Cost model for RFID-based Traceability Information Systems Miguel.Pardal@ .utl.pt Jose.Marques@ .pt September 16 th , 2011
Cost model for RFID-based traceability information systems
Jun 14, 2015
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Cost model for RFID-based Traceability Information Systems
Miguel.Pardal@ .utl.pt
Jose.Marques@ .pt
September 16th, 2011
Traceability
• Where is my object? – Track
• Where has it been? – Trace
• What are its components? – Bill-of-materials
Product recall
Emergency! Food, Medicines,...
Directory
EPC
x
Manufacturer M
Repository
Query
Capture
Distributor D
Repository
Query
Capture
Retailer R
Repository
Query
Capture
1 . WhoHasData ( x )
HasData ( M , x )
HasData ( D , x )
2 . 1 getEvents ( x )
2 . 2 getEvents ( x )
Estimating remote procedure call cost [Murthy and Robson, 2008]
SendTransfer
Receive
Lookup
Send
Transfer
Receive
Decentralized Centralized
Vir
tual
dat
a in
tegr
atio
nM
ater
ializ
ed d
ata
inte
grat
ion
ID @URI [23]
ADS [8]
GS1 PoC [3]
Theseos [2]
Verisign DS [4]
EPCIS caching [15]
PTSP [6]
BRIDGE Directory [10] BRIDGE Query Relay [11]
IOTA [17]
Afilias ESDS [9]
UniSalento DS [13]
UniPR DS [14]
TraceSphere [16]
EPCDS [7]ePedigree [1]
WWAI [22]
LoTR [18]
OIDA [20]UniKoeln DS [19]
InnoSem [21]
unstructured P2P metadata integration
data integrationstructured P2P
IBM PoC [5]
SLS [12]
BRIDGE Directory relies on centralized
services to store data provider links.
There are scalability and single point-of-
failure issues to be considered.
Theseos has several distributed data stores.
Queries are answered recursively.
Each company can enforce data ownership.
OIDA relies on a Peer-to-Peer network with a
hashing algorithm for data placement in nodes. It
is fully decentralized and has potential for high
scalability.
There are issues about response quality and
timeliness. Query capabilities are limited to
object ID matching.
ID@URI uses a product-agent architecture.
All data concerning the item is forwarded to a
central data store, managed by the product’s
manufacturer.
Metadata integration: centralized, virtual data integration
Data integration: centralized, materialized data integration
Unstructured P2P: decentralized, virtual data integration
Structured P2P: decentralized, materialized data integration
Decentralized Centralized
Vir
tual
dat
a in
tegr
atio
nM
ater
ializ
ed d
ata
inte
grat
ion
ID @URI [23]
ADS [8]
GS1 PoC [3]
Theseos [2]
Verisign DS [4]
EPCIS caching [15]
PTSP [6]
BRIDGE Directory [10] BRIDGE Query Relay [11]
IOTA [17]
Afilias ESDS [9]
UniSalento DS [13]
UniPR DS [14]
TraceSphere [16]
EPCDS [7]ePedigree [1]
WWAI [22]
LoTR [18]
OIDA [20]UniKoeln DS [19]
InnoSem [21]
unstructured P2P metadata integration
data integrationstructured P2P
IBM PoC [5]
SLS [12]
BRIDGE Directory relies on centralized
services to store data provider links.
There are scalability and single point-of-
failure issues to be considered.
Theseos has several distributed data stores.
Queries are answered recursively.
Each company can enforce data ownership.
OIDA relies on a Peer-to-Peer network with a
hashing algorithm for data placement in nodes. It
is fully decentralized and has potential for high
scalability.
There are issues about response quality and
timeliness. Query capabilities are limited to
object ID matching.
ID@URI uses a product-agent architecture.
All data concerning the item is forwarded to a
central data store, managed by the product’s
manufacturer.
Traceability
cost model
Report
System parameters Bandwidth
Processing speed
Seek time
Application parameters Message size
Item record size
Chain parameters Number of companies
Average item records
Average length
Product parameters Average sub - components
Average component depth
Auto supply chain Short and broad chain – 700 companies, 6 levels deep, 3 components per level
Conclusion
• Developed a cost model to quantitatively compare traceability systems
• Future work
– More detail
– Address scale and security concerns
– Validate model using actual systems
Bibliography • [Do06]
– Hong-Hai Do and Jurgen Anke and Gregor Hackenbroich, Architecture Evaluation for Distributed Auto-ID Systems, Proc. 17th International Workshop on Database and Expert Systems Applications (DEXA), 2006
• [Evdokimov10]
– Sergei Evdokimov and Benjamin Fabian and Steffen Kunz and Nina Schoenemann, Comparison of Discovery Service Architectures for the Internet of Things, IEEE International Conference on Sensor Networks, Ubiquitous, and Trustworthy Computing (SUTC), 2010
• [MurthyRobson08]
– Karin Murthy and Christine Robson, A model-based comparative study of traceability systems, Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Systems, Logistics and Supply Chain (ILS), 2008
Related Documents
