Semantic IoT: The Key to Realizing IoT Value

Part of the Studies in Computational Intelligence book series (SCI, volume 941)


The virtual representation and integration of the internet with the physical objects, devices or things have been growing exponentially in recent years. This has motivated the community to design and develop new Internet of Things (IoT) platforms to cater, capture, access, store, share, and communicate data for information retrieval and intelligent applications. However, the associated dynamism, resource-constrain, cost and the nature of the IoT warrants special design obligations for its effectiveness in the days ahead, hence pose a challenge to the community. The understanding of web data from machines according to the subject of terminology in different fields is a complex task. It opens up new challenges to researchers as such an effort mandates the provision of semantically structured, appropriate information sources in this information age. The advent of numerous smart devices, operators, and IoT service providers subject to time-consuming and complex operations, inadequate research and innovations give rise to design complexity. For efficient functioning and effective implementation of the domain requires the inclusion of semantics and the desired interoperability among these factors. This motivates the authors to review and emphasizes a few of the emerging trends of the semantic technology impacting the IoT. Particularly, the work focuses on different aspects as information modeling, ontology design, machine learning, network tools, security policy and processing of semantic data—and discuss the issues and challenges in the current scenario.


Internet of things Semantic IoT Interoperability Ontology Semantic web 


  1. 1.
    Van Kranenburg, R., Bassi, A.: IoT challenges. Commun. Mob. Comput. 1(9), 1–5 (2012)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Atzori, L., Iera, A., Morabito, G.: The internet of things: a survey. Comput. Net. 54(15), 2787–2805 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Evans, D.: The internet of things: how the next evolution of the internet is changing everything. CISCO White Pap. 1, 1–11 (2011)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Berners-Lee, T., Hendler, J., Lassila, O.: The semantic web. SciAm 284(5), 28–37 (2001)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Berners-Lee, T.: Linked data. Int. J. Semant. Web. Inf. Syst. 4(2) (2006)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    McIlraith, A., Son, T.C., Zeng, H.: Semantic web services. IEEE Intell. Syst. 16, 46–53 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Greenough, J.: The US smart home market has been struggling-here’s how and why the market will take off. Business insider. Available online (2016)
  8. 8.
    Al-Osta, M., Ahmed, B., Abdelouahed, G.: A lightweight semantic web-based approach for data annotation on IoT gateways. Proc. Comp. Sci. 113, 186–193 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Zhang, H., Li, Y.F., Tan, H.B.K.: Measuring design complexity of semantic web ontologies. J. Syst. Softw. 83(5), 803–814 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Amarilli, F., Amigoni, F., Fugini, M.G., Zarri, G.P.: A semantic-rich approach to IoT using the generalized world entities paradigm. In: Managing the Web of Things. Morgan Kaufmann, pp. 105–147 (2017)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gomes, P., et al.: A semantic-based discovery service for the internet of things. J. Internet Serv. Appl. 10(10), 2–14 (2019)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    INFSO D.4 Networked Enterprise and RFID INFSO G.2 Micro and Nanosystems. In Co-operation with the Working Group RFID of the ETP EPOSS, Internet of Things in 2020, Roadmap for the Future, Version 1.1, 27 May 2008Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Toma, I., Simperl, E., Hench, G.: A joint roadmap for semantic technologies and the internet of things. In: Proceedings of the Third STI Road Mapping Workshop, Crete, Greece (2009)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Vyas, D.A., Bhatt, D., Jha, D.: IoT: trends, challenges and future scope. Int. J. Comput. Commun. 7(1), 186–197 (2015)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Shi, F., Li, Q., Zhu, T., Ning, H.: A survey of data somatization in internet of things. Sensors 18(1), 2–20 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Serrano, M., Barnaghi, P., Carrez, F., Cousin, P., Vermesan, O., Friess, P.: Internet of things IoT semantic interoperability: research challenges, best practices, recommendations and next steps. In: IERC: European Research Cluster on the Internet of Things, Tech. Rep (2015)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gyrard, A., Serrano, M.: Connected smart cities: interoperability with SEG 3.0 for the internet of things. In: Proceedings of 30th IEEE International Conference on Advanced Information Networking and Applications Workshops, pp. 796–802 (2016)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hahm, O., Baccelli, E., Petersen, H., Tsiftes, N.: Operating systems for low-end devices in the internet of things: a survey. IEEE Internet Things J. 3(5), 720–734 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bello, O., Zeadally, S., Badra, M.: Network Layer Inter-Operation of Device-to-Device communication technologies in Internet of Things (IoT). Ad Hoc Networks, pp. 1–11 (2016)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Noura, M., Atiquzzaman, M., Gaedke, M.: Interoperability in internet of things: taxonomies and open challenges. Mob. Netw. Appl. 24, 796809 (2019)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    W3C: Semantic Integration and Interoperability Using RDF and OWL. (2018)
  22. 22.
    Jabbar, S., Ullah, F., Khalid, S., Khan, M., Han, K.: Semantic interoperability in heterogeneous IoT infrastructure for healthcare. Wirel. Commun. Mob. Comput. 9731806, 1–10 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Serrano, M., Gyrard, A.: A review of tools for IoT semantics and data streaming analytics. Build. Blocks IoT Anal. 6, 139–163 (2015)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Swetina, J., Lu, G., Jacobs, P., Ennesser, F., Song, J.: Toward a standardized common M2M service layer platform: Introduction to oneM2M. IEEE Wirel. Commun. 21(3), 20–26 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Mohanty, M.N., Palo, H.K.: Segment based emotion recognition using combined reduced features. Int. J. Speech Tech. 22(4), 865–884 (2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Palo, H.K., Mohanty, M.N., Chandra, M.: Efficient feature combination techniques for emotional speech classification. Int. J .Speech Tech. 19(1), 135–150 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Palo, H.K., Sagar, S.: Comparison of neural network models for speech emotion recognition. In: 2nd IEEE International Conference on Data Science and Business Analytics (ICDSBA), pp. 127–131 (2018)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Khan, A.M., Lee, Y.K., Lee, S.Y., Kim, T.S.: A triaxial accelerometer-based physical-activity recognition via augmented-signal features and a hierarchical recognizer. IEEE Trans. Inf. Technol. B 14(5), 1166–1172 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Altun, K., Barshan, B.: Human activity recognition using inertial/magnetic sensor units. In: International Workshop on Human Behavior Understanding. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 38–51 (2010)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lane, N.D., Bhattacharya, S., Georgiev, P., Forlivesi, C., Kawsar, F.: An early resource characterization of deep learning on wearables, smartphones and internet of things devices. In: International Workshop on Internet of Things towards Applications. ACM, pp. 7–12 (2015)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Chen, Y., Zhou, J., Guo, M.: A context-aware search system for internet of things based on hierarchical context model. Telecommun. Syst. 62(1), 77–91 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Bhide, V.H., Wagh, S.: I-learning IoT: an intelligent self learning system for home automation using IoT. Int. Conf. Commun. Sig. Process. 1763–1767 (2015)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
  34. 34.
    Ruta, M., Scioscia, F., Loseto, G., Pinto, A., Di Sciascio, E.: Machine Learning in the Internet of Things: a Semantic-enhanced Approach. Semantic Web, IOS Press, pp. 1–22 (2018)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Sezer, O.B., Dogdu, E., Ozbayoglu, M., Onal, A.: An extended IOT framework with semantics, big data, and analytics. In: IEEE International Conference on Big Data (Big Data), pp. 849–1856 (2016)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Koru, A.G., Tian, J.: An empirical comparison and characterization of high defect and high complexity modules. J. Syst. Softw. 67(3), 153–163 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Weyuker, E.J.: Evaluating software complexity measures. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 14(9), 1357–1365 (1988)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Yao, H., Orme, A.M., Etzkorn, L.: Cohesion metrics for ontology design and application. J. Comput. Sci. 1(1), 107–113 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Kang, D., Xu, B., Lu, J., Chu, W.C.: A complexity measure for ontology based on UML. In: Proceedings of 10th IEEE Int Workshop on Future Trends of Distributed Computing Systems (FTDCS’04), IEEE CS, Washington, DC, USA, pp. 222–228 (2004)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Gangemi, A., Catenacci, C., Ciaramita, M., Lehmann, J.: Modelling ontology evaluation and validation. In: Proceedings of 3rd European Semantic Web Conference (ESWC’06). Budva, Montenegro, pp. 140–154 (2006)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Wang, T.D., Parsia, B., Hendler, J.A.: A survey of the web ontology landscape. In: International Semantic Web Conference on Lecture Notes Computer Science, vol. 4273. Springer, pp. 682–694 (2006)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Vrandečić, D., Sure, Y.: How to design better ontology metrics. In: ESWC’07: Proceedings of 4th European Conference on the Semantic Web. Springer-Verlag, Innsbruck, Austria, pp. 311–325 (2007)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Das, S.K., Palo, H.K.: Internet of Things (IoT) Application in Green Computing: an Overview. Advances in Greener Energy Technologies. Springer, Singapore, pp. 85–102 (2020)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of ECE, Institute of Technical Education and ResearchSiksha ‘O’ Anusandhan (Deemed To Be University)BhubaneswarIndia

Personalised recommendations