Efficient MultiKeyword Based Service Discovery Routing in PeertoPeer IoT Networks In this paper, we consider semantic based routing for IoT service discovery in peertopeer IoT networks. Due to the memory constraints on IoT and edge devices, we focus on the design of routing tables to achieve spaceefficient as well as informative routing. To achieve the goal, we develop a scheme to enable routing information summarization, which is commonly used in IP based routing, but has not been done successfully in semantic based routing where keywords are the basis for addressing and lookup query specification. We combine ontology and Bloom filter to achieve summarization of IoT capabilities. To support summarization and reduce the space requirements for routing table indexing, we further developed a coding scheme, OnBF, to represent each IoT capability. Based on OnBF, we design the routing table, the summarization algorithm for the routing table, etc., to achieve efficient, multikeyword based service discovery in IoT networks. We analytically and experimentally explore our proposed solution and the results show that our solution yields better routing, i.e., lower network traffic and almost optimal routing time (hops) for any given memory constraints for the routing table.

Cutting a Path Through the IoT Ontology Jungle  A MetaSurvey Interoperability of InternetofThings(IoT) applications, being characterized by massive heterogeneity of xe2x80x9cthingsxe2x80x9d, has become a key challenge in IoT research due to the omnipresence of smart devices. In order to achieve adequate interoperability levels, semantic technologies in terms of ontologies are a promising paradigm. Due to the plethora of IoT ontologies available, one gets, however, easily lost in the ontology jungle due to the lack of an overall and uptodate view on the IoT ontology landscape. In this respect, the aim of this paper is to act as an umbrella across several uptodate IoT ontology survey papers in terms of a metasurvey comprising a threefold contribution: Firstly, addressing the survey landscape, we provide insight into commonalities and differences regarding the scope of eight survey papers and their rationale behind. Secondly, addressing the IoT ontology landscape, we analyze the IoT ontologies discussed in the survey papers on basis of quantitative and qualitative aspects. Thirdly, addressing the stateofresearch of ontologies for IoT, we identify commonalities and differences regarding conclusions and lessons learned of the survey papers.