Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Capability-based semantic matching for dynamic resource allocation in tactical edge environment

  • Published:
The Journal of Supercomputing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

There are technological, operational, and environmental constraints at tactical edge, which are disconnected operation, intermittent connectivity, and limited bandwidth, size, weight and power limitations, ad-hoc and mobile network, and so on. Moreover, an operational environment is highly dynamic: requirements change in response to the emerging situation, and the availability of resources needs to be updated constantly due to the factors, such as technical failures. Therefore, an efficient matching mechanism is required that considers all possible criteria to achieve a mission. In this paper, we proposed an ontology-based mission service model that consists of a mission, tasks, services, and resources, and developed a capability-based matching mechanism in tactical edge environment. In addition, we have developed a prototype that supports dynamic resource allocation during executing a mission in tactical edge.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Dandashi F, Glasow P, Kaplan D, Lin W, Semy S, Valentine J, Yost B (2008) Tactical Edge Characterization Framework. vol 3: Evolution and Application of the Framework. MITRE Technical report. MTR080310

  2. Erl Thomas (2005) Service-oriented architecture: concepts, technology, and design. Prentice Hall PTR, Upper Saddle River

    Google Scholar 

  3. Gomez M, Preece AD, Johnson MP, de Mel G, Vasconcelos WW, Gibson C, Bar-Noy A, Borowiecki K, La Porta TF, Pizzocaro D, Rowaihy H, Pearson G, Pham T (2008) An ontology-centric approach to sensor-mission assignment. EKAW 2008:347–363. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-87696-0_30

    Google Scholar 

  4. Paolucci M, Kawamura T, Payne TR, Sycara KP (2002) Semantic matching of web services capabilities. In: Proceedings of the First International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC 2002), Springer, London, UK, pp 333–347. doi:10.1007/3-540-48005-6_26

  5. Johnson MP, Rowaihy H, Pizzocaro D, Bar-Noy A, Chalmers S, La Porta TF, Preece A (2010) Sensor-mission assignment in constrained environments. IEEE Trans Parallel Distrib Syst 21:1692–1705. doi:10.1109/TPDS.2010.36

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Castillo GJ, Trastour D, Bartolini C (2001) Description logics for matchmaking of services. In: Proceedings of Workshop on Application of Description Logics (KI 2001)

  7. Preece A, Gomez M, de Mel G, Vasconcelos W, Sleeman D, Colley S, La Porta T (2007) An ontology-based approach to sensor-mission assignment. In: Proc 1st Annual Conference of the International Technology Alliance (ACITA 2007)

  8. Segev A, Toch E (2009) Context-based matching and ranking of web services for composition. IEEE Trans Serv Comput 2(3):210–222. doi:10.1109/TSC.2009.14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Fenza G, Loia V, Senatore S (2008) A hybrid approach to semantic web services matchmaking. Int J Approx Reason 48:808–828. doi:10.1016/j.ijar.2008.01.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Cassar G, Barnaghi P, Wang W, Moessner K (2012) A hybrid semantic matchmaker for IoT services. In: 2012 IEEE International Conference on Green Computing and Communications. pp 210–216. doi:10.1109/GreenCom.2012.40

  11. OWL Web Ontology Language. http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-ref/. Accessed 19 May 2016

  12. Protégé 3.5, http://protege.stanford.edu/. Accessed 19 May 2016

  13. SPARQL Query Language for RDF, W3C Recommendation. http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-sparql-query/. Accessed 19 May 2016

  14. Suggested Upper Merged Ontology (SUMO). http://www.ontologyportal.org/. Accessed 19 May (2016)

  15. Niles I, Pease A (2001) Origins of the IEEE Standard Upper Ontology. Working Notes of the IJCAI-2001 Workshop on the IEEE Standard Upper Ontology, Seattle, pp 37–42

  16. Robin A, Havens S, Cox S, Ricker J, Lake R, Niedzwiadek H (2006) OpenGIS sensor model language (SensorML) implementation specification. Technical report, Open Geospatial Consortium Inc

  17. Russomanno D, Kothari C, Thomas O (2005) Building a sensor ontology: a practical approach leveraging ISO and OGC models. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Artificial Intelligence. pp 637–643

  18. McMullen D, Reichherzer T (2006) The common instrument middleware architecture (CIMA): instrument ontology & applications. In: Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Formal Ontologies Meets Industry (FOMI 2006). Trento, Italy, pp 655–663

  19. Bermudez L, Graybeal J, Arko R (2006) A marine platforms ontology: experiences and lessons. In: Proceedings of the ISWC 2006 Workshop on Semantic Sensor Networks, Athens GA, USA

  20. Rueda C, Galbraith N, Morris RA, Bermudez LE, Graybeal J, Arko RA (2010) The MMI Device Ontology: Enabling Sensor Integration AGU Fall Meeting Abstracts, December

  21. Sheehan JH, Deitz PH, Bray BE, Harris BA, Wong ABH (2003) The military missions and means framework. In: Proceedings of the Interservice/Industry Training and Simulation and Education Conference. pp. 655–663

  22. Levchuk GM, Levchuk YN, Luo Jie, Pattipati KR, Kleinman DL (2002) Normative design of organizations. I. Mission planning. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybernetics Part A Syst Hum 32(3):346–359

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. The Army Universal Task List. http://armypubs.army.mil/doctrine/DR_pubs/dr_a/pdf/adrp1_03.pdf. Accessed 19 May 2016

  24. Baader F, Calvanese D, McGuinness DL, Nardi D, Patel-Schneider PF (2003) The description logic handbook: theory, implementation, and applications. Cambridge University Press, New York, USA

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the Civil-Military Technology Cooperation Program(UM13018RD1).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Metabuild.co.,ltd, Seoul, South Korea

    Seheon Song

  2. Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Seoul National University of Science and Technology (SeoulTech), Seoul, South Korea

    Changhoon Lee

  3. Agency for Defense Development, Seoul, South Korea

    SangIl Lee & JaeHyun Park

Authors
  1. Seheon Song
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  2. Changhoon Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  3. SangIl Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  4. JaeHyun Park
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to JaeHyun Park.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Song, S., Lee, C., Lee, S. et al. Capability-based semantic matching for dynamic resource allocation in tactical edge environment. J Supercomput 72, 3646–3662 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11227-016-1765-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11227-016-1765-0

Keywords