The Second International Conference on Sensor Technologies and Applications

A Wireless Sensor Network Application Requirements Taxonomy

Ronan Mac Ruair, Mark T. Keane and Gerry Coleman Dundalk Institute of Technology and University College Dublin ronan.macruairi@dkit.ie, mark.keane@ucd.ie, gerry.coleman@dkit.ie Abstract
Traditional data networks have a relatively clear role to play in modern life. Sensor networks on the other hand are a polymorphous species destined for a world of diverse applications. We argue that it is timely to produce a systematic classification of sensor network application classes and accordingly do so. Two major application classes are described and their similarities and differences are elucidated by the taxonomy. This taxonomic work is designed to improve requirements capture for sensor network applications by facilitating solution to scenario matching. It also indicates some challenging aspects of wireless sensor networks in precision agriculture and wild fire management our sample application domains. While methodologies and philosophies abound in the software development world, techniques and algorithms researched in the WSN sphere tend to focus on specific application-contexts and employ ad-hoc evaluation and comparison criteria. While matching of solutions to specific contexts may be necessary [1], the lack of a well-defined, or standardised language to describe WSN requirements causes two problems. First, it limits the broader matching of solutions with application needs. Secondly, it prevents us from recognising generic properties of WSN systems that might be interesting and useful. To deal with these problems we propose a novel taxonomy that can be used to describe WSN applications, the novelty arises as we restrict our prototype lexicon to notions that do not impose or presuppose any solution characteristics. 1.2 Methodology Our aim is to provide a solution-neutral taxonomy that can be used to describe an applications primary requirements. The taxonomy is based on three separate reviews of WSNs. First, we surveyed WSN protocols and applications to identify specific application classes; drawing together other proposed taxonomies. Second, we extracted key properties from the evaluation sections of a small corpus of WSN systems comprising of fourteen well known works spanning application, routing and MAC protocols. Finally, we have looked at a small number of real life scenarios and noted their primary application characteristics. The sources reviewed are not exhaustive, rather this work should be considered sufficient to identify the primary application dimensions that will inform a more detailed taxonomy.

1. Introduction
Though complex and varied in their configurations, traditional data networks have a relatively clear functional role in modern life. In contrast, Wireless Sensor Networks (WSN) are, currently, an exotic, polymorphous species destined for a world of diverse applications. Faced with this diversity, an important first step is to produce a systematic classification of sensor network application classes. Such a classification should discriminate between application classes from across the range of envisaged WSN scenarios. In the following sections, we outline the taxonomy drawing on several existing sources. The taxonomy is illustrated by application to two complex and challenging application areas: precision agriculture and wild fire management. The wider implications of the taxonomy are also considered. 1.1 Why an Application Requirements Taxonomy? Industry has learned the hard way that clarifying requirements is the key to successful software design [25,26]. The Wireless Sensor Network industry, despite great promise, is still at an embryonic stage.

2. Related Work and Informing Views

2.1 Application properties in prior work Most surveys of Wireless Sensor Networks (WSN) aim to list or classify WSN techniques from the perspective of network science; these surveys focus on one or more parts of the notional network stack [2-5].

978-0-7695-3330-8/08 $25.00 2008 IEEE DOI 10.1109/SENSORCOMM.2008.73

209 216

Authorized licensed use limited to: Shree Motilal Kanhaiyalal Fomra Institute. Downloaded on March 07,2010 at 00:26:16 EST from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.

Few works approach the domain from the perspective of multiple applications or more specifically multiple types of applications. Romer and Matternin survey a range of deployed applications to define a WSN design space [6]. The dimensions of their design space can be grouped into three sets: those that represent the network designers choices, those that show little variation across the listed applications and those that tell us something about the application requirements. The first set includes physical node size, use of mobility, communication modality and network topology. These are all system design choices and therefore we do not include them in our discussion. The second grouping includes deployment mode, energy type, communication media and network size. The first three of these dimensions are almost exclusively populated by the same values {manual, battery, radio}, while the latter network size: is mostly populated by numbers in the low tens. We have excluded cost from our discussion as it depends on current commercial realities that can alter with technological innovation. Our third grouping of Romer and Matternins dimensions is the most informative in terms of application requirements. The group includes connectivity frequency, lifetime and coverage. Discrimination of different application properties can also be found in [8]. Here the authors are concerned with variants of Directed Diffusion and they partition their algorithms in terms of the numbers of data producers and data consumers.

require the routing of events (or exceptions to background levels). What is surprising is that some authors do not link the metrics to any quality of service required by their application. Other authors link the energy expenditure to abstract notions (such as connectivity after partition) which may not be of use in some applications. Packets before partition Number of data packets sent and successfully delivered before network partition (partition due to node energy depletion). Connectivity after partition Fraction of pairs still connected after partition. This metric indicates how a traffic pattern affects a network. Resource expended per packet delivered resources expended in terms of the number of connected pairs that are broken down because of nodes being depleted. Precisely, it is defined as: (Broken pairs) / (total packets delivered). Average dissipated energy: ratio of total energy used per node to number of events detected. Overall Energy use (total dissipated energy) Energy distribution (uniformity of depleted nodes)

3.2 Measures of overhead and efficiency Rather than, or in conjunction with, direct measures of energy, several authors evaluate the efficiency of WSN protocols. The following list demonstrates that variation in these metrics. Message Loss measures the percentage of messages not received by any node in the network. Control Overhead measures the ratio between control and data messages in the network. Some authors use a related metric of overall packets sent/packets received and others compare the application packet delivery rate with the routing packet rate. Event Delivery Ratio is the ratio of the number of distinct event messages received by the sink to the number originally sent by the source, some authors measure a related Loss to collision ratio. Transmissions to query ratio: The ratio of overall packets to the number of queries injected into the sensor network. Average path or route length, number of hops: related to energy usage but each can give very

3 A Brief Review of Evaluation Criteria

Our second source, used to develop a comprehensive set of application requirements, is a range of well known WSN protocol development studies [720]. We reason that the evaluation criteria used in these works should revel key properties of proposed systems and specifically of the applications envisaged by the authors. We found that the set of evaluation criteria and their definitions varied quite considerably. This is demonstrated in the following sections which provide a brief description of the criteria used. 3.1 Evaluation measures directly related to energy usage and effective Lifetime Not surprisingly given the intrinsic constraints of WSNs almost all evaluation strategies include some form of energy or efficiency metric. From an application perspective, some applications require a WSN to generate, store and route considerable amounts of data; while other applications merely

210 217

Authorized licensed use limited to: Shree Motilal Kanhaiyalal Fomra Institute. Downloaded on March 07,2010 at 00:26:16 EST from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.

different results due to the non linear relationship between transmission power and range. Routing protocol message cost: the number of routing protocol packets generated by an algorithm 3.3 Temporal Evaluation Criteria The primary temporal evaluation criteria used in the listed studies were latency and reaction time. Latency: the average delay between transmitting an event message and receiving it at the sink. Reaction Time: the definition of this term varies between authors but essentially captures the average time it takes for the sink to receive a data message after some change occurs in the network. 3.4 Other Measures The WSN studies reviewed included a number of other measures, these concerned deployment and design related issues, mentioned as follows: Ease of deployment: mentioned in some papers but not measured or considered by the authors Sensitivity to parameters: despite some techniques requiring large sets of carefully selected parameters this evaluation is only occasionally mentioned by authors. Storage requirement: The amount of memory required by an algorithm at each node. Scalability: how a protocol performs as node density varies, or the overall size of the network, or the number of data sources and sinks vary?

exemplify similar but not identical classes of applications involving multiple distributed phenomena. These complex application areas illustrate the envisaged potential of WSNs and later serve us in demonstrating our proposed taxonomy. 4.1 Target Tracking Target tracking could be considered one of the original and most discussed applications of sensor networks; much early work was performed under the banner of Distributed Sensor Networks [21]. Target tracking, however, covers a range of applications and in this case we use an aspect of air traffic control as an example. This involves tracking a number of large but discrete, high velocity objects (aircraft), travelling through 3-D space with the aim of maintaining reasonable separation. The system must exhibit latency low enough to allow the aircraft time to process instructions and manoeuvre safely. The key characteristics highlighted are the number of point-like targets, the moderate spatial sensing resolution required and both the system latency requirement and the temporal resolution required to sense aircraft velocities accurately. 4.2 Disaster Management Disaster management covers a range of activities from wild fire management to building evacuation; more specifically it refers to a situation in which a crisis event is underway. According to [24], the domain is characterised by: distributed control; uncertainty, ambiguity, imprecision and bias; multiple stakeholders with different aims and objectives; and limited resources which continually vary. In this work we focus on wild fires rather than built environments. Managing wild fires relies on observation and prediction; prediction of occurrence and severity, and prediction of changes during events. Current approaches depend heavily on human observation and low resolution remote imaging. Temporal resolution a significant issue with satellite products presents a distinction between predicting wild fire potential and the management of events in progress. Satellites require time to complete a sensor sweep of an area, process and download data, and depending on orbit angles some only cover an area once or twice daily. This application class can be considered as safety critical and the additions to our list of attributes are; requirements for high temporal resolution, distributed control and multiple-simultaneous users. 4.3 Precision Agriculture There is a growing movement in agriculture to apply information technologies to improve practise efficiencies and yields. This is driven by mounting population and market pressures and also by increasing

4. Primary characteristics found in some sample application domains

So far we have examined a number of research areas, specifically WSN surveys, extant application classifications and protocol studies. In this section we take a brief tour through descriptions of some application scenarios. This is, we admit, a less than rigorous approach, but is included as a balance to the inherent risk that we have biased our review by focusing too closely on solution studies. To situate our discussion and yet keep maters brief we have selected three separate application scenarios. Target tracking as it is a well studied and implemented domain, and as a balance to the more complex scenarios depicted in precision agriculture and disaster management. These latter application contexts were selected as they

211 218

Authorized licensed use limited to: Shree Motilal Kanhaiyalal Fomra Institute. Downloaded on March 07,2010 at 00:26:16 EST from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.

concerns about environmental impact. This agricultural evolution is already underway; however we set our scenario further in the future to highlight the potential suggested by WSN technologies. At the moment, precision agriculture depends on remote sensing to identify soil and crop conditions combined with detailed yield information obtained through sensors on harvesting equipment. With this farmers can plan spatial variation of nutrient application. The spatial resolution afforded by this method, however, is best described as a field-by-field approach. The temporal resolution is limited by both harvest cycles and satellite products which are often aged in days or weeks. Considerable spatial complexity of soil conditions within individual plots has been demonstrated in several different agricultural situations [27] and therefore current technology does not realise the potential suggested by precision agriculture. Pest control scenarios, where timing of pesticide application is central to both efficiency and effectiveness; provide further illustration of WSN potential. Information at hourly or better resolutions linked to accurate spatial knowledge might allow initial infestations of invasive pests to be halted. This would be a major advancement of the current state. The key application requirements suggested here are high spatial and temporal resolutions, measured respectively in fractions of a meter and minutes, and a need for latency less than the order of the temporal resolution.

5. Proposed Application Dimensions

Our review of related work, evaluation criteria and exemplar scenarios suggest four categories of requirements based on: an applications energy usage profile, its networking requirements, its coverage and resolution requirements and finally user and control aspects. We discuss each of these categories in turn. 5.1 Discussion on energy requirements Although discussions of energy consumption dominate WSN research there appears to be little consensus on what metrics should be used. These metrics span direct measures such as overall energy dissipated within the network, to abstract measures such as connectivity after partition and also include efficiency metrics (section 3.2). We suggest that despite the profusion of energy metrics that the fundamental energy measure should be based on the concept of a networks planned operational lifetime. The notion is mentioned in [5], and it provides application planners perspective and a valid energy measure as long as it is coupled to other measures of system quality or capacity.

However, our discussion of exemplar application scenarios suggests that some application requirements (such as bandwidth and latency) may vary in time; specifically different application phases may have different allowable consequences for the WSN lifetime. In other words the lifetime exhibits considerable complexity as not only will it vary according to different application classes, but it may also vary within the lifetime of an individual application. The latter point is observed in applications that have separate lifetime phases. Disaster management, as described, provides an example. Such a network may be in place years before it is required, existing in a semi-dormant state; until it detects an event and commits all available resources during a crisis period. Therefore, we characterize the energy dimension as a Lifetime Requirement which is predicated on a coupled measure of system capabilities. Lifetime Requirement can take values of Simple (Fixed Duration) or Complex (multiple phase specific fixed durations). The coupled system capability we propose, based on the primacy of communication costs in WSNs, is a combination of the traditional network descriptors of bandwidth and peek bandwidth. In this initial work we propose a descriptive range for potential values based on the data capacity needed and the frequency profile of transmissions. We use the term bandwidth and apply quantifiers of small or large for data capacity and frequency modifiers of episodic (as in target tracking scenarios) or continuous (as in water level monitoring). 5.2 A note on energy efficiency requirements Measures of system efficiency are of great importance to system designers and maintenance staff. In terms of average path lengths, they may affect how an applications temporal requirements (specifically latency) are meet. However from an application perspective they are secondary or internal characteristics of how a systems required lifetime is achieved and we do not consider them further. 5.3 Discussion on temporal requirements Of the temporal qualities identified by our reviews, connectivity frequency, reaction time, temporal resolution and latency; the latter has the most agreed definition and therefore we discuss it first. Latency is a concept well understood in traditional networking and it is also a quantifiable requirement in many WSN applications. We have already suggested that in some applications (air traffic control, disaster management) that the requirement may be for low latency. For other applications, where trend analysis is

212 219

Authorized licensed use limited to: Shree Motilal Kanhaiyalal Fomra Institute. Downloaded on March 07,2010 at 00:26:16 EST from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.

the primary goal, the latency requirement may be minimal or non-existent environmental monitoring applications are a case in point [23]. The notion of connectivity frequency, as described in [6], although a response to application requirements such as latency and reaction time; is a solution description as opposed to the applications needs and therefore we exclude the notion from this requirements taxonomy1. Reaction time is most often considered as the time it takes for a network to recover after failure by circumnavigating depleted or damaged nodes. However, some definitions of reaction time are based on temporal resolution, (the shortest lived event a system can detect). We use reaction time as the former: to encapsulate node and protocol setup, along with route discovery time. We feel that reaction time, rather than being descriptive of an application, is an important design choice. The application requirement that motivates a choice of reaction time is the applications temporal resolution requirement and both the probability and consequences of network disruptions. Our selected temporal requirements are therefore latency and temporal resolution. 5.4 Discussion on spatial requirements A number of metrics related to spatial requirements can be traced to application scenario characteristics such as the number and distribution of target phenomena and to the scientific or commercial requirements of the stakeholders. These are coverage, spatial resolution and the number of data sources. While latter of these concepts can be related to both the network topology and to traditional routing classifications of point-to-point, narrow casting and broadcasting it appears to differ in that it is based directly on the distribution of phenomena that a WSN is monitoring. However the number of data sources is related to the notion of coverage, which itself is a function of both node deployment density and node responsibilities: as a node can not be a data source unless it is located within sensing range of a target. Therefore, while the number of data sources may imply routing requirements we do not consider it to be a primary attribute; instead we note that the number and type of target phenomena are characteristics that can discriminate application classes. Turing our attention to coverage we note that the primary definitions, as suggested by several of the protocol studies mentioned in section 3, are:
1

(1) The average number of sensors that can detect a target at any point within a sensor network, and (2) the fraction of an area monitored by at least one sensor. These inverse definitions may be correlated to the intuitive notion that sampling a monitored area may be acceptable in some applications (such as environmental monitoring) whereas in others (e.g. security) full or redundant coverage may be mandated. The final spatial characteristic spatial resolution is a direct measure of the applications requirements. Based on this discussion we define our spatial requirement using the descriptors: Coverage, Spatial Resolution and Target Phenomena. The latter provides a classification of target types based on a notional rating of how localised and numerous the phenomena might be. 5.5 Discussion on user and control aspects Our final dimensions locus of control and profile/number of users both stem from an intuitive comparison of the exemplar application scenarios. Some applications are designed with a single user and single point of control in mind; a habitat monitoring application operated by one research group might conform to this description. Disaster management, on the other hand might exhibit multiple users and require multiple points of control. While the number of users and points of control may be related, and in some cases be related to the number of data consumers/producers described in [8], the attributes may be independent in some applications. The notion of a Control requirement could take the value indicated in the Disaster Management example; Distributed in-network, or its opposite Central innetwork. The notion of a WSN application controlled externally (via inserted tasks or queries) is also well accepted and evident in many of the referenced studies. The question of how many users avail of a WSN may be different from the control issue; as not all users need have full control over a networks resources. This is analogous to system descriptions that are commonly discussed in the Multi-Agent domain and we constrain our notion of users to intentional entities [22]. Where multiple users exist we can ask if they are competitive, cooperative or collaborative. By cooperative we mean willing to share knowledge and to negotiate, whereas we use collaborative to suggest some structured form of working together (where tactical aspects of hierarchy, sharing and priorities are agreed). The contrast to these terms is competitive which suggests that the users are primarily self-interested. This is a simplification of the possibilities and combinations of these user types could exist. 5.6 Discussion of the miscellaneous criteria

We have already described our related notion of bandwidth which contains a temporal quality

213 220

Authorized licensed use limited to: Shree Motilal Kanhaiyalal Fomra Institute. Downloaded on March 07,2010 at 00:26:16 EST from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.

We have mentioned that a range of miscellaneous metrics or issues were mentioned infrequently in the evaluations conducted in the listed WSN studies. These included ease of deployment, sensitivity to parameters, data storage requirements and scalability. We examine each in turn. Ease of physical deployment is a complex requirement that could describe aspects of the environment, the network devices and the deployment facilities. For this reason we have decided to omit the issue from this initial proposal. Ease of protocol or algorithm deployment is, in the main, related to system development and not the direct application requirements. Furthermore while sensitivity to parameter selection may be an underused design evaluation criterion, it is not an intrinsic application requirement and therefore not considered further here. It could be argued that ease of algorithm deployment is related to a networks flexibility and hence its capacity for reprogramming. While this is an interesting topic we have omitted it to limit the scope of this work. We make a similar argument with regard to network scalability. Scalability itself is not an application requirement, rather the size of a monitored area (or volume) combined with coverage and resolution requirements creates an indirect scaling issue. Flexibility in terms of reseeding and growing a monitored area, while a plausible requirement in some future applications; is beyond the scope of this work. 5.7 A summary of our taxonomic dimensions a) Spatial-Resolution: measured in metric units (m, cm, or microns). Lifetime: Simple (Fixed Duration) or Complex (multiple phase specific fixed durations). Coverage: partial, full, redundant. In terms of the fraction of the area monitored by at least one sensor the values above correspond to <1, 1, >1 Sensed Phenomena: single discrete-target, multiple discretetargets, single distributed phenomena, multiple distributed phenomena

i)

Users: Single, Competitive, Cooperative, Collaborative.

6. Appling the Taxonomy

To demonstrate the proposed taxonomy we have focused on the complex application classes precision agriculture and wildfire management described previously. Using our lexicon we can define these as follows: Table 1. WSN Application Requirement Taxonomy applied to two application classes.
Dimension SpatialResolution Coverage Temporal Resolution Lifetime Application Class Precision Wildfire Agriculture Management High High (centimetres) (metres) Full Full to redundant Minutes Minutes Simple (Growing Season: months) Episodic-small Strict (Hours) Multiple distributed phenomena Central Single Complex ( Surveillance: (months to years), Disaster Period (days to weeks) Episodic-small Strict (Minutes) Multiple distributed phenomena Distributed Cooperative

Bandwidth Latency Sensed Phenomena Control Users

b) Temporal Resolution: measured in seconds. c)

d) Latency: Negligible, Moderate, Strict (value). e)

Table 1 demonstrates that the application classes are very similar and that the significant differences occur in the temporal and control dimensions. Note that although we have suggested that Precision Agriculture does not require distributed control we not preclude the use of a distributed control mechanism as a design choice for this class of application.

7. Conclusions
We have identified the key characteristics that differentiate various applications classes and provided a requirement based taxonomy for WSN applications. The proposed taxonomy illustrates a key difference between WSN systems and traditional networks. Specifications of the latter are usually confined to network characteristics, in contrast the breath of our taxonomy demonstrates the close coupling required between WSN application and network characteristics. We have detailed two related application classes which we believe demonstrate the power of our taxonomy and hint at the challenge and potential

f)

g) Bandwidth: episodic-small, episodic-large, continuous-small, continuous-large. Small and large could be replaced with a specific measure in bytes per episode, or average bytes per second. h) Control: External, Central, Distributed (the latter two values imply in-network control)

214 221

Authorized licensed use limited to: Shree Motilal Kanhaiyalal Fomra Institute. Downloaded on March 07,2010 at 00:26:16 EST from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.

offered by these specific application domains. We hope that the taxonomy will help to align or contrast the usefulness of different WSN techniques in various situations. A number of dimensions, specifically scalability and deployment characteristics have been omitted from this study and in the future we would like to examine these with a view to inclusion within the taxonomy. Overall our aim is to motivate an engineering perspective for the emerging WSN industry and we hope that this work will initiate a broader discussion on WSN requirements, evaluation techniques and new application areas.

[10] W Ye, J Heidemann and D Estrin, An Energy-Efficient MAC Protocol for Wireless Sensor Networks, In Proceedings 21st International Annual Joint Conference of the IEEE Computer and Communications Societies (INFOCOM), Vol.3, pp. 1567-1576, New York, NY, USA, June, 2002. [11] D. Johnson, D. A. Maltz. Dynamic source routing in ad hoc wireless networks. Mobile Computing, T. Imielinski and Hank Korth, Eds. Kluwere Academic Publishers, 1994 [12] C. Perkins and E. Royer. Ad Hoc On-Demand Distance Vector Routing. In Proceedings 2nd IEEE Workshop on Mobile Computing Systems and Applications (WMCSA'99), pp90-100, 1999. [13] W. Rabiner Heinzelman, A. Chandrakasan, and Hari Balakrishnan. Energy-Efficient Communication Protocol for Wireless Microsensor Networks. In Proceedings of the 33rd International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS '00), 2000. [14] D Braginsky and D Estrin. Rumor routing algorithm for sensor networks. In Proceedings of the First ACM Workshop on Sensor Networks and Applications, pages 22 31, Atlanta, GA, USA, October 2002. ACM. [15] B. Chen, K. Jamieson, H. Balakrishnan, and R. Morris, "Span: an energy-efficient coordination algorithm for topology maintenance in ad hoc wireless networks," ACM Wireless Networks Journal, vol. 8, no. 5, September 2002. [16] Y. Yu, D. Estrin, and R. Govindan. Geographical and Energy-Aware Routing: A Recursive Data Dissemination Protocol for Wireless Sensor Networks. UCLA Computer Science Department Technical Report, UCLA-CSD TR-010023, May 2001. [17] W. Heinzelman, J. Kulik, and H. Balakrishnan. Adaptive Protocols for Information Dissemination in Wireless Sensor Networks. In Proceedings of the Fifth Annual ACM/IEEE International Conference on Mobile Computing and Networking, pages 174--185, 1999. [18] Ya Xu, John Heidemann, and Deborah Estrin. Geography-informed energy conservation for ad hoc routing. In Proceedings of the Seventh Annual ACM/IEEE International Conference on Mobile Computing and Networking, pg70-84, Rome, Italy, July 2001. [19] B. Karp and H.T. Kung. Gpsr: Greedy perimeter stateless routing for wireless networks. In Proceedings of the Sixth Annual ACM/IEEE International Conference on Mobile Computing and Networking (MobiCom 2000), pg 243-- 254, N.Y., August 2000 [20] F. Stann and J. Heidemann. RMST: Reliable data transport in sensor networks. 1st IEEE International Workshop on Sensor Net Protocols and Applications, (SNPA), pp102--112, May 2003. [21] V.; Ortiz, C.; and Tambe, M., ed., Distributed Sensor Networks: A Multiagent Perspective, Kluwer Academic Publishers. 2003

8. References
[1] J. Heidemann, F. Silva, and D. Estrin. Matching data dissemination algorithms to application requirements. In Proceedings ACM Conference on Embedded Networked Sensor Systems, pg 218--229 (ACM SenSys'03), 2003 [2] Akyildiz, W. Su, Y. Sankarasubramaniam, and E. Cayirci, "A survey on sensor networks," IEEE Communications Magazine, Volume: 40 Issue: 8, pp.102114, August 2002 [3] J. N. Al-Karaki, A. E. Kamal, "Routing Techniques in Wireless Sensor Networks: A Survey", IEEE Wireless Communications, vol. 11, no. 6, December 2004. [4] I. Demirkol, C. Ersoy, and F. Alagoz, "MAC Protocols for Wireless Sensor Networks: a Survey," IEEE Communications Magazine, in press, 2005 [5] S. Tilak, N. B. Abu-Ghazaleh, W Heinzelman, A taxonomy of wireless micro-sensor network models ACM SIGMOBILE Mobile Computing and Communications Review, Volume 6 , Issue 2, Pages: 28 36, April, 2002 [6] K. Rmer, F. Mattern: The Design Space of Wireless Sensor Networks, IEEE Wireless Communications, Vol. 11 No. 6, pp. 54-61, December 2004. [7] Cerpa and D. Estrin. ASCENT: Adaptive selfconfiguring sensor networks topologies. In Proceedings of the Twenty First International Annual Joint Conference of the IEEE Computer and Communications Societies (INFOCOM'02), vol. 3, pp. 1278--1287, New York, USA, 2002. [8] C. Intanagonwiwat, R. Govindan, and D. Estrin. Directed diffusion: A scalable and robust communication paradigm for sensor networks. In Proceedings of the Sixth Annual ACM/IEEE International Conference on Mobile Computing and Networking (Mobicom 2000), pg56-67, Boston, Massachusetts, August 2000. [9] C. Schurgers, V. Tsiatsis, S. Ganeriwal, M Srivastava, Topology management for sensor networks: exploiting latency and density, in the Proceedings of the 3rd ACM International Symposium on Mobile Ad Hoc Networking & Computing, pp 135 145, Switzerland, 2002

215 222

Authorized licensed use limited to: Shree Motilal Kanhaiyalal Fomra Institute. Downloaded on March 07,2010 at 00:26:16 EST from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.

[22] Wooldridge, M. J. and Jennings, N. R. (1995) Intelligent Agents: Theory and Practice. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 10 (2). pp. 115-152. [23] M Hamilton, E Graham, P Rundel, M. F. Allen, W J. Kaiser, M Hansen, and D Estrin, "New Approaches in Embedded Networked Sensing for Terrestrial Ecological Observatories" Center for Embedded Network Sensing, paper 106. May 2007. [24] N. R. Jennings, S. D. Ramchurn, M. Allen-Williams, R. Dash, P. Dutta, A. Rogers, I. Vetsikas. The ALADDIN Project: Agent Technology To The Rescue, Agent Tech. for Disaster Management Workshop, Japan, 2006. [25] Chaos Report Standish Group ,1995. Available from: http://www.projectsmart.co.uk/docs/chaos-report.pdf [26] A. Taylor, IT Projects: Sink or Swim, The Computer Bulletin, January 2000. [27] S. J. Ni, J. H. Zhang. Variation of chemical properties as affected by soil erosion on hillslopes and terraces. European Journal of Soil Science 58 (6) , 12851292, 2007.

216 223

Authorized licensed use limited to: Shree Motilal Kanhaiyalal Fomra Institute. Downloaded on March 07,2010 at 00:26:16 EST from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.