skip to main content
10.1145/1127777.1127830acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagescpsweekConference Proceedingsconference-collections
Article

Tinker: a tool for designing data-centric sensor networks

Published:19 April 2006Publication History

ABSTRACT

We describe Tinker, a high-level design tool that aids the exploration of the design space in sensor network applications. Tinker is targeted at applications that require real-time assignment of semantic meaning to data, rather than just data storage. Tinker lets users write simple programs, as if they were manipulating individual scalar values, and simulates those computations over continuous streams of sensor data. Tinker does not require (or allow) users to specify details such as routing algorithms or retransmission policies, freeing system designers to rapidly iterate among different broad designs before fleshing out details of the one that looks most promising. We demonstrate Tinker's use in the design and deployment of ElevatorNet, our distributed sensor application that retrofits buildings with per-floor displays of an elevator's position, determined using barometric altimetry.

References

  1. Anish Arora, Prabal Dutta, Sandip Bapat, Vinod Kulathumani, and Hongwei Zhang. A line in the sand: A wireless sensor network for target detection, classification, and tracking. Computer Networks (Elsevier), 46(5):605--634, 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. David E. Culler, Jason Hill, Philip Buonadonna, Robert Szewczyk, and Alec Woo. A network-centric approach to embedded software for tiny devices. In EMSOFT '01: Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Embedded Software, pages 114--130, London, UK, 2001. Springer-Verlag. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. J. Heidemann D. Estrin, R. Govindan and S. Kumar. Next century challenges: scalable coordination in sensor networks. In Proceedings of the fifth annual ACM/IEEE international conference on Mobile computing and networking, pages 263--270, Seattle, WA USA, 1999. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Lewis Girod, Jeremy Elson, Alberto Cerpa, Thanos Stathopoulos, Nithya Ramanathan, and Deborah Estrin. Emstar: a software environment for developing and deploying wireless sensor networks. In Proceedings of the 2004 USENIX Technical Conference, Boston, MA, 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Wen Hu, Nirupama Bulusu, Chun Tung Chou, Sanjay Jha, Andrew Taylor, and Van Nghia Tran. A hybrid sensor network for cane-toad monitoring. In SenSys '05: Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on Embedded networked sensor systems, pages 305--305, New York, NY, USA, 2005. ACM Press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Aman Kansal, Eric Yuen, William J. Kaiser, Gregory J. Pottie, and Mani B. Srivastava. Sensing uncertainty reduction using low complexity actuation. In IPSN'04: Proceedings of the third international symposium on Information processing in sensor networks, pages 388--395, New York, NY, USA, 2004. ACM Press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Leslie Lamport. Specifying Systems: The TLA+ Language and Tools for Hardware and Software Engineers. Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., Boston, MA, USA, 2002. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Matthew Lease and Guy Eddon. Smartelevator: Revitalizing a legacy device through inexpensive augmentation. In ICDCS Workshops, pages 254--259. IEEE Computer Society, 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Jonathan Lester, Tanzeem Choudhury, Nicky Kern, Gaetano Borriello, and Blake Hannaford. A hybrid discriminative-generative approach for modeling human activities. In Proc. IJCAI-05, 2005. to appear.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Philip Levis, Nelson Lee, Matt Welsh, and David Culler. Tossim: accurate and scalable simulation of entire tinyos applications. In SenSys '03: Proceedings of the 1st international conference on Embedded networked sensor systems, pages 126--137, New York, NY, USA, 2003. ACM Press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Mark Lutz. Programming python. O'Reilly & Associates, Inc., Sebastopol, CA, USA, 1996. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. S. Madden, M. Franklin, J. Hellerstein, and W. Hong. Tag: a tiny aggregation service for ad-hoc sensor networks, 2002.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Miklos Maroti, Gyula Simon, Akos Ledeczi, and Janos Sztipanovits. Shooter localization in urban terrain. Computer, 37(8):60--61, 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Ryan Newton and Matt Welsh. Region streams: functional macroprogramming for sensor networks. In DMSN '04: Proceeedings of the 1st international workshop on Data management for sensor networks, pages 78-87, New York, NY, USA, 2004. ACM Press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Mohammad Rahimi, Rick Baer, Obimdinachi I. Iroezi, Juan C. Garcia, Jay Warrior, Deborah Estrin, and Mani Srivastava. Cyclops: In situ image sensing and interpretation in wireless sensor networks. In Proc. IEEE SenSys, pages 192--204, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Moe Shahdad. An overview of vhdl language and technology. In DAC '86: Proceedings of the 23rd ACM/IEEE conference on Design automation, pages 320--326, Piscataway, NJ, USA, 1986. IEEE Press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Ben L. Titzer and Jens Palsberg. Nonintrusive precision instrumentation of microcontroller software. In LCTES'05: Proceedings of the 2005 ACM SIGPLAN/SIGBED conference on Languages, compilers, and tools for embedded systems, pages 59--68, New York, NY, USA, 2005. ACM Press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. I. Vasilescu, K. Kotay, D. Rus, P. Corke, M. Dunbabin, and P. Schmidd. Data collection, storage and retrueveal with an underwater sensor network. In Proc. IEEE SenSys, pages 154--165, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Yong Yao and Johannes Gehrke. The cougar approach to in-network query processing in sensor networks. SIGMOD Rec., 31(3):9--18, 2002. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Tinker: a tool for designing data-centric sensor networks

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in
      • Published in

        cover image ACM Conferences
        IPSN '06: Proceedings of the 5th international conference on Information processing in sensor networks
        April 2006
        514 pages
        ISBN:1595933344
        DOI:10.1145/1127777

        Copyright © 2006 ACM

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 19 April 2006

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • Article

        Acceptance Rates

        Overall Acceptance Rate143of593submissions,24%

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader