A Transaction Model for Executions of Compositions of Internet of Things Services
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Internet of Things (IoT) is about making "things" smart in some functionality, and connecting and enabling them to perform complex tasks by themselves. The functionality can be encapsulated as services and the task executed by composing the services. Two noteworthy functionalities of IoT services are monitoring and actuation. Monitoring implies continuous executions, and actuation is by triggering. Continuous executions typically involve stream processing. Stream input data are accumulated into batches and each batch is subjected to a sequence of computations, structured as a dataflow graph. The composition may be processing several batches simultaneously. Additionally, some non-stream OLTP transactions may also be executing concurrently. Thus, several composite transactions may be executing concurrently. This is in contrast to a typical Web services composition, where just one composite transaction is executed on each invocation. Therefore, defining transactional properties for executions of IoT service compositions is much more complex than for those of conventional Web service compositions. In this paper, we propose a transaction model and a correctness criterion for executions of IoT service compositions. Our proposal defines relaxed atomicity and isolation properties for transactions in a flexible manner and can be adapted for a variety of IoT applications.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it