Cited by 96Semantic Web and OntologiesIoT and Edge/Fog ComputingData Stream Mining Techniques

IoT-Stream: A Lightweight Ontology for Internet of Things Data Streams and Its Use with Data Analytics and Event Detection Services

Open access
Elsaleh, Tarek, Enshaeifar, Shirin, Rezvani, Roonak, Acton, Sahr Thomas, Janeiko, Valentinas, Bermudez-Edo, Maria·2020·Sensors

Abstract

With the proliferation of sensors and IoT technologies, stream data are increasingly stored and analysed, but rarely combined, due to the heterogeneity of sources and technologies. Semantics are increasingly used to share sensory data, but not so much for annotating stream data. Semantic models for stream annotation are scarce, as generally, semantics are heavy to process and not ideal for Internet of Things (IoT) environments, where the data are frequently updated. We present a light model to semantically annotate streams, IoT-Stream. It takes advantage of common knowledge sharing of the semantics, but keeping the inferences and queries simple. Furthermore, we present a system architecture to demonstrate the adoption the semantic model, and provide examples of instantiation of the system for different use cases. The system architecture is based on commonly used architectures in the field of IoT, such as web services, microservices and middleware. Our system approach includes the semantic annotations that take place in the pipeline of IoT services and sensory data analytics. It includes modules needed to annotate, consume, and query data annotated with IoT-Stream. In addition to this, we present tools that could be used in conjunction to the IoT-Stream model and facilitate the use of semantics in IoT.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3390/s20040953

Cites

41 of 41 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Traditional data validation methods are insufficient for handling the dynamic and heterogeneous nature of IoT data streams.

    “This is because the traditional data validation methods are insufficient for handling the dynamic and heterogeneous nature of Internet of Things (IoT) data streams.”

    From Semantic-Driven Approach for Validation of IoT Streaming Data in Trustable Smart City Decision-Making and Monitoring Systems (2025) · cites this paper as [7]

    The Introduction (page unavailable) describes the changing volume, velocity, sources, and formats of IoT data as challenges. Related Work (page unavailable) discusses limitations of existing stream-annotation models, but the paper does not establish that traditional data validation methods are insufficient. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • It further establishes that the semantic stream processing can still be contained within the interval of IoT streaming data generation of sensor reads in smart city application scenarios, such as air quality monitoring and smart transportation [7,21].

    “It further establishes that the semantic stream processing can still be contained within the interval of IoT streaming data generation of sensor reads in smart city application scenarios, such as air quality monitoring and smart transportation [7,21].”

    From Semantic-Driven Approach for Validation of IoT Streaming Data in Trustable Smart City Decision-Making and Monitoring Systems (2025) · cites this paper as [7]

    Section 5.1, “Smart City Traffic and Environment,” describes traffic and air-quality streams whose sensors generate data every five minutes, along with an example analytics workflow. The Conclusions say the lightweight model improves stream-query processing time, but our copy does not establish that semantic processing finishes within the interval between sensor readings. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • A probabilistic model such as Machine Learning does not support data interoperability requirements for data-driven smart systems and is unable to provide runtime reasoning as well as simultaneously analyse data produced from heterogeneous sources.

    “It does not support data interoperability requirements for data-driven smart systems and is unable to provide runtime reasoning as well as simultaneously analyse data produced from heterogeneous sources [7].”

    From Semantic-Driven Approach for Validation of IoT Streaming Data in Trustable Smart City Decision-Making and Monitoring Systems (2025) · cites this paper as [7]

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 0 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 2 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [25]Anicic D. Fodor P. Rudolph S. Stojanovic N. EP-SPARQL: A unified language for event processing and stream reasoning Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on World Wide Web Hyderabad, India 28 March–1 April 2011 ACM New York, NY, USA 2011 635 644
  2. [42]Iggena T. Kümper D. Tönjes R. Kontinuierliche Bewertung von Informationsqualität in Stream-basierten Smart City Architekturen Proceedings of the ITG-Fachbericht-Mobilkommunikation—Technologien und Anwendungen, VDE VERLAG Osnabrück, Germany 21–22 May 2014

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Elsaleh, T., Enshaeifar, S., Rezvani, R., Acton, S. T., Janeiko, V., & Bermudez-Edo, M.
Affiliations
  • University of Surrey (GB)
  • University of St Andrews (GB)
  • Software Engineering Department, University of Granada, 18012 Granada, Spain
Corresponding author
Elsaleh, Tarek
Venue
Sensors
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2020-02-11
Volume
20
Issue
4
Pages
953
ISSN
1424-8220 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3006424452
Cited by
96
References
41
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 24 · 2020: 8
FWCI
6.49
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Sensors (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • LA Referencia (Red Federada de Repositorios Institucionales de Publicaciones Científicas) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Surrey Research Insight Open Access (The University of Surrey) (submittedVersion)
  • Institutional Repository of the University of Granada (University of Granada) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
Horizon 2020 Framework Programme (779852, 732679)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Semantic Web and Ontologies
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › IoT and Edge/Fog Computing
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Data Stream Mining Techniques
Keywords
lightweight ontologies, Internet of Things, semantic annotation, event detection, microservices, middleware, web services, IoT architecture

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review