Applying semantics into Serviceoriented IoT Framework Introducing semantics into the Internet of Things (IoT) has been attracting increasing attention from researchers and industrial practitioners. Semantic technologies have been used to enable interoperability as well as deal with the heterogeneity, massive scale, and dynamic nature of IoT resources. With the emergence of Industry 4.0, semantic technologies arise as a potential approach toward information modeling and dynamic reconfiguration of highly complex automation systems with high diversity of domains, protocols, tools or hardware platforms. Applying semantics into existing IoT frameworks requires a thorough understanding of the framework architectures as well as careful considerations of different semantic technologies. To support this process, we survey the literature on the contributions and usage of semantics in IoT. We find that semantics are mainly used to handle interoperable systems and heterogeneous standards. In this paper, we also propose procedures for applying semantics into IoT frameworks. Further, we present our idea of using semantics to enable dynamical orchestration of services within the Arrowhead Framework  an IoT framework that supports the development of industrial automation systems.

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.