Framework for cyber-physical systems: volume 3, timing annex

IoT Capabilities Composition and Decomposition: A Systematic Review

“…This was recognized as a challenge in multiplatform environments discussed in [256], where the lack of interoperability impacts load distribution. The same issue was noticed in the NIST CPS Framework enabled platforms when it comes to heterogeneous components, and systems [38][39] [40], or IoT Systems with different architectures [36]. Similarly, researchers in [18] and [121] mentioned two challenges, one technical, related to the various device interfaces in heterogeneous IoT systems and platforms APIs, and the second organizational, illustrated by the heterogeneous service APIs that prevent communication between organizations.…”

“…support for IoT/CPS capabilities composition/decomposition through their enabled properties. The motivations include: a) the ability to address the composition of functional, business, human, trustworthiness, timing, data, boundaries, composition, and lifecycle concerns of an IoT or a CPS, and b) taking into consideration the complexity, discoverability, adaptability, and constructivity of the composite capabilities [38][39] [40]; c) enabling computation distribution of computation-intensive services running in cloud nodes to low computation nodes at the Fog/Edge level [252]; d) addressing composite services functional and qualitative properties during runtime to enable flexible and adaptable compositions [42] and e) incorporating composition-friendly ontologies and composition mechanisms in distributed environments through hierarchical structures such as classes and subclasses [35][36] [220]; f) providing automatic composition mechanisms to build modular software capabilities and from heterogeneous service marketplaces and locations [37] [221] [222] [223] [225]; g) enabling reusability of small, atomic, reusable components through decomposition [252] [252] [29]; and h) guiding atomic service discovery, selection, and complex services prototyping and composition in the cloud environments [252] [41] [40]. Figure 12 summarizes the motivations above.…”

“…iv) Building IoT composition platforms based on scalability-aware frameworks: frameworks with scalability recommendations and guidelines can help researchers, developers, and composition platforms providers build platforms that scale from the get-go. An example of this approach is illustrated in the NIST CPS Framework [38][39] [40], where building IoT/CPS capabilities composition platforms with the NIST CPS Framework guidelines in mind -especially those related to trustworthiness-would provide elements to enhance scalability in terms of network constraints and in the case of large numbers of users.…”

“…ii) Heterogeneous and unstructured semantics and data: Unstructured and heterogeneous data and data models were exposed as a challenge in the NIST CPS Framework [38][39] [40], and in [166] as a challenge to easily compose useful analytics in IoT platforms. Similarly, the researchers in [18] and [146] discussed syntactic and semantic challenges, including various data formats, data encoding, data models, and ontologies as a hindrance to composing cross-domain IoT services.…”

Ontology-based Reasoning about the Trustworthiness of Cyber-physical Systems

“…• SP 1500-201 (https://www.nist.gov/publications/framework-cyber-physical-systems-volume-1-overview) [9] • SP 1500-202 (https://www.nist.gov/publications/framework-cyber-physical-systems-volume-2-working-group-reports) [10] • SP 1500-203 (https://www.nist.gov/publications/framework-cyber-physical-systems-volume-3-timing-annex) [18] The CPS Framework provides the taxonomy and methodology for designing, building, and assuring cyber-physical systems that meet the expectations and concerns of system stakeholders, including engineers, users, and the community that benefits from the system's functions. The Framework comprises a set of concerns about systems, three development facets and a notion of functional decomposition suited to CPS.…”