
Conference, Big Sky, USA, pp.465472, 2000
[31] K.A. Delin, S.P. Jackson, and R.R. Some, "Sensor Webs",
NASA Tech Briefs, vol. 23, 1999, 80.
[32] C.C Shen, C. Srisathapomphat and C. Jaikaeo, "Sensor
Information Networking Architecture and Applications",
IEEE Personal Communications, vol. 8(4), pp.52-59, 2001.
[33] J. Elson, L. Girod, D. Estrin, "EmStar: Development with
High System Visibility", IEEE Wireless Communications,
vol. 11(6), pp.70-77, 2004.
[34] P. Buonadonna, D. Gay, J. M. Hellerstein, W. Hong and S.
Madden, "Task: Sensor Network in a Box", 2`d European
Workshop on Wireless Sensor Networks, Istanbul, Turkey,
2005.
[35] P. Pietzuch, J. Shneidman, M. Roussopoulos, M. Seltzer and
M. Welsh, "Path Optimization in Stream-Based Overlay
Networks", Harvard Technical Report TR-26-04, 2004.
[36] R. Huebsch, B. Chun, J. M. Hellerstein, B. T. Loo, P.
Maniatis, T. Roscoe, S. Shenker, I. Stoica and A. R.
Yumerefendi, "The Architecture of PIER: an Internet-Scale
Query Processor", 2nd Biennial Conference on Innovative
Data System Research, Asilomar, USA, pp28-43. 2005.
[37] I. Foster, J. Frey and S. Graham et al, "Modeling Stateful
Resources with Web Services", White Paper, 2004.
[38] J. Shneidman, P. Pietzuch, J. Ledlie, M. Roussopoulos, M.
Seltzer and M. Welsh, "Hourglass: An Infrastructure for
Connecting Sensor Networks and Applications", Harvard
Technical Report, TR-21-04, 2004.