skip to main content
10.1145/1878500.1878511acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesgisConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

A programming framework for integrating web-based spatiotemporal sensor data with MapReduce capabilities

Published:02 November 2010Publication History

ABSTRACT

Web-based sensor data, provided by organizations such as the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, provide a valuable service to the public and scientific communities. However, much of this data is locked in a variety of presentation formats and is computationally inaccessible. In addition, although these data have a spatiotemporal context, both the spatial and temporal data are usually only implicitly defined. Although storing this data in a consistent database can partially resolve this problem, a data-driven programming model coupled with MapReduce capabilities is a more flexible and extensible solution. Our implementation of this programming model allows users to parse a wide array of sensor data and express complex computation in a simple, scalable manner. In addition, our framework uses a simple key-value storage mechanism and provides convenient geospatial output mechanisms. In this paper, we discuss some early results of our programming model within the context of our current Java-oriented implementation, and demonstrate how the system can be used to create many different applications. We also discuss and evaluate our system with respect to memory usage and scalability.

References

  1. T. Abdelzaher, B. Blum, Q. Cao, Y. Chen, D. Evans, J. George, S. George, L. Gu, T. He, S. Krishnamurthy, L. Luo, S. Son, J. Stankovic, R. Stoleru, and A. Wood. Envirotrack: Towards an environmental computing paradigm for distributed sensor networks. In International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems (ICDCS), 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. B. Beran, D. Fay, and C. van Ingen. Sciscope: Using virtual globes for environmental data discovery. In American Geophysical Union, 2008.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. F. Chang, J. Dean, S. Ghemawat, W. C. Hsieh, D. A. Wallach, M. Burrows, T. Chandra, A. Fikes, and R. E. Gruber. Bigtable: A distributed storage system for structured data. In USENIX Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation (OSDI), 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. K. Chang, N. Yau, M. Hansen, and D. Estrin. Sensorbase.org - a centralized repository to slog sensor network data. In Euro-American Workshop on Middleware for Sensor Networks (EAWMS - DCOSS), 2006.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. E. Cheong, E. A. Lee, and Y. Zhao. Viptos: a graphical development and simulation environment for tinyos-based wireless sensor networks. In ACM Conference on Embedded Networked Sensor Systems (SenSys), 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. C. J. Date. A guide to the SQL standard. Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., Boston, MA, USA, 1986. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. J. Dean and S. Ghemawat. Mapreduce: Simplified data processing on large clusters. 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. D. Gay, P. Levis, R. von Behren, M. Welsh, E. Brewer, and D. Culler. The nesc language: A holistic approach to networked embedded systems. In Programming Language Design and Implementation (PLDI), 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. O. Gnawali, B. Greenstein, K.-Y. Jang, A. Joki, J. Paek, M. Vieira, D. Estrin, R. Govindan, and E. Kohler. The tenet architecture for tiered sensor networks. In ACM Conference on Embedded Networked Sensor Systems (SenSys), 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. B. L. Gorman, D. R. Resseguie, and C. H. Tomkins-Tinch. Sensorpedia: Information sharing across incompatible sensor systems. In International Symposium on Collaborative Technologies and Systems, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. R. Gummadi, O. Gnawali, and R. Govindan. Macro-programming wireless sensor networks using kairos. In International Conference on Distributed Computing in Sensor Systems (DCOSS), 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. B. He, W. Fang, Q. Luo, N. K. Govindaraju, and T. Wang. Mars: a mapreduce framework on graphics processors. In International Conference on Parallel Architectures and Compilation Techniques (PACT), 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. J. Horey, A. Kilzer, J.-C. Tournier, P. Widener, and A. B. Maccabe. A filesystem interface for sensor networks. Technical report, University of New Mexico, 2008.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. J. Horey, A. B. Maccabe, and A. Mielke. Kensho: A dynamic tasking architecture for sensor networks. In Workshop for Wireless Sensor Network Architectures - IPSN, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. P. Levis and D. Culler. Maté: A Tiny Virtual Machine for Sensor Networks. In Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems (ASPLOS), 2002. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. J. Liu and F. Zhao. Towards semantic services for sensor-richinformation systems. In International Conference on Broadband Networks (BROADNETS), 2005.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. S. R. Madden, M. J. Franklin, J. M. Hellerstein, and W. Hong. Tinydb: an acquisitional query processing system for sensor networks. ACM Transaction Database Systems, pages 122--173, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. G. Mainland and M. Welsh. Programming sensor networks using abstract regions. In Symposium on Networked Systems Design and Implementation (NSDI), 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. W. P. McCartney and N. Sridhar. Tosdev: a rapid development environment for tinyos. In ACM Conference on Embedded Networked Sensor Systems (SenSys), 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. S. A. Mcilraith, T. C. Son, and H. Zeng. Semantic web services. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 16:46--53, 2001. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. E. Meijer, B. Beckman, and G. Bierman. Linq: reconciling object, relations and xml in the .net framework. In ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. D. Mills. Network time protocol rfc (version 3, march 1992).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. S. Nath, J. Liu, and F. Zhao. Sensormap for wide-area sensor webs. IEEE Computer Magazine, 40(7):90--93, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. R. R. Newton, L. D. Girod, J. G. Morrisett, M. B. Craig, and S. R. Madden. Design and evaluation of a compiler for embedded stream programs. In ACM SIGPLAN/SIGBED Conference on Languages, Compilers, and Tools for Embedded Systems (LCTES), 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. R. R. Newton, J. G. Morrisett, and M. Welsh. The regiment macroprogramming system. In Information Processing in Sensor Networks (IPSN), 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. C. Ranger, R. Raghuraman, A. Penmetsa, G. Bradski, and C. Kozyrakis. Evaluating mapreduce for multi-core and multiprocessor systems. In IEEE International Symposium on High Performance Computer Architecture (HPCA), 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. K. Whitehouse, C. Sharp, E. Brewer, and D. Culler. Hood: a neighborhood abstraction for sensor networks. In International Conference on Mobile Systems, Applications, and Services (MobiSys), 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. H.-c. Yang, A. Dasdan, R.-L. Hsiao, and D. S. Parker. Mapreduce-merge: simplified relational data processing on large clusters. In ACM SIGMOD international conference on Management of data (SIGMOD), 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Y. Yao and J. Gehrke. The Cougar Approach to In-Network Query Processing in Sensor Networks. In ACM SIGMOD Conference, 2002. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Y. Yu, M. Isard, D. Fetterly, M. Budiu, U. Erlingsson, P. Kumar, and G. J. Currey. Dryadlinq: A system for general-purpose distributed data-parallel computing using a high-level language. 2008.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. A programming framework for integrating web-based spatiotemporal sensor data with MapReduce capabilities

            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
              IWGS '10: Proceedings of the ACM SIGSPATIAL International Workshop on GeoStreaming
              November 2010
              67 pages
              ISBN:9781450304313
              DOI:10.1145/1878500

              Copyright © 2010 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: 2 November 2010

              Permissions

              Request permissions about this article.

              Request Permissions

              Check for updates

              Qualifiers

              • research-article

              Acceptance Rates

              Overall Acceptance Rate7of9submissions,78%

            PDF Format

            View or Download as a PDF file.

            PDF

            eReader

            View online with eReader.

            eReader