Cyber-Physical Ecosystems: App-Centric Software Ecosystems in Cyber-Physical Environments

  • David E. Robbins
  • Murat M. Tanik
Conference paper


The conceptual frameworks and information architectures of app-centric software ecosystems and cyber-physical systems (CPS) provide complimentary approaches to modeling systems. When integrated, these frameworks combine to become cyber-physical ecosystems (CPE). CPE are CPS whose constituent members, themselves CPS, meet the criteria for consideration as apps. Alternatively, CPE may be viewed as app-centric software ecosystems whose shared data environment includes the physical operating environment of the apps. By taking an app-centric approach to CPS integration, a semantically driven, information architecture based decomposition of a larger CPS into it’s component CPS becomes possible.


Embed System Resource Description Framework Computational Element Calendar Data Programmable Matter 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Apple Inc., “iOS 5,” 2012. [Online]. Available: [Accessed: 02-May-2012].
  2. 2.
    Google, “Android,” 2012. [Online]. Available: [Accessed: 02-May-2012].
  3. 3.
    J. Hendler, “Web 3.0 Emerging,” Computer, vol. 42, no. 1, pp. 111–113, Jan. 2009.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    J. Almeida et al., “ImageJS: Personalized, participated, pervasive, and reproducible image bioinformatics in the web browser,” Journal of Pathology Informatics, vol. 3, no. 1, p. 25, 2012.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    D. E. Robbins, M. M. Tanik, and J. S. Almeida, “Architecture of App-Centric Software Ecosystems for Semi-Structured Clinical Data,” in SDPS 2012, 2012.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    National Science Foundation, “Cyber-Physical Systems (CPS).” Washington D.C., pp. 1–12, 2012.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    E. a. Lee, “Cyber-Physical Systems: Design Challenges,” 2008 11th IEEE International Symposium on Object and Component-Oriented Real-Time Distributed Computing (ISORC), pp. 363–369, May 2008.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    J. Campbell, S. Goldstein, and T. Mowry, “Cyber-Physical Systems,” Pittsburgh, 2006.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    M. Mitchell, Complexity. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009, pp. 12–13.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    L. Amaral, “Complex systems and networks: challenges and opportunities for chemical and biological engineers,” Chemical Engineering Science, vol. 59, no. 8–9, pp. 1653–1666, May 2004.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    W. Wolf, “Cyber-physical Systems,” Computer, vol. 42, no. 3, pp. 88–89, Mar. 2009.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    M. Cataldo and J. D. Herbsleb, “Architecting in software ecosystems,” in Proceedings of the Fourth European Conference on Software Architecture Companion Volume - ECSA ’10, 2010, p. 65.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    K. D. Mandl et al., “The SMART Platform: early experience enabling substitutable applications for electronic health records.,” Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association: JAMIA, pp. 597–604, Mar. 2012.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    D. E. Robbins, “Design Space Decomposition Using Concept Maps,” University of Alabama at Birmingham, 2011.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Electrical and Computer EngineeringUniversity of Alabama at BirminghamBirminghamUSA
  2. 2.Department of Electrical and Computer EngineeringUniversity of Alabama at BirminghamBirminghamUSA

Personalised recommendations