a project report on ubiquitous computing

ASeminar Report On

UBIQUITOUS NETWORK

Submitted By

PRITI SINGH - UIN NUMBERHAYYUNA ANSARI - UIN NUMBERPANKAJ GUPTA - UIN NUMBER

Under the guidance of

Prof. SHIBURAJ PAPPU

Department of Computer Engineering

Rizvi College of EngineeringNew Rizvi Educational Complex, Off-Carter Road,

Bandra(w), Mumbai - 400050

Affiliated to

University of Mumbai

Rizvi College of EngineeringDepartment of Computer Engineering

New Rizvi Educational Complex, Off-Carter Road,Bandra(w), Mumbai - 400050

CERTIFICATEThis is certify that

PRITI SINGHHAYYUNA ANSARI

PANKAJ GUPTA

of Third Year Computer Engineering have completed the seminar work entitled ”UBIQUITOUSNETWORK” under my supervision at Rizvi College of Engineering, Mumbai under the University ofMumbai.

Prof. shiburaj pappu Prof. Dinesh B. DeoreProject Guide HOD, Computer Department

Internal Examiner External Examiner

Date:

Acknowledgements

I am profoundly grateful to Prof. Shiburaj pappu for his expert guidance and continuous encourage-ment throughout to see that this report rights its target since its commencement to its completion.

I would like to express deepest appreciation towards Dr. Varsha Shah, Principal RCOE, Mumbai andProf. Dinesh B. Deore HOD Computer Department whose invaluable guidance supported me in com-pleting this report.

At last I must express my sincere heartfelt gratitude to all the staff members of Computer EngineeringDepartment who helped me directly or indirectly during this course of work.

PRITI SINGH

HAYYUNA ANSARI

PANKAJ GUPTA

ABSTRACT

Ubiquitous computing refers to embedding computers and communication in our environment. Ubiqui-tous computing provides an attractive vision for the future of computing. The idea behind the ubiquitouscomputing is to make the computing power disappear in the environment, but will always be there when-ever needed or in other words it means availability and invisibility.These invisible computers will nothave keyboards or screens, but will watch us, listen to us and interact with us. Ubiquitous computingenvironments involve the interaction, coordination, and cooperation of numerous, casually accessible,and often invisible computing devices. One is happy when ones desires are fulfilled.The highest ideal ofubicomp is to make a computer so imbedded, so fitting, so natural, that we use it without even thinkingabout it. Ubiquitous computing is referred as pervasive computing throughout the paper. One of thegoals of ubiquitous computing is to enable devices to sense changes in their environment and to auto-matically adapt and act based on these changes based on user needs and preferences The prime goal ofthis technology is to make human life more simple, safe and efficient by using the ambient intelligenceof computers. Ubiquitous computing therefore induces a paradigm shift in the way we use computers:Instead of bringing the world into the computer (the Virtual Realityparadigm), computational power isnow brought to the objects of the physica world. Eventually, the vision of Ubiquitous Computing inducesa new way of thinking about computers in the world, one that takes into account the natural human en-vironment and allows the computers themselves to vanish into the background. This paper presents anumber of compelling applications using ubiquitous computing and addresses the associated securityand usability concerns.

Keywords :Ubiquitous Computing, Pervasive Computing Ambient Intelligence, Distributed Sys- tems,Human-Machine Systems, Socio-Technical Systems, Internet-Based Technology

INDEX

1 Introduction 11.1 What is ubiquitous computing? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.2 Characterstics of ubiquitous computing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.3 Goals of ubiquitous computing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

1.3.1 Experience Goal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31.3.2 Design Goal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31.3.3 Engineering goal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

2 History 52.1 Weisers vision of UC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52.2 UC versus Virtual Reality (VR): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62.3 UC versus Artificial Intelligence (AI): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62.4 UC versus User Agents (UA): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72.5 Mark Weisers three key devices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

3 the coming age of ubiquitous computing 103.1 The Major Trends in Computing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

3.1.1 The mainframe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103.1.2 personal computer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103.1.3 transition - the internet and distributed computing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103.1.4 Ubiquitous Computing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

3.2 calm-technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123.2.1 characteristics of ideal calm technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123.2.2 example of calm technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

4 Context Awareness 144.1 What is Context Awareness? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144.2 types of context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154.3 Context Awareness and Ubiquitous Computing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

4.3.1 Proactive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174.3.2 invisible . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174.3.3 adaptation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

4.4 Context Awareness and Ubiquitous Assistive Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184.4.1 HATT model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

4.5 importance of context awareness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194.6 example of context awareness technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

5 implementation and challenges 205.1 goal based interactions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205.2 how ubiquitous computing works . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215.3 chalenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

5.3.1 privacy and security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225.3.2 information management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235.3.3 Scalability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235.3.4 Mobility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235.3.5 Networking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235.3.6 reliability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235.3.7 interoperability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235.3.8 Resource Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

5.4 requirement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

6 application and services of ubicom 256.1 Ubiquitous service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 256.2 application of ubiquitous computing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

6.2.1 Real-Time Locating System (RTLS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266.2.2 the ubi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

7 future 297.1 The Future: Ubiquitous Computing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 297.2 conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

References 31

APPENDICES 31

A Project Hosting 32

List of Figures

1.1 ubiquitous computing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.2 characterestics of ubiquitous network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.3 enginneering goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

2.1 UC versus Virtual Reality’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62.2 xerox ’pad’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82.3 xerox ’tab’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82.4 xerox Liveboard’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

3.1 towords pervasive computing/ubicom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113.2 graphical analysis of computing trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113.3 inner office windows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123.4 dangling string . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

4.1 context awareness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154.2 location context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164.3 Context Awareness and Ubiquitous Computing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174.4 the HATT model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184.5 the Microsoft Office Assistant Clippy the paperclip . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194.6 the Microsoft Office Assistant Clippy the paperclip . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

5.1 Goal Based Interaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205.2 ubiquitous computing stack. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215.3 smart device interaction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

6.1 Real-Time Locating System for hospital. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266.2 Awarepoint Tag. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 276.3 the Ubi. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

7.1 ultra tiny computer imbedded in invironment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Chapter 1 Introduction

Chapter 1

Introduction

The word ”ubiquitous” can be defined as ”existing or being everywhere at the same time,” ”constantlyencountered,” and ”widespread.” When applying this concept to technology, the term ubiquitous impliesthat technology is everywhere and we use it all the time. Because of the pervasiveness of these technolo-gies, we tend to use them without thinking about the tool. Instead, we focus on the task at hand, makingthe technology effectively invisible to the user.

Ubiquitous technology is often wireless, mobile, and networked, making its users more connected tothe world around them and the people in it.

Figure 1.1: ubiquitous computing

1.1 What is ubiquitous computing?

ubiquitous computing is the the method of enhancing computing use by making many devices (services)available throughout the physical environment, but making them effectively invisible to the user.computersbecome a useful but invisible force, assisting the user in meeting his needs without getting lost in theway. tries to construct a universal computing environment (UCE) that conceals (hides)

• computing instruments

• devices

• resources

• technology

Rizvi College of Engineering, Bandra, Mumbai. 1


many embedded, wearable, handheld devices communicate transparently to provide different services tothe users based on requerment . these devices mostly have low power and shortrange wireless commu-nication capabilities. devices utilize multiple on-board sensors to gather information about surroundingenvironments.

1.2 Characterstics of ubiquitous computing

The characteristics of ubiquitous computing makes it to stand diffentlly than the existing technologiesThe characterestics of ubicom are as:

Figure 1.2: characterestics of ubiquitous network

1.Permanency:The information remains unless the user purposely remove it. user can never lose their work.

2.AccessibilityThe information is always available whenever the user need to use it. System access via ubiquitouscomputing technologies

3.Immediacy:information can be retrieved immediately by the user .thus it saves users time and resources .ubicommakes information sharing and getting an easy task.

4 InteractivityThe devices can interact with other devices efficiently and effectively through different media in-terfaces.

5.Context-awareness and AdaptationThe system can adapt to the user real situation to provide adequate information for the user. Thesystem can understand the users environment via database and sensing the user location, per-sonal and environmental situations. It can adapt to to Device Type, Time, Location, Temperature,Weather, etc

5.invisibilityit contains Invisible Intelligent Devices, Wearable Computing Devices,RFID, Sensors, Smart Card,Information Artifacts, and Tiny Smart Device



1.3 Goals of ubiquitous computing

The promise of ubiquitous computing is of a life in which our endeavors are powerfully, though sub-tly,without any extra overhead, assisted by computers. the idealistic visions painted by the ubiquitouscomputing movement stand in stark contrast to what we see when we boot up our computers each day.ubiquitous computing ca be achived with the help of

1.user:Users are part of the ubiquitous environment.based on their need and requirment the system haveto retrive the information from environmental situation and predifined database.

2.theorygh We have theory for design and analysis of complex buildings, bridges, electronic circuits Weneed the theory to understand and model complex interactions of ubiquitous systems

3.enginneringengineering is required for implementation of the desion.

Thus ubiquitous network must achive goals related to them..

1.3.1 Experience Goal

To develop ubiquitous computing methods and techniques that are sensitive both to the needs of individ-uals and society, and the impact upon them.These will support the realisation of human experiences.andwill include new forms of interaction and new interaction paradigms that make ubiquitous computingusable by all.

1.3.2 Design Goal

design goal pertain to all aspects of ubiquitous computing, are agreed among both academic and pro-fessional engineers; design Goals are instantiated in the design and rigorous documentation of severalcomputational systems with a successful operational history.

Figure 1.3: enginneering goals



1.3.3 Engineering goal

To develop a coherent informatics science whose concepts, calculi, models, theories and tools allowdescriptive, explanatory and predictive analysis of ubiquitous computing at many levels of abstraction.To employ these theories to derive all its systems and software, including languages; To analyse andjustify all its constructions by these theories and tools.


Chapter 2 History

Chapter 2

History

History of ubiquitous computing

The term Ubiquitous Computing was coined and introduced by the late Mark Weiser (1952 -1999).He worked at the Xerox Palo Alto Research Center (PARC, now an inde- pendent organization). PARCwas more or less the birthplace of many developments that marked the PC era, such as the mouse,windows-based user interfaces and the desktop metaphor (note that Xerox STAR preceded the AppleLisa, which again preceded Microsoft Windows), laser printers, many concepts of computer supportedcooperative work (CSCW) and media spaces, and much more. This success is contributed (among otherreasons) to the fact that PARC man- aged to integrate technology research and humanities research(computer science and human factors in particular) in a truly interdisciplinary way.

Weiser concentrated so much on user aspects that quite a number of his first prototypes were meremockups: during corresponding user studies, users had to imagine the technology side of the devicesinvestigated and focus on use cases, ideal form factors and desired features, integration into a pretendintelligent environment, etc.

2.1 Weisers vision of UC

Mark Weisers ideas were first exposed to a large worldwide audience by way of his famous article”TheComputer of the 21st Century”, published in Scientific American in1991. A preprint version of thisarticle is publicly available at http://www.ubiq.com/hypertext/weiser/SciAmDraft3.html Maybe themost frequently cited quotation from this article reads as follows: ”The most profound technologiesare those that disappear. They weave themselves into the fabric of everyday life until they are in-distinguishable from it.” This was Marks vision for the final step in a development away from standardPCs, towards a proliferation and diversification of interconnected computer-based devices.A deeper understanding of Mark Weisers visions can be drawn from his position towards three dominant,maybe over-hyped trends in computer science at his time:

• virtual reality

• artificial intelligence

• user agents

With a good sense for how to raise public attention, Mark criticized these three trends as leading in thewrong direction and positioned UC as a kind of opposite trend.


Chapter 2 History

2.2 UC versus Virtual Reality (VR):

according to Mark, VR brings the world into the computer whereas UC brings the computer into theworld. What he meant was that VR technology is generally based on elaborate models of an existingor imagined (excerpt of the) world. This model contains not only 3D (geometric) aspects, but manymore static and dynamic descriptions of what is modeled. For instance, digital mock-ups of cars havebeen pushed to the point of simulating crash tests based on the car /obstacle geometry, static and dy-namic material characteristics, laws of physics, etc. As the sophistication of models grows, more andmore aspects of the world are entered into the computer, finally almost everything happens in the virtualspace and even the human becomes a peripheral device for the computer, attached via data gloves andheadmounted displays. Mark Weiser criticized mainly the central and peripheral roles of computers andhumans, respectively. He proposed to follow the UC vision in order to invert these roles: by abandoningthe central role of computers and by embedding them in the environment (in physical objects, in particu-lar), room is made for the human in the center. In this context, he used the term embodied virtuality as asynonym for UC. The cartoons in the figure below were made by Mark Weiser and provided by courtesyof PARC, the Palo Alto Research Center, Inc.

Figure 2.1: UC versus Virtual Reality’

2.3 UC versus Artificial Intelligence (AI):

In essence, Mark Weiser criticized the overly high expectations associated with AI in the 80s. In thelate 80s and early 90s, i.e. at the time when he developed his UC vision, AI research had to undergo aserious confidence crisis. The term AI had not been associated with a commonly accepted, reasonablyrealistic definition, so that the association with human intelligence (or the human brain) was destined tolead to disappointments. The AI hype had provided researchers with considerable funds but only fora while. Mark Weiser proposed to take a different approach towards a higher level of sophistication ofcomputer based solutions (which had been the goal of AI at large). He considered it a more reasonableobjective to concentrate on small subsets of intelligent behavior and to dedicate each computer to such asubset. Higher sophistication would be fostered by interconnecting the special-purpose computers andby making them cooperate. This reasoning lead to the term smart, considered more modest than theterm intelligent. Sensor technology plays an important role in dedicating computers to a small subsetof understanding the world around us (a key element of intelligent behavior). By widely deployingand interconnecting sensor-based tiny computers, one would be able to integrate environmental data(location, temperature, lighting, movement, ) and use this information to produce smart behavior ofcomputers and computerized physical objects.


Chapter 2 History

2.4 UC versus User Agents (UA):

In computing, a user agent is software (a software agent) that is acting on behalf of a user. For example,an email reader is a mail user agent, and in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP), the term user agentrefers to both end points of a communications session.in contrast to virtual reality and artificial intelligence, the term user agent is not very prominent in thegeneral public. At the time referred to, UAs were thought as intelligent intermediaries between the userand the computer world, i.e. as an approach towards increased ease-of-use or better human-computerinteraction. User Agents were often compared to the common perception of British butlers who arevery discreet and unobtrusive, but always at disposal and extremely knowledgeable about the wishesand habits of their employers. Following this analogy, UAs were installed as autonomous software com-ponents between applications and users, inspecting and learning from the user-software application

Mark Weiser challenged five requirements usually derived from this analogy for user agents.he judgedthe necessary base technology as immature.

• UAs were supposed to give advice to their users based on what they had learned. Mark Weiserasked, in essence, why they would not do the job themselves a promise that UC should fulfill;

• UAs were supposed to obey the user, e.g., by applying planning algorithms to basic operations. withthe aim to fulfill the goals set by a user. In contrast to this approach, UC was intended to behaverather proactively, i.e. to propose and even act in advance as opposed to reacting on command.

• a third widespread requirement suggested that UAs should intercept the user-application interface.UC in contrast should be more radical and take over the interaction or carry out functions on its ownan approach presumed by Mark Weiser to be the only viable one if humans were to be surroundedby hundreds of computers.

• a basic assumption about UAs was that they would listen to the (interactions of) the user. MarkWeiser considered natural language processing technology and speech recognition technology athis time to be far too immature to promise satisfying results in this respect;

• UAs should learn the users preferences, wishes etc. by observation. Again, the necessary (machinelearning) technology was judged to be too immature to live up to this promise.

2.5 Mark Weisers three key devices

These complementary UC devices were prototyped at his lab; investigated in the context of PARCstypical creative, team-oriented setting, all three were thought as electronic replacements for the commonanalog information appliances.

1.Xerox Pad:The Xerox Pad can be considered to be the prototype and father of present PDAs, introduced evenbefore the Apple Newton appeared in 1993. The initial concept was that of an electronic equivalentto inch-size information bearers, namely PostIt Notes: easy to create and to stick almost every-where, available in large quantities. As the PDA analogy suggests, the prototypes had a lot morefunctionality than PostIt Notes but were also a lot more expensive and cumbersome to handle bydesign (not only due to short and mid-term technology limitations).


Chapter 2 History

Figure 2.2: xerox ’pad’

2.Xerox ’Tab’:The Xerox Tab can be considered to be the prototype and father of present Tablet PCs. The analogyfrom the traditional world was that of a foot-size information bearer, namely a notebook or notepad.One may infer from the rather stalling market penetration of Tablet PCs that technology is still notready for mass market Tabs today, but one may also expect to find a pen centric, foot size handheldcomputer to become very successful any time soon. An interesting facet of the original Tab conceptwas the idea that Tabs would in the future lay around for free use pretty much as one finds papernotebooks today, e.g. as part of the complementary stationery offered to meeting participants..

Figure 2.3: xerox ’tab’

3.Xerox Liveboard’:The Xerox Liveboard was the prototype of present electronic whiteboards. A PARC spinoff com-pany designed and marketed such boards, and today many companies like Calgary based Smart-Technologies Inc. still sell such devices. Liveboards represented the yard-size information bearersin the family of cooperating devices for cooperating people. In contrast to many devices sold today,liveboards supported multi-user input pretty early on.

Figure 2.4: xerox Liveboard’


Chapter 2 History

The developments and studies conducted at Mark Weisers lab emphasized the combination of the threedevice types for computer supported cooperation, and cooperative knowledge work in particular.


Chapter 3 the coming age of ubiquitous computing

Chapter 3

the coming age of ubiquitous computing

3.1 The Major Trends in Computing

The important waves of technological change are those that fundamentally alter the place of technologyin our lives. What matters is not technology itself, but its relationship to us. In the past fifty years ofcomputation there have been two great trends in this relationship: the mainframe relationship, and thePC relationship. Today the Internet is carrying us through an era of widespread distributed computingtowards the relationship of ubiquitous computing, characterized by deeply imbedding computation in theworld. Ubiquitous computing will require a new approach to fitting technology to our lives, an approachwe call ”calm technology”.

Mainframe many people share a computerPersonal Computer one computer, one personInternet - Widespread Distributed Computing transition toUbiquitous Computing many computers share each of us

Table 3.1: trends in computing

3.1.1 The mainframe

The first era we call ”mainframe”, to recall the relationship people had with computers that were mostlyrun by experts behind closed doors. Anytime a computer is a scarce resource, and must be negotiated andshared with others, our relationship is that of the mainframe era. There is mainframe computing today:a shared office PC, and the great physical simulations of everything from weather to virtual reality, havein common sharing a scarce resource. If lots of people share a computer, it is mainframe computing

3.1.2 personal computer

The second great trend is that of the personal computer. In 1984 the number of people using personalcomputers surpassed the number of people using shared computers. The personal computing relationshipis personal, even intimate. You have your computer, it contains your stuff, and you interact directly anddeeply with it. When doing personal computing you are occupied, you are not doing something else.Some people name their PC - many people curse or complain to their PC.

3.1.3 transition - the internet and distributed computing

The Internet is deeply influencing the business and practice of technology. Millions of new people andtheir information have become interconnected. Late at night, around 6am while falling asleep after



twenty hours at the keyboard, the sensitive technologist can sometimes hear those 35 million web pages,300 thousand hosts, and 90 million users shouting ”pay attention to me!”

Interestingly, the Internet brings together elements of the mainframe era and the PC era. It is client-server computing on a massive scale, with web clients the PCs and web servers the mainframes . Al-though transitional, the Internet is a massive phenomena that calls to our best inventors, our most in-novative financiers, and our largest multinational corporations. Over the next decade the results of themassive interconnection of personal, business, and government information will create a new field, anew medium, against which the next great relationship will emerge.

Figure 3.1: towords pervasive computing/ubicom

3.1.4 Ubiquitous Computing

The third wave of computing is that of ubiquitous computing, whose cross-over point with personalcomputing will be around 2005-2020. The ”UC” era will have lots of computers sharing each of us.Some of these computers will be the hundreds we may access in the course of a few minutes of Internetbrowsing. Others will be imbedded in walls, chairs, clothing, light switches, cars - in everything. UC isfundamentally characterized by the connection of things in the world with computation.

Ubiquitous computing refers to embedding computers and communication in our environment. Ubiq-uitous computing provides an attractive vision for the future of computing. The idea behind the ubiqui-tous computing is to make the computing power disappear in the environment, but will always be therewhenever needed or in other words it means availability and invisibility.

Figure 3.2: graphical analysis of computing trends



3.2 calm-technology

Today Internet is carrying us through an era of widespread distributed computing towards the relation-ship of ubiquitous computing, characterized by deeply embedding computation in the world. Ubiquitouscomputing will require a new approach to fitting technology to our life, an approach called ”calm tech-nology”. The most potentially interesting, challenging, and profound change implied by the ubiquitouscomputing/ubicom era is a focus on calm. If computers are everywhere they better stay out of the way,and that means designing them so that the people being shared by the computers remain serene and incontrol. Calmness is a new challenge that UC brings to computing. When computers are used behindclosed doors by experts, calmness is relevant to only a few. Computers for personal use have focusedon the excitement of interaction. But when computers are all around, so that we want to compute whiledoing something else and have more time to be more fully human, we must radically rethink the goals,context and technology of the computer and all the other technology crowding into our lives. Calmnessis a fundamental challenge for all technological design and implementation of the next ten to fifty years.

In designing calm technology , Weiser and john saily brown describe calm technology as”” that which informs but doesn’t demand our focus or attention””

3.2.1 characteristics of ideal calm technology

• The best computer is a quiet, invisible servant

• The more you can do by intuition the smarter you are;

• the computer should extend your unconscious.

• Technology should create calm

3.2.2 example of calm technology

1.inner office windows

We do not know who invented the concept of glass windows from offices out to hallways. But theseinner windows are a beautifully simple design that enhances peripheral reach and locatedness.

Figure 3.3: inner office windows

The hallway window extends our periphery by creating a two-way channel for clues about theenvironment. Whether it is motion of other people down the hall (its time for a lunch; the bigmeeting is starting), or noticing the same person peeking in for the third time while you are on thephone (they really want to see me; I forgot an appointment), the window connects the person inside



to the nearby world. Inner windows also connect with those who are outside the office. A lightshining out into the hall means someone is working late; someone picking up their office means thismight be a good time for a casual chat. These small clues become part of the periphery of a calmand comfortable workplace. The inner office window is a metaphor for what is most exciting aboutthe Internet, namely the ability to locate and be located by people passing by on the informationhighway, while retaining partial control of the context, timing, and use of the information therebyobtained.

2.internet multicast

A technology called Internet Multicast may become the next World Wide Web (WWW) phe-nomenon. Sometimes called the MBone (for Multicast backBONE), multicasting was invented bya graduate student at Stanford University. Whereas the World Wide Web (WWW) connects onlytwo computers at a time, and then only for the few moments that information is being downloaded,the MBone continuously connects many computers at the same time.

3.dangling string

Bits flowing through the wires of a computer network are ordinarily invisible. But a radically newtool shows those bits through motion, sound, and even touch. It communicates both light and heavynetwork traffic. Its output is so beautifully integrated with human information processing that onedoes not even need to be looking at it or be very near to it to take advantage of its peripheral clues.It takes no space on your existing computer screen, and in fact does not use or contain a computerat all. It uses no software, only a few dollars in hardware, and can be shared by many people at thesame time. It is called the ”Dangling String”.

Figure 3.4: dangling string

Created by artist Natalie Jeremijenko, the ”Dangling String” is an 8 foot piece of plastic spaghettithat hangs from a small electric motor mounted in the ceiling. The motor is electrically connectedto a nearby Ethernet cable, so that each bit of information that goes past causes a tiny twitch ofthe motor. A very busy network causes a madly whirling string with a characteristic noise; a quietnetwork causes only a small twitch every few seconds. Placed in an unused corner of a hallway, thelong string is visible and audible from many offices without being obtrusive. It is fun and useful.At first it creates a new center of attention just by being unique. But this center soon becomesperipheral as the gentle waving of the string moves easily to the background.


Chapter 4 Context Awareness

Chapter 4

Context Awareness

Context awareness is an important characteristic to application in a ubiquitous computing. Using con-text awareness, systems can integrate gracefully with their environments with minimal intrusion andunnecessary interaction with the user. There are many definitions of context awareness that have beendiscussed in recent years. Each of these definitions, although slightly different from each other, exhibitscertain commonalities between them. These commonalities mapped directly to the four types of contextthat a ubiquitous system can be aware of:

• location

• activity

• identity

• time

Collecting and analysing this context information can greatly enhance ubiquitous computing systemsfor the standard user. This point was illustrated by exploring different ubiquitous computing systemsthat are currently available in todays market place, or that are at the prototype stage and will perhaps beavailable in the future. These examples showed that without the use of context aware information in aubiquitous computing system, none of these technologies would be possible. Not only was it shown thatcontext aware technologies enhanced the overall experience for standards user, but also it was shownthat context awareness benefits users with disabilities through the use of assistive technology. Over one-third of the assistive technology devices distributed each year are abandoned by users v . This is dueto the fact that the assistive technologies are not context aware technologies. These systems will breakdown barriers, allowing people with disabilities to integrate seamlessly into social environments, muchlike ubiquitous computing itself.

4.1 What is Context Awareness?

The first definition of context awareness appeared in an article written by Schilit and Theimer in 1994 .They defined context aware computing to be the ”ability of a mobile user’s applications to discoverand react to changes in the environment they are situated in”. This definition considers the locationof a user, and perhaps the time of day, when defining what functions a context aware application shouldperform.

In 1999, Dey redefined context aware computing as ”Context is any information that can be usedto characterize the situation of an entity. An entity is a person, place, or object that is consideredrelevant to the interaction between a user and an application, including the user and applicationsthemselves” . Deys definition focuses strongly on the idea of identity and location. Dey believes that a



Figure 4.1: context awareness

computer system not only needs to be aware of the location of the user, as similarly suggested by Schilit,but that the identity of the user is also an important factor when a system is defining what functions isshould and should not perform.

More recently, in 2004, Beale defined context as a ”set of changing relationships that may beshaped by the history of those relationships”. The example he uses describes a student visiting alibrary and searching through the shelves for a few books of interest. On subsequent visits, the studentcould be presented with recommendations of other books to read that are similar to the books the studentread on previous visits. This definition takes into account that the activity is a key aspect to contextawareness.

4.2 types of context

the four types of context that a ubiquitous system must be aware of:

1.LocationLocation awareness plays a very important role for ubiquitous computing systems. It allows thesesystems to adapt in terms of the resources that are available to the user and to the system. With ausers location, a system may be able to determine what other objects or people are in the surround-ing area and what activity is occurring near the entity. Furthermore, using this information theubiquitous system itself can adapt to ensure the users demands are met efficiently and effectively.

With the increased popularity in mobile computing and communication, users now have an expec-tation that information services should be available to them at all times, irrespective of their currentlocation. Mobile devices need to be aware of your current location in order to ensure a user isprovided with the most efficient network service. Some locations may have access to Wi-Fi, someto 3G and some to EDGE networks. Mobile computers need to, using the information collectedfrom the users location, determine which network service is the strongest and then configure itselfto that frequency, all without the need for user interaction..

2.ActivityAn activity describes what is occurring in a given situation. A ubiquitous computing system thatis activity aware will collect data regarding the activity that is currently being performed as wellas from previously performed user tasks. With this data, the system can conduct a number ofdifferent data analytic functions, and using the results, can determine what additional tasks needto be performed as well as predicting what tasks will be performed in the future whether a givencontext should trigger an event.



Figure 4.2: location context

For example, many IT companies run a virus scanning tools over the companys network to detectis the network is free from malicious viruses. This process can be very resource intensive and canlead to workers computers slowing down considerably. To prevent this slow down, and thus ensurethe workers productivity is not affected, the network system is programmed to be aware of normalworking hours and only begin this virus scanning outside of these hours. Some systems can alsodetermine when the last successful virus scan completed and therefore flag to the ICT departmentif another scan is required.

3.IdentityWhen a ubiquitous computing system is identity aware, it has access to information about theuser. This information can either be explicitly or implicitly provided by the user. For the identityinformation to be explicitly indicated the user does not need to interact with the system in orderfor the system to collect data. For example, facial recognition software can be used to correctlyidentify the person that is interacting with the system. For identity information to be implicitlycollected, the user must directly interact with the software in order for the system to be made awareof the user. A common implicit identity gathering feature is a login dialog where the user must typein their username and password. Once this primary identity information is acquired the system canaccess secondary information about the user also, for example, a users contact information, date ofbirth, relationship with other people in the environment, etc.

Knowing the identity of a user is a powerful and useful tool. It allows a system to present cus-tomised information to the user as well as using this information to determine what other systemevents should be processed in order to meet the users demands.

4.timeTime aware computing systems are aware of the time of day and/or can record time lapses betweencertain events. These systems can use this time information to determine capturing and processingthis type of information it must still be designed correctly to ensure the proactive solution does notirritate the user, as this would remove the systems invisibility and transparency.

Knowing the identity of a user is a powerful and useful tool. It allows a system to present customisedinformation to the user as well as using this information to determine what other system events shouldbe processed in order to meet the users demands.



4.3 Context Awareness and Ubiquitous Computing

The vision for ubiquitous computing is to create environments that are saturated with computing andcommunication capabilities, which integrate with human users gracefully. With a successful creation ofthis type of environment, the technology that surrounds the user becomes transparent and disappears. Apervasive computing system must be context aware to ensure that the system is minimally intrusive. Itmust be aware of the users identity, location, time and activity. With the use of context aware systemsubiquitous computing systems can become adaptable, flexible and proactive while still remaining invis-ible to the user.There are a few key areas within ubiquitous computing that can be enhanced with the use of contextawareness

4.3.1 Proactive

For a ubiquitous computing system to be very effective, it must track and record the users intent. Withoutthis ability, the system will be unable to predict which system actions and events will help the user ratherthan hinder them. Even when the system is capable of might need to perform. If the assistant was contextaware and had access to this identity and activity information the tool could, for example, determine thatthe user was an expert user and that they worked as a secretary. Analysing the activities previouslyperformed by this user, the system would be made aware that the user only used Microsoft Word towrite letters. Therefore the system could proactively decide to present the user with a letter templateas soon as they opened Word. This template would contain the companys address, the days date, andsigned with the users name to ensure the user did not have to repeatedly input this data every time theywrote a letter.

Figure 4.3: Context Awareness and Ubiquitous Computing

4.3.2 invisible

Ubiquitous systems need to remain invisible to the user to ensure the minimal intrusion on the users life.Without context awareness, a system would require a user to manually input important data relating toeach task that needed to be performed. This in itself would remove the systems transparency. How-ever when a system is context aware, it can gather this information by observing the user context andbehaviour without the need for user intervention, thus allowing the system to remain invisible.



4.3.3 adaptation

For a ubiquitous computing system to be effective it needs to have an adaption strategy in place. Anadaption strategy is necessary when there is a significant mismatch between the demand and the supplyof particular resources. The resources may be energy, memory, network signal, etc. With this mismatchthe ubiquitous system needs to quickly determine what alternative strategy to take. The only way thesystem can do this is to collect information relating to the users context and then decide on the mostefficient and effective path to take.

4.4 Context Awareness and Ubiquitous Assistive Technologies

The International ISO-9999 Standard defines assistive technology as the following:”Any product, in-strument, equipment or technical system used by a disabled or elderly person, made speciallyor existing on the market, aimed to prevent, compensate, relieve or neutralise the deficiency, theinability or the handicap.”

This essentially means that any technology, whether low tech or high tech, that helps a disabled useris deemed as an assistive technology. Assistive technology enables people with disabilities to participatein society as contributing community members. These technologies can also allow people to achieveoptimal functionality and independence assuming that the assistive technology fully meets the needs ofthe user

4.4.1 HATT model

The Human Activity Assistive Technology (HAAT) Model is often used when designing an assistivetechnology for a user with disabilities [6]. This model describes how the users performance can beinfluenced, negatively or positively, by the person, the activity and the persons environment.

The model suggests that each of these factors influence each other, and for optimal performance thesefactors need to adapt to change effectively. Each of the factors considered in the HAAT Model can bedirectly mapped to the types of context information that a ubiquitous computing system can be madeaware of. Using this context information acquired by the ubiquitous system/assistive technology, thesystem could continuously adapt to the users requirements.

Figure 4.4: the HATT model



4.5 importance of context awareness

Clippy the paperclip Take the Microsoft Office Assistant Clippy the paperclip as an example. This toolwas designed to anticipate what the user intent was when using any of the Microsoft Office Suite. Thistool was programmed to ask the user certain questions and offer advice once a predetermined event hadoccurred. This, although useful in some situations, became a rather annoying feature that many usersturned off . Eventually with the release of Office XP, the feature was completely removed . The reason

Figure 4.5: the Microsoft Office Assistant Clippy the paperclip

for its failure is that office assistant was not context aware. It had no awareness of the identity of the userusing the office suite and no real understanding of the activity being performed by that user . Without thisinformation it was impossible for the assistant tool to adapt to the users needs and proactively determinewhat tasks the user

4.6 example of context awareness technology

Figure 4.6: the Microsoft Office Assistant Clippy the paperclip

The SVC is designed to vacuum dirty floor areas, avoid furniture in the room, avoid areas of thefloor that have already been cleaned as well as ensuring it does not run out of battery power. The SmartVacuum Cleaner does this by being location aware. It uses location sensors to determine if the areait is approaching has already been cleaned or if there is furniture blocking its path. If either of theseconditions are true the device quickly adapts and determines on an alternative route. If low batterypower is indicated to the device it will adapt once again, and make its way back to its docking stationwhere it can recharge its batteries before completing the cleaning task.


Chapter 5 implementation and challenges

Chapter 5

implementation and challenges

5.1 goal based interactions

The smart environment is made up of numerous ubiquitous computing devices. They each function tosense and actuate according to a given occupants need. But what happens when one device contra-dicts the other? How can the devices cooperate so that a ubiquitous computing environment respondscorrectly, as a whole?

The paper Smart Environments and Self-Organizing Appliance Ensembles raises the very inter-esting question, ”How do you control devices you do not perceive?”. An answer to this questionrevolves around goal oriented device cooperation. You see, the smart system cannot rely on the user toprovide a step-by-step process of how each device should behave. Similarly, the designer cannot predictall combinations of how an ensemble ubiquitous computing environment needs to respond. Instead, asystem may be driven by a users goal where the system generates the strategy

Within a smart environment, goal based interactions are likely to be at its heart. How a computingdevice carries out a function is not what matters most to a user. It is rather the effect of ubiquitouscomputing devices that is key. The following is a diagram as described in the paper to illustrate howsuch a goal oriented context-aware environment will work

Figure 5.1: Goal Based Interaction .



As you can see, intention analysis and strategy planning are critical to how the ubiquitous computingsystem will work. Both are necessary for goal based interactions..

A users needs may be quite varied and the smart environments devices must cooperate with each otherin unison. In addition, as users add or remove devices to their smart environment, ubiquitous computingtechnologies must easily allow for such user changes. In the end, a goal oriented approach calls for adynamic system, so the users needs are met even as they change in real-time. The smart environmentwill be able to simultaneously feed the senses so occupants can carry out a multitude of functions. Withfew interface techniques a user may communicate based on their intention; and therefore, their goals.Smart environments will work seamlessly to orchestrate a smart space through context aware techniques.Appliances will form an ensemble, giving rise to architectural space that yields greatest value.

5.2 how ubiquitous computing works

The success of ubiquitous computing rests with the proper integration of various components that talkto each other and behave as one. abouv shows such a ubiquitous computing stack. At the bottomof the stack is a physical layer. Tiny sensors are attached (carried, worn, or embedded) to people,animals, machines, homes, cars, buildings, campuses, and fields. Today, some smartphones come witha host of sensors that capture various bits of information from the immediate surroundings. Beyond themicrophone and camera, they integrate multiple sensors such as GPS, accelerometer, compass, and soon.

Figure 5.2: ubiquitous computing stack.

Above the sensors lies the wireless communication infrastructure, which can be provided by the802.11 family of networks. Newer standards such as 802.11n have lower latency. Together with meshnetworks, such standards ensure the connectivity of sensors and devices. Another technology calledZigBee is a low-cost alternative for keeping multiple devices connected, allowing parent devices towirelessly control child sensors. Near field communication (NFC) is yet another technology standardthat leverages RFID and can be used for ubiquitous computing, especially in scenarios where non-battery-operated passive points are concerned. NFC-powered devices can also interact with one another.

The next level includes a range of application services. The data from the sensors and handheld de-vices is gathered, mined, and analyzed for patterns. The patterns help provide options to smart applica-



tions that proactively make changes to environments through smartphones, tablets, netbooks, notebooks,handhelds, or other smart devices. The smartphone, for instance, can transform itself into a barcode orquick response (QR) code reader to identify and get details of a product from a retail store, or display thebarcode of your airline ticket so that the barcode code reader at the check-in kiosk can read it and issuea boarding pass. Another example could be that of a cardiac patient wearing a tiny monitor connectedto a mobile device. An irregular ECG will trigger the mobile to alert the patients doctor and emergencyservices. An example of how this can happen has been depicted in Figure.

Figure 5.3: smart device interaction.

5.3 chalenges

The power ubiquitous computing promises carries with it significant risks. One such risk is associatedwith the amount of privacy that must be sacrificed to see the benefits of truly helpful computers. Anotheris that early, bleeding edge applications of ubiquitous computing will turn out to be more ambitious thaneffective, leading some to prematurely conclude that the idea is a failure. We address each of theseconcerns below.

5.3.1 privacy and security

When such a vast number of entities are connected, their interactions and communications are examinedmore carefully. First, data from one persons device must be distinguished from data from anothers.Second, it is necessary to ensure that false data is not intentionally injected by some other device, mas-querading as a bonafide source for that information. And finally, it must be rendered difficult or impos-sible to steal someone elses data. Researchers are currently working on solving each of these problemsin an effort to secure mesh networks.

• You are now predictableSystem can co-relate location, context and behaviour patterns

• Do you want employer, colleagues or insurance company to know you carry a medical monitor?

• Tension between authentication and anonymity business want to authenticate you for financialtransactions and to provide personalized service

• Users should be aware of being monitored

• Ability to control who/what has access to my data (stored, communicated, inferred), ability todefine levels of privacy, trust etc



5.3.2 information management

• Billions of sensors generating petabytes of (dynamic) data

• Need filtering, aggregation, collaborative sensing, new query techniques which cater for errors insource.

• Meta data description of information

• Provenance - audit trails,

• how and where modified etc.

5.3.3 Scalability

• In a ubiquitous computing environment where possibly thousands and thousands of devices arepart of scalability of the whole system is a key requirement

• All the devices are autonomous and must be able to operate independently a decentralized man-agement will most likely be most suitable

5.3.4 Mobility

• Mobility is made possible through wireless communication technologies

• Problem of disconnectivity!!! This behaviour is an inherent property of the ubicomp concept andit should not be treated as a failure

5.3.5 Networking

• Another key driver for the final transition will be the use of short-range wireless as well as tradi-tional wired technologies

5.3.6 reliability

• Thus the reliability of ubiquitous services and devices is a crucial requirement

• In order to construct reliable systems selfmonitoring, self-regulating and self-healing features likethey are found in biology might be a solution

5.3.7 interoperability

• This will probably be one of the major factors for the success or failure of the Ubicomp vision

• This diversity will make it impossible that there is only one agreed standard

5.3.8 Resource Discovery

• The ability of devices to describe their behaviour to the network is a key requirement.

• On the other hand, it can not be assumed that devices in a ubiquitous environment have priorknowledge of the capabilites of other occupants.



5.4 requirement

”Ubiquitous Computing” will usher in a new era. Instead of do-it-all computers, we will see the adventof simple, task-specific, miniaturized and intuitively operable processors that will be invisibly integratedin everyday objects. Similarly, traditional input devices such as keyboards and mice will not be required.Instead, the processors will be controlled by electronic, optical, acoustic or chemical sensors, and theywill output via actuators such motors or other control units.In order to reach that point, however, researchers need to develop new software that is capable of thefollowing:

• Self-configuration, that is, automatic adaptation to changing environments

• Self-optimization, including continual monitoring and analysis of its own performance and the useof available resources according to specific processes

• Self-organization and the implementation of decisions across the system as a whole

• Self-protection, meaning identification and control of unauthorized access and virus activity

• Self-repair, for example, discovering and resolving problems

• Self-teaching, that is, recognition of behavioral patterns and their incorporation in internal man-agement mechanisms. Of particular importance here is sensitivity to context.

In other words, the system must not only be capable of recognizing objects and persons, but it must alsobe able to prepare for future situations


Chapter 6 application and services of ubicom

Chapter 6

application and services of ubicom

6.1 Ubiquitous service

A service refers to a software component that performscomputation or action on behalf of a system en-tity. This entitycan be the user or another service. Services are usually well-defined in their functionalityas well as their inputs and outputs . We identify the five goals of ubiquity, with regards to a service,asAvailability, Transparency, Seamlessness, Awareness, andTrustworthiness (ATSAT) as depicted in thefigure. These goalsmay be satisfied to varying degrees based on user needs andoperating conditions.

1. AvailabilityIdeally, a ubiquitous service should be available independentcontext. The service should be alsoavailable regardless ofchanges in user status, needs, and preferences.

2. TransparencyAccording to Weiser, a good tool is an invisible tool. Weisersnotion of disappearance, where a toolis ”literally visible,effectively invisible” means that the tool does not intrude on theuser conscious-ness; the user focuses on the task, not the tool.Ubiquitous computing provides smarter unconscious,so that usersdo more easily and intuitively without requiring user attention andawareness of the un-derlying technology. Transparency impliesmore than just a user-friendly interface; the technologyshouldfacilitate the task in a non-intrusive way and in this way ”hide”the underlying technologyfrom the user

3. SeamlessnessSeamlessness can be defined as the capability of providing aneverlasting service session under anyconnection with any device. The ultimate goal is that the system will recognize the userwherevershe logs on, on any system, with any equipment, at anytime, with the applications in a given stateand have them adaptin the best possible way given these surrounding conditions.Seams occur whenthe service fails to satisfy the minimum QoSrequirements set by the end-user.

4. AwarenessUbiquitous devices extend the human senses by providing greaterawareness of the surroundingenvironment. By blending into thephysical world, a ubiquitous service bridges the gap betweentheend-user and his surrounding. We advocate the need for mutualawareness between the user(context) and the service(feedback). Abowd and Mynatt put forth the ”five W’s” of context, pro-viding a good starting point of the different components thatshould be put together to provide usercontext. The five Ws are:-Who (the ability of a device to identify not only its owner, butother peo-ple and devices in its vicinity within the environment),What (the ability to interpret user activityand behavior, and usingthat information to infer what the user wants to do), Where (theability tointerpret the location of the user and use that to tailorfunctionality), When (the ability to understand



the passage oftime, use it to understand the activities around and to makeinferences), and Why (theability to understand the reasonsbehind certain user actions). In addition to the system awarenessofits user, a ubiquitous environment provides user awareness ofthe task (i.e. feedback) in a way thatmay enhance the user’sdecisions.

5. TrustworthinessWe define trust of an entity in a ubiquitous service environment asthe confidence that the entity willbehave as expected in a givencontext. Mutual trust must be established between differententities ina ubiquitous environment in a sense that each entity isassigned a trust value based on its behavior.An entity can be adevice, a service or a user. In the latter case, the trustworthinessof a service ora device has psycho sociological aspects thataffect its usability. The model of trust in a ubiquitouscontextshould capture both the needs of the traditional world ofcomputing where trust is based onidentity, and of the world ofubiquitous and pervasive computing where trust is based onidentity,physical context or a combination of both . In otherwords, both identity-based and context-basedtrust relationshipsshould be defined between different entities within a ubiquitousenvironment.

6.2 application of ubiquitous computing

6.2.1 Real-Time Locating System (RTLS)

RTLS is a local positioning system where small, inexpensive electronic tags are attached to people andobjects, such as equipment, patients and caregivers in a hospital, to help track interactions and improveservices.

Figure 6.1: Real-Time Locating System for hospital.

This means hospitals can better track when doctors and nurses entered the room, interacted with theequipment and patient etc. This non-intrusive logging means that the system could alert nurses when apatient hasnt been checked on for a while. It could also be used for better asset-tracking; Hospital staffno longer need to manually log every time a piece of equipment moves rooms, but can locate equipmentinstantly even in large hospitals. Tags on the patients wrist can pull up their electronic medical recordsimmediately and accurately, reducing the risk of dangerous errors.All this is done through small, wireless tags that are low-power and need no recharging for the life ofthe tag.

The system is non-intrusive in that it doesnt require users to change their behaviour, but instead inte-grates into their environment and provides benefit through improving patient care and reducing risks anderrors. The tags are small, need no maintenance and easily integrated into wristbands, asset management



Figure 6.2: Awarepoint Tag.

tags etc. The basestations for talking to them are simple devices that can be plugged directly into a wallsocket.

6.2.2 the ubi

”An always-on, connected computer that talks back”The Ubi is an always-on voice-activated computer ready to help. Just plug it in, talk to it and it’ll helpyou connect with your world.You talk to the Ubi and it talks back. It directly connects to the Internetthrough wifi.We believe people want to do things when they’re at home - they clean, they fold laundry, they cook,they eat, they spend time with loved ones. These are all things that (for the most part) take up use ofour arms and hands. When we’re at home, we’d rather use our limbs for other activities than typing,scrolling, or swiping. Ubi is short for ubiquitous computer because it’s always on, always listening,always ready to help. It can scribe, listen, analyze. Ubi will either talk back to you the informationyou seek or indicate information through multi-color lights. Ubi listens to its environment and sensesit through sound, temperature, light, pressure, and humidity. It can record this information or use itto trigger events and communication. Ubi can be used for potentially hundreds of applications. The

Figure 6.3: the Ubi.

applications we plan to ship with the Ubi are:

1. Voice-enabled Internet search

2. Speakerphone

3. Indicator light (light changing based on events, e.g. weather, stock, email)



4. Home speaker system with sound piping

5. Virtual assistant (audio calendar, feed reader, podcast etc)

6. Voice memos

7. Alarm clock


Chapter 7 future

Chapter 7

future

7.1 The Future: Ubiquitous Computing

Computing, over the past 50+ years, has gone through two distinct phases: the mainframe era and thepersonal computing era. The third phase has begun and you may have not even noticed that is the wayit is supposed to be. Ubiquitous means existing or being everywhere at the same time, i.e. constantlyencountered. Ubiquitous computing, or ubicomp, as it has been tagged will define the future of comput-ing.The distinguishing feature of ubicomp will be the lack of interface. Everything will be controlled bynatural actions as opposed to the point-and-click interfaces we have all grown used to.

Right now we receive information in two distinct ways: pull or push. Pull can be characterized bya user sitting down at a computer, firing up Google, and searching for specific information in real-time.Push is characterized by receiving filtered information based on user preferences; much like the person-alized text messages on your cell phone informing you of weather or traffic conditions.

When computing becomes ubiquitous you will not need to manually set preferences. The object youinteract with will learn from you and provide information based on your environment. Temperature,time of day, movement, sound, color and light will all influence the information you receive. Ubiquitouscomputing will provide a continuous stream of information without being distracting and will only pro-vide the information you need at the time.

Everything will become interactive and more importantly, reactive. Imagine the following scenarios:

1. You make a call to your friend whose native language is French. He understands English quite wellbut prefers to speak in French. No problem. In real-time what you say comes across on his end inFrench and vice-versa.

2. You need to setup a meeting with a group of business partners who all have busy schedules. Noproblem, their automated calendars work together to find a good time for all of you to meet.

3. You are rushed to the hospital after a car accident. By performing a retinal scan the ER doctors areprovided with time-sensitive and important information: allergies, past surgeries, existing condi-tions, emergency contact information, name and age. (Ubiquitous computing will probably preventmost accidents before they happen.)

4. You have lost your keys. No more searching, just ask your house. It will know EXACTLY wherethey are, even if they are hiding in the couch cushions. (Keys will probably be a thing of the pastat this point.)


Chapter 7 future

Figure 7.1: ultra tiny computer imbedded in invironment.

it is difficult to comprehend all that ubiquitous computing will entail. I look at it this way: Everything,and I mean everything, will be connected. A communication device of some type will be embedded inevery single product created. This prospect is scary for some, exciting for others.

7.2 conclusion

The UC will bring information technology beyond the big problems like corporate finance and schoolhomework, to the little annoyances like Where are the car-keys, Can I get a parking place, and Is thatshirt I saw last week at Macy’s still on the rack? Many researchers are working towards this new era- among them our work at Xerox PARC, MIT’s AI-oriented ”Things That Think” program, the manymobile and wearable computing programs (many funded by ARPA), and the many companies integratingcomputation into everyday objects, including Mattel and Disney but

• Currently pervasive systems are more hype than reality

• Some component technologies are available

• Technology problems - seamless communications, power

• Management problems - adaptive self management, privacy

• Most research focuses on Engineering aspects No theory to underpin understanding, analysis &design

• SMC provides a scope for theoretical analysis and Implementation


References

References

[1] ”The Computer for the 21st Century ; Weiser, Mark , July 1999

[2] ”ubiquitous computinge;Weiser; Gold; Brown .

[3] ”Adaptive Steady State Genetic Algorithm for scheduling university exams”,AlSharafat W.S.; Al-Sharafat M.S., Networking and Information Technology (ICNIT), 2010 International Conferenceon , vol., no., pp.70-74, 11-12 June 2010 doi: 10.1109/ICNIT.2010.5508555

[4] IEEE International Conference on Pervasive Computing and Communications

[5] http://www.ubiq.com/hypertext/weiser/acmfuture2endnote.htm

[6] http://www.ubiq.com/hypertext/weiser/UbiCACM.html

[7] ”Virtual Reality”,Rheingold 91. Rheingold, Howard. Virtual Reality. Summit Books. New York,NY. 1991.


Project Hosting

Appendix A

Project Hosting

The report is shared at Academia.edu. The complete report about the seminar is uploaded here for futurereference.

Report Link : http://www.academia.edu/attachments/6516122/download_file

QR CODE:


a project report on ubiquitous computing

Documents