Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
skip to main content
research-article

Query Interface for Smart City Internet of Things Data Marketplaces: A Case Study

Published: 21 September 2023 Publication History
  • Get Citation Alerts
  • Abstract

    Cities are increasingly becoming augmented with sensors through public, private, and academic sector initiatives. Most of the time, these sensors are deployed with a primary purpose (objective) in mind (e.g., deploy sensors to understand noise pollution) by a sensor owner (i.e., the organization that invests in sensing hardware, e.g., a city council). Over the past few years, communities undertaking smart city development projects have understood the importance of making the sensor data available to a wider community—beyond their primary usage. Different business models have been proposed to achieve this, including creating data marketplaces. The vision is to encourage new startups and small and medium-scale businesses to create novel products and services using sensor data to generate additional economic value. Currently, data are sold as pre-defined independent datasets (e.g., noise level and parking status data may be sold separately). This approach creates several challenges, such as (i) difficulties in pricing, which leads to higher prices (per dataset); (ii) higher network communication and bandwidth requirements; and (iii) information overload for data consumers (i.e., those who purchase data). We investigate the benefit of semantic representation and its reasoning capabilities toward creating a business model that offers data on demand within smart city Internet of Things data marketplaces. The objective is to help data consumers (i.e., small and medium enterprises) acquire the most relevant data they need. We demonstrate the utility of our approach by integrating it into a real-world IoT data marketplace (developed by the synchronicity-iot.eu project). We discuss design decisions and their consequences (i.e., tradeoffs) on the choice and selection of datasets. Subsequently, we present a series of data modeling principles and recommendations for implementing IoT data marketplaces.
    A Appendix

    B Ontology Requirements Specification Document (ORSD)

    B.1 Purpose

    The Urban Data Exchange Ontology (UDEO) aims to describe sensor data in Internet of Things (IoT) marketplaces.

    B.2 Scope

    Internet of Things.

    B.3 Implementation Language

    The Web Ontology Language (OWL2).

    B.4 Intended End Users

    Small and Medium Enterprise (SME).
    Data Scientists.
    Computer Scientists.

    B.5 Intended Uses

    To build a linked data that offers data on-demand (i.e., granular data retrieval from disparate sources).
    For reasoning about the data of interest.
    Build Artificial Intelligence (AI) models.

    B.6 Ontology Requirements

    B.6.1 Non-Functional Requirements.

    UDEO must include IoT concepts such as sensor.
    UDEO must include relationships between IoT concepts and features of interest in space and time.

    B.6.2 Functional Requirements.

    Nineteen Competency Questions (CQs) formulated as SPARQL queries.
    CQ1: What is the temperature of the room on a given date and time?
    CQ 2: What are the air quality data in certain addresses at given date and time?
    CQ 3: Help me plan a day out!
    CQ 4: Where can I park and ride near a certain GPS location?
    CQ 5: WeekDays Rule
    CQ 6: we cycle everywhere! if the local beach is busy this weekend, we will head to the museum?
    CQ 7: Where are the locations of available bikes?
    CQ 8: Where are the geographical information for available bikes near me?
    CQ 9: What is Barry Island beach profile and how can I get there?
    CQ 10: What is the hunmanby Gap beach profile? (e.g., type, accessibility, facilities, occupation rate and area)
    CQ 11: Provide me with a parking name, status, location and the service provider from this knowledge base.
    CQ 12: What are the air quality levels at Digital Catapult?
    CQ 13: When does V&A South Kensington open and close on Sunday?
    CQ 14: What is the distance between the museum and nearby parking spot/docking station?
    CQ 15: How many bikes available within 250 km from my location (51.52586 -0.123331)?
    CQ 16: Where has the air quality been observed?

    References

    [1]
    Asunción Gómez-Pérez, Enrico Motta, and Mari Carmen Suárez-Figueroa. 2005. Introduction to the NeOn methodology. In NeOn Methodology in a Nutshell. NeOn Project.
    [2]
    Asunción Gómez-Pérez and Mari Carmen Suárez-Figueroa. 2009. Scenarios for building ontology networks within the NeOn methodology. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Knowledge Capture (K-CAP’09). 183–184.
    [3]
    Mari Carmen Suárez-Figueroa, Asunción Gómez-Pérez, and Mariano Fernández-López. 2015. The NeOn methodology framework: A scenario-based methodology for ontology development. Applied Ontology 10, 2 (2015), 107–145.
    [4]
    Helena Sofia Pinto, Steffen Staab, and Christoph Tempich. 2004. DILIGENT: Towards a fine-grained methodology for distributed, loosely-controlled and evolving engineering of oNTologies. In Proceedings of the 16th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI’04). 393–397.
    [5]
    Mariano Fernández-López, Asunción Gómez-Pérez, and Natalia Juristo. 1997. Methontology: From ontological art towards ontological engineering. In Proceedings of the 1997 AAAI Spring Symposium.
    [6]
    York Sure, Steffen Staab, and Rudi Studer. 2004. On-To-Knowledge Methodology (OTKM). Springer, Berlin, Germany, 117–132. DOI:
    [7]
    Natalya F. Noy and Deborah L. McGuinness. 2001. Ontology Development 101: A Guide to Creating Your First Ontology. Stanford Knowledge Systems Laboratory.
    [8]
    María Poveda-Villalón, Alba Fernández-Izquierdo, Mariano Fernández-López, and Raúl García-Castro. 2022. LOT: An industrial oriented ontology engineering framework. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence 111 (2022), 104755.
    [9]
    Google. 2023. Google Scholar. Retrieved March 31, 2023 from https://scholar.google.com
    [10]
    National Center for Biomedical Ontology. 2023. BioPortal. Retrieved March 31, 2023 from https://bioportal.bioontology.org
    [11]
    Garvita Bajaj, Rachit Agarwal, Pushpendra Singh, Nikolaos Georgantas, and Valérie Issarny. 2018. 4W1H in IoT semantics. IEEE Access 6 (2018), 65488–65506.
    [12]
    Amit Sheth. 2016. Internet of Things to smart IoT through semantic, cognitive, and perceptual computing. IEEE Intelligent Systems 31, 2 (2016), 108–112.
    [13]
    W3C Semantic Sensor Networks Working Group. 2019. Semantic Sensor Network Ontology (SSN) Version 2. Retrieved March 24, 2023 from https://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-ssn/
    [14]
    Laura Daniele, Frank den Hartog, and Jasper Roes. 2015. Created in close interaction with the industry: The Smart Appliances REFerence (SAREF) ontology. In Proceedings of the International Workshop Formal Ontologies Meet Industries. 100–112.
    [15]
    Maria Bermudez-Edo, Tarek Elsaleh, Payam Barnaghi, and Kerry Taylor. 2016. IoT-Lite: A lightweight semantic model for the Internet of Things. In Proceedings of the 2016 International IEEE Conferences on Ubiquitous Intelligence Computing, Advanced and Trusted Computing, Scalable Computing and Communications, Cloud and Big Data Computing, Internet of People, and Smart World Congress (UIC/ATC/ScalCom/CBDCom/IoP/SmartWorld’16). 90–97. DOI:
    [16]
    Michael Compton, Payam Barnaghi, Luis Bermudez, Raúl Garcia-Castro, Oscar Corcho, Simon Cox, John Graybeal, Manfred Hauswirth, Cory Henson, Arthur Herzog, Vincent Huang, Krzysztof Janowicz, W. David Kelsey, Dahn Le Phuoc, Laurent Lefort, Myriam Leggieri, Holger Neuhaus, Andriy Nikolov, Kevin Page, Alexandre Passant, Amit Sheth, and Kerry Taylor. 2012. The SSN ontology of the semantic sensor network. In Proceedings of the International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC’12). 97–113.
    [17]
    Krzysztof Janowicz, Armin Haller, Simon J. D. Cox, Danh Le Phuoc, and Maxime Lefrancois. 2019. SOSA: A lightweight ontology for sensors, observations, samples, and actuators. Journal of Web Semantics 56 (2019), 1–10.
    [18]
    National Institute of Standards and Technology. 2010. QUDT—Quantities, Units, Dimensions and Data Types Ontology. Retrieved July 21, 2023 from http://qudt.org/
    [19]
    Jerry R. Hobbs and Feng Pan. 2006. Time ontology in OWL. W3C Working Draft 27 (2006), 133.
    [20]
    Stardog. 2022. The Enterprise Knowledge Graph. Retrieved July 21, 2023 from https://www.stardog.com/
    [21]
    Jie Jiang, Riccardo Pozza, Nigel Gilbert, and Klaus Moessner. 2020. MakeSense: An IoT testbed for social research of indoor activities. ACM Transactions on Internet of Things 1, 3 (June 2020), Article 17, 25 pages. DOI:
    [22]
    María Poveda-Villalón, Asunción Gómez-Pérez, and Mari Carmen Suárez-Figueroa. 2014. OOPS! (OntOlogy Pitfall Scanner!): An on-line tool for ontology evaluation. International Journal on Semantic Web and Information Systems 10, 2 (2014), 7–34.
    [23]
    Evren Sirin, Bijan Parsia, Bernardo Cuenca Grau, Aditya Kalyanpur, and Yarden Katz. 2007. Pellet: A practical OWL-DL reasoner. Journal of Web Semantics 5, 2 (2007), 51–53.
    [24]
    Rachit Agarwal, David Gomez Fernandez, Tarek Elsaleh, Amelie Gyrard, Jorge Lanza, Luis Sanchez, Nikolaos Georgantas, and Valerie Issarny. 2016. Unified IoT ontology to enable interoperability and federation of testbeds. In Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE 3rd World Forum on Internet of Things (WF-IoT’16). IEEE, Los Alamitos, CA, 70–75.
    [25]
    Fan Liang, Wei Yu, Dou An, Qingyu Yang, Xinwen Fu, and Wei Zhao. 2018. A survey on big data market: Pricing, trading and protection. IEEE Access 6 (2018), 15132–15154. DOI:
    [26]
    Fabian Schomm, Florian Stahl, and Gottfried Vossen. 2013. Marketplaces for data: An initial survey. SIGMOD Record 42, 1 (2013), 15–26. DOI:
    [27]
    Ruiming Tang, Huayu Wu, Xiuqiang He, and Stephane Bressan. 2015. Valuating queries for data trading in modern cities. In Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE International Conference on Data Mining Workshop (ICDMW’15).414–421.
    [28]
    Youssef Khazbak, Junpeng Qiu, Tianxiang Tan, and Guohong Cao. 2020. TargetFinder: A privacy preserving system for locating targets through IoT cameras. ACM Transactions on Internet of Things 1, 3 (June 2020), Article 14, 23 pages.
    [29]
    Igor Bilogrevic and Martin Ortlieb. 2016. “If you put all the pieces together...” —Attitudes towards data combination and sharing across services and companies. In Proceedings of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems.5215–5227. DOI:
    [30]
    Raul Castro Fernandez, Pranav Subramaniam, and Michael J. Franklin. 2020. Data market platforms: Trading data assets to solve data problems. Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment 13, 11 (2020), 1933–1947.
    [31]
    Allison Woodruff, Vasyl Pihur, Sunny Consolvo, Laura Brandimarte, and Alessandro Acquisti. 2014. Would a privacy fundamentalist sell their DNA for $1000... if nothing bad happened as a result? The Westin categories, behavioral intentions, and consequences. In Proceedings of the 10th Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security (SOUPS’14). 1–18. https://www.usenix.org/conference/soups2014/proceedings/presentation/woodruff
    [32]
    Ziyang Liu and Hakan Hacigümüş. 2014. Online optimization and fair costing for dynamic data sharing in a cloud data market. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data. 1359–1370.
    [33]
    Nathan Patrizi, Eirini Eleni Tsiropoulou, and Symeon Papavassiliou. 2021. Health data acquisition from wearable devices during a pandemic: A techno-economics approach. In IProceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Communications (ICC’21). IEEE, Los Alamitos, CA, 1–6.
    [34]
    Xiaoqi Ren, Palma London, Juba Ziani, and Adam Wierman. 2018. Datum: Managing data purchasing and data placement in a geo-distributed data market. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking 26, 2 (2018), 893–905.
    [35]
    Kangsoo Jung, Junkyu Lee, Kunyoung Park, and Seog Park. 2019. Privata. In Band 3/1 Schriftwechsel mit Metternich. Erster Teil: 18031819. Oldenbourg Wissenschaftsverlag, Munich, Germany, 309–326. DOI:
    [36]
    Bokolo Anthony. 2023. Decentralized brokered enabled ecosystem for data marketplace in smart cities towards a data sharing economy. Environment Systems and Decisions. Published online March 28, 2023.
    [37]
    Antonio J. Jara, Martin Serrano, Andrea Gómez, David Fernández, Germán Molina, Yann Bocchi, and Ramon Alcarria. 2018. Smart cities semantics and data models. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Technology and Systems (ICITS’18). 77–85.
    [38]
    Flavio Cirillo, David Gómez, Luis Diez, Ignacio Elicegui Maestro, Thomas Barrie Juel Gilbert, and Reza Akhavan. 2020. Smart city IoT services creation through large-scale collaboration. IEEE Internet of Things Journal 7, 6 (2020), 5267–5275.
    [39]
    Roberto De Virgilio, Giorgio Orsi, Letizia Tanca, and Riccardo Torlone. 2011. Semantic data markets: A flexible environment for knowledge management. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management.1559–1564. DOI:
    [40]
    Danh Le-Phuoc, Hoan Quoc Nguyen-Mau, Josiane Xavier Parreira, and Manfred Hauswirth. 2012. A middleware framework for scalable management of linked streams. Journal of Web Semantics 16 (2012), 42–51.
    [41]
    Vanessa Lopez, Spyros Kotoulas, Marco Luca Sbodio, Martin Stephenson, Aris Gkoulalas-Divanis, and Pól Mac Aonghusa. 2012. QuerioCity: A linked data platform for urban information management. In The Semantic Web—ISWC 2012. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 7650. Springer, 148–163. DOI:
    [42]
    Jesus Arias Fisteus, Norberto Fernández García, Luis Sánchez Fernández, and Damaris Fuentes-Lorenzo. 2014. Ztreamy: A middleware for publishing semantic streams on the web. Journal of Web Semantics 25 (2014), 16–23.
    [43]
    Spyros Kotoulas, Vanessa Lopez, Raymond Lloyd, Marco Luca Sbodio, Freddy Lecue, Martin Stephenson, Elizabeth Daly, Veli Bicer, Aris Gkoulalas-Divanis, Giusy Di Lorenzo, Anika Schumann, and Pol Mac Aonghusa. 2014. SPUD—Semantic processing of urban data. Journal of Web Semantics 24 (2014), 11–17. DOI:
    [44]
    Freddy Lécué, Robert Tucker, Simone Tallevi-Diotallevi, Rahul Nair, Yiannis Gkoufas, Giuseppe Liguori, Mauro Borioni, Alexandre Rademaker, and Luciano Barbosa. 2014. Semantic traffic diagnosis with STAR-CITY: Architecture and lessons learned from deployment in Dublin, Bologna, Miami and Rio. In The Semantic Web—ISWC 2014. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 8797. Springer, 292–307.
    [45]
    Danh Le-Phuoc, Hoan Nguyen Mau Quoc, Hung Ngo Quoc, Tuan Tran Nhat, and Manfred Hauswirth. 2016. The Graph of Things: A step towards the live knowledge graph of connected things. Journal of Web Semantics 37-38, 2016 (2016), 25–35. DOI:
    [46]
    Muhammad Intizar Ali, Naomi Ono, Mahedi Kaysar, Zia Ush Shamszaman, Thu Le Pham, Feng Gao, Keith Griffin, and Alessandra Mileo. 2017. Real-time data analytics and event detection for IoT-enabled communication systems. Journal of Web Semantics 42 (2017), 19–37. DOI:
    [47]
    Flavio Cirillo, Gürkan Solmaz, Everton Luís Berz, Martin Bauer, Bin Cheng, and Ernö Kovacs. 2019. A standard-based open source IoT platform: FIWARE. IEEE Internet of Things Magazine 2, 3 (2019), 12–18. DOI:
    [48]
    Ivan Lujic, Vincenzo De Maio, Srikumar Venugopal, and Ivona Brandic. 2022. SEA-LEAP: Self-adaptive and locality-aware edge analytics placement. IEEE Transactions on Services Computing 15, 2 (2022), 602–613. DOI:
    [49]
    Sergio Gustavo Guillén, Pilar Sala, Giuseppe Fico, María Teresa Arredondo, Alicia Cano, Jorge Posada, German Gutiérrez, Carlos Palau, Konstantinos Votis, Cor N. Verdouw, J. Wolfert, G. Beers, H. Sundmaeker, Grigoris Chatzikostas, Sebastian Ziegler, Christopher Hemmens, Marita Holst, Anna Stahlbrost, Lucio Scudiero, C. Reale, S. Krco, D. Drajic, M. Eisenhauer, M. Jahn, J. Valino, A. Gluhak, M. Brynskov, O. Vermesan, F. Fischer, and O. Lenz. 2017. IoT European large-scale pilots—Integration, experimentation and testing. In Cognitive Hyperconnected Digital Transformation: Internet of Things Intelligence Evolution, O. Vermesan and J. Bacquet (Eds.). River Publishers, New York, NY, 221–282.
    [50]
    Subashini Raghavan, Boung Yew Lau Simon, Ying Loong Lee, Wei Lun Tan, and Keh Kim Kee. 2020. Data integration for smart cities: Opportunities and challenges. In Computational Science and Technology. Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering, Vol. 603. Springer, 393–403.
    [51]
    Sergey Kozhevnikov, Miroslav Svitek, and Shuo-Yan Chou. 2022. Smart services ecosystem concept for cooperative ITS. In Proceedings of the 11th Euro American Conference on Telematics and Information Systems. 1–8.
    [52]
    Pascal Hitzler. 2021. A review of the semantic web field. Communications of the ACM 64, 2 (Jan. 2021), 76–83.
    [53]
    E. G. Stephan, T. O. Elsethagen, L. K. Berg, M. C. Macduff, P. R. Paulson, W. J. Shaw, C. Sivaraman, W. P. Smith, and A. Wynne. 2016. Semantic catalog of things, services, and data to support a wind data management facility. Information Systems Frontiers 18, 4 (2016), 679–691.
    [54]
    Nigel Shadbolt, Kieron O’Hara, Tim Berners-Lee, Nicholas Gibbins, Hugh Glaser, Wendy Hall, and M. C. Schraefel. 2012. Linked open government data: Lessons from Data.gov.uk. IEEE Intelligent Systems 27, 3 (2012), 16–24.
    [55]
    S. M. Hasan Mahmud, Md. Altab Hossin, Md. Rezwan Hasan, Hosney Jahan, Sheak Rashed Haider Noori, and Md. Razu Ahmed. 2020. Publishing CSV data as linked data on the web. In Proceedings of ICETIT 2019, Pradeep Kumar Singh, Bijaya Ketan Panigrahi, Nagender Kumar Suryadevara, Sudhir Kumar Sharma, and Amit Prakash Singh (Eds.). Springer International Publishing, Cham, Switzerland, 805–817.
    [56]
    Fabian Kirstein, Kyriakos Stefanidis, Benjamin Dittwald, Simon Dutkowski, Sebastian Urbanek, and Manfred Hauswirth. 2020. Piveau: A large-scale open data management platform based on Semantic Web technologies. In The Semantic Web. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 12123. Springer, 648–664. DOI:
    [57]
    Pengfei Wu, Fengjuan Ma, and Shengquan Yu. 2023. Using a linked data-based knowledge navigation system to improve teaching effectiveness. Interactive Learning Environments 31, 5 (2023), 3273–3284. DOI:
    [58]
    Faiza Bashir and Nosheen Fatima Warraich. 2023. Systematic literature review of Semantic Web for distance learning. Interactive Learning Environments 31, 1 (2023), 527–543.
    [59]
    Justine Flore Tchouanguem Djuedja, Fonbeyin Henry Abanda, Bernard Kamsu-Foguem, Pieter Pauwels, Camille Magniont, and Mohamed Hedi Karray. 2021. An integrated linked building data system: AEC industry case. Advances in Engineering Software 152 (2021), 102930.
    [60]
    Asier Moreno, Asier Perallos, Diego López-De-Ipiña, Enrique Onieva, Itziar Salaberria, and Antonio D. Masegosa. 2015. A novel software architecture for the provision of context-aware semantic transport information. Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) 15, 6 (2015), 12299–12322.
    [61]
    B. Margan and F. Hakimpour. 2019. Integration of mobile GIS and linked data technology for spatio-temporal transport data model. International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences 42, 4 (2019), 721–724.
    [62]
    Mauro Dragoni, Marco Rospocher, Tania Bailoni, Rosa Maimone, and Claudio Eccher. 2018. Semantic technologies for healthy lifestyle monitoring. In The Semantic Web—ISWC 2018. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 11137. Springer, 307–324.
    [63]
    Alessandro Fogli and Giuseppe Sansonetti. 2019. Exploiting semantics for context-aware itinerary recommendation. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing 23, 2 (2019), 215–231. DOI:
    [64]
    Cheng Xie, Hongming Cai, Lida Xu, Lihong Jiang, and Fenglin Bu. 2017. Linked semantic model for information resource service toward cloud manufacturing. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics 13, 6 (2017), 3338–3349.
    [65]
    Niklas Petersen, Lavdim Halilaj, Irlán Grangel-González, Steffen Lohmann, Christoph Lange, and Sören Auer. 2017. Realizing an RDF-based information model for a manufacturing company—A case study. In The Semantic Web—ISWC 2017. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 10588. Springer, 350–366. DOI:
    [66]
    Martin Serrano, Amelie Gyrard, Michael Boniface, Paul Grace, Nikolaos Georgantas, Rachit Agarwal, Payam Barnaghi, Francois Carrez, Bruno Almeida, Tiago Teixeira, Philippe Cousin, Frank Le Gall, Martin Bauer, Ernoe Kovacs, Luis Munoz, Luis Sanchez, John Soldatos, Nikos Kefalakis, Ignacio Abaitua Fernandez-Escarzaga, Juan Echevarria Cuenca, Ronald Steinke, Manfred Hauswirth, Jaeho Kim, and Jaeseok Yun. 2017. Cross-domain interoperability using federated interoperable semantic IoT/Cloud testbeds and applications: The FIESTA-IoT approach. In Building the Future Internet through FIRE, Martin Serrano, Nikolaos Isaris, and Hans Schaffers (Eds.). River Publishers, New York, NY, 1–35.
    [67]
    GitLab. 2022. Quarriable Smart City Data Market—User Interface. Retrieved July 21, 2023 from https://gitlab.com/IOTGarage/iot-datamarket

    Cited By

    View all
    • (2024)Modeling a digital twin for the optimization of a self-supply energy system for residential use2024 IEEE International Systems Conference (SysCon)10.1109/SysCon61195.2024.10553483(1-8)Online publication date: 15-Apr-2024

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Information & Contributors

    Information

    Published In

    cover image ACM Transactions on Internet of Things
    ACM Transactions on Internet of Things  Volume 4, Issue 3
    August 2023
    127 pages
    EISSN:2577-6207
    DOI:10.1145/3604627
    Issue’s Table of Contents

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Journal Family

    Publication History

    Published: 21 September 2023
    Online AM: 18 July 2023
    Accepted: 27 June 2023
    Revised: 14 June 2023
    Received: 12 February 2022
    Published in TIOT Volume 4, Issue 3

    Permissions

    Request permissions for this article.

    Check for updates

    Author Tags

    1. Internet of Things
    2. semantic interoperability
    3. data discovery
    4. multi-dimensional querying
    5. linked data
    6. knowledge management

    Qualifiers

    • Research-article

    Funding Sources

    • RiR program
    • EU H2020 funded Synchronicity project

    Contributors

    Other Metrics

    Bibliometrics & Citations

    Bibliometrics

    Article Metrics

    • Downloads (Last 12 months)294
    • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)9
    Reflects downloads up to 11 Aug 2024

    Other Metrics

    Citations

    Cited By

    View all
    • (2024)Modeling a digital twin for the optimization of a self-supply energy system for residential use2024 IEEE International Systems Conference (SysCon)10.1109/SysCon61195.2024.10553483(1-8)Online publication date: 15-Apr-2024

    View Options

    Get Access

    Login options

    Full Access

    View options

    PDF

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    Full Text

    View this article in Full Text.

    Full Text

    Media

    Figures

    Other

    Tables

    Share

    Share

    Share this Publication link

    Share on social media