[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/ Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Validity as a Measure of Data Quality in Internet of Things Systems

  • Published:
Wireless Personal Communications Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Data quality became significant with the emergence of data warehouse systems. While accuracy is intrinsic data quality, validity of data presents a wider perspective, which is more representational and contextual in nature. Through our article we present a different perspective in data collection and collation. We focus on faults experienced in data sets and present validity as a function of allied parameters such as completeness, usability, availability and timeliness for determining the data quality. We also analyze the applicability of these metrics and apply modifications to make it conform to IoT applications. Another major focus of this article is to verify these metrics on aggregated data set instead of separate data values. This work focuses on using the different validation parameters for determining the quality of data generated in a pervasive environment. Analysis approach presented is simple and can be employed to test the validity of collected data, isolate faults in the data set and also measure the suitability of data before applying algorithms for analysis. On analyzing the data quality of the two data sets on the basis of above-mentioned parameters. We show that validity for data set 1 was found to be 75% while it was found to be 67% only for data set 2. Availability and data freshness metrics performance were analyzed graphically. It was found that for data set 1, data freshness was better while availability metric was found better for data set 2. Usability obtained for data set 2 was 86% which was higher as compared to data set 1 whose usability metric was 69%. Thus, this work presents methods that can be leveraged for estimating data quality that can be beneficial in various IoT based industries which are essentially data centric and the decisions made by them depends upon the validity of data.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
£29.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (United Kingdom)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

IoT:

Internet of Things

t i :

Time at which update occurred

t (i+1) :

Time at which next update occurred

T (exp) :

Expiry time

OP :

Observation period

u i :

No.of updates occurring in a month

u max :

Maximum no.of updates occuring in a month

References

  1. Chen, H., Jia, X., & Li, H. (2011). A brief introduction to IoT gateway. In: IET international conference on communication technology and application (ICCTA 2011). IET.

  2. Alam, M., Nielsen, R. H., & Prasad, N. R. (2013) The evolution of M2M into IoT. In: 2013 First international Black Sea conference on communications and networking (BlackSeaCom). IEEE.

  3. Udoh, I. S., & Kotonya, G. (2018). Developing IoT applications: Challenges and frameworks. IET Cyber-Physical Systems: Theory and Applications, 3(2), 65–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Babovic, Z. B., Protic, J., & Milutinovic, V. (2016). Web performance evaluation for internet of things applications.IEEE Access 4, 6974–6992

  5. Fenton, N. E., & Neil, M. (2000). Software metrics: roadmap. In: Proceedings of the conference on the future of software engineering.

  6. Miguel, J. P., Mauricio, D., & Rodríguez, G. (2014). A review of software quality models for the evaluation of software products. arXiv preprint: arXiv:1412.2977.

  7. Babbar, H., Parthiban, S., Radhakrishnan, G. & Rani, S. (2022). A genetic load balancing algorithm to improve the QoS metrics for software defined networking for multimedia applications. Multimedia Tools and Applications, pp.1–19.

  8. Dalla Palma, S., Di Nucci, D., Palomba, F., & Tamburri, D. A. (2020). Toward a catalog of software quality metrics for infrastructure code. Journal of Systems and Software, 170, 110726.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Bhatti, S. N. (2005). Why quality? iso 9126 software quality metrics (functionality) support by uml suite. ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes, 30(2), 1–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Power, A., & Kotonya, G. (2019). Providing fault tolerance via complex event processing and machine learning for iot systems. In: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on the Internet of Things.

  11. Elijah, O., Rahman, T. A., Orikumhi, I., Leow, C. Y., & Hindia, M. N. (2018). An overview of Internet of Things (IoT) and data analytics in agriculture: Benefits and challenges. IEEE Internet of Things Journal, 5(5), 3758–3773.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Tiwari, R., Sharma, N., Kaushik, I., Tiwari, A. & Bhushan, B., (2019). Evolution of IoT & data analytics using deep learning. In:2019 international conference on computing, communication, and intelligent systems (ICCCIS) (pp. 418–423). IEEE.

  13. Nieh, J., & Lam, M. S. (2003). A SMART scheduler for multimedia applications. ACM Transactions on Computer Systems (TOCS), 21(2), 117–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Kuemper, D. et al. (2018). Valid. IoT: a framework for sensor data quality analysis and interpolation. In: Proceedings of the 9th ACM Multimedia Systems Conference.

  15. Jayashree, L. S., Arumugam, S., & Meenakshi, A. R. (2008). A communication-efficient framework for outlier-free data reporting in data-gathering sensor networks. International Journal of Network Management, 18(5), 437–445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Sampathkumar, A., Murugan, S., Elngar, A.A., Garg, L., Kanmani, R. & Malar, A., (2020). A novel scheme for an IoT-based weather monitoring system using a wireless sensor network. In Integration of WSN and IoT for smart cities (pp. 181–191). Springer, Cham.

  17. Kishorebabu, V., & Sravanthi, R. (2020). Real time monitoring of environmental parameters using IOT. Wireless Personal Communications, 112(2), 785–808.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Tiwari, M. M., Narang, D., Goel, P., Gadhwal, A., Gupta, A., & Chawla, A. (2020). Weather monitoring system using IoT and cloud computing. Weather, 29(12s), 2473–2479.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Nisa, I. U., & Ahsan, S. N. (2015). Fault prediction model for software using soft computing techniques. In: 2015 International Conference on Open Source Systems and Technologies (ICOSST). IEEE.

  20. Ravichandran, J., & Arulappan, A. I. (2013). Data validation algorithm for wireless sensor networks. In: International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks 9(12), 634278.

  21. Luo, T., Huang, J., Kanhere, S. S., Zhang, J., & Das, S. K. (2019). Improving IoT data quality in mobile crowd sensing: A cross validation approach. IEEE Internet of Things Journal, 6(3), 5651–5664.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Kumari, A., Tanwar, S., Tyagi, S., & Kumar, N. (2019). Verification and validation techniques for streaming big data analytics in internet of things environment. IET Networks, 8(3), 155–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Klima, M. et al. (2020). Quality and reliability metrics for IoT systems: a consolidated view. International Summit Smart City 360°. Springer, Cham.

  24. Karkouch, A. et al. (2016). Data quality in internet of things: A state-of-the-art survey. Journal of Network and Computer Applications 73(2016), 57–81.

  25. Pipino, L. L., Lee, Y. W., & Wang, R. Y. (2002). Data quality assessment. Communications of the ACM, 45(4), 211–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Byabazaire, J., O’Hare, G., & Delaney, D. (2020). Data quality and trust: Review of challenges and opportunities for data sharing in IoT. Electronics, 9(12), 2083.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Kaiser, M., Klier, M., & Heinrich, B. (2007). How to measure data quality? A metric-based approach. ICIS 2007 Proceedings, pp. 108.

  28. Buchholz, T., Küpper, A., & Schiffers, M. (2003). Quality of context: What it is and why we need it. Workshop of the HP OpenView University Association.

  29. Thomas, M. O., & Rad, B. B. (2017). Reliability evaluation metrics for internet of things, car tracking system: a review. Int. J. Inf. Technol. Comput. Sci.(IJITCS) 9(2), 1–10

  30. https://mausam.imd.gov.in/

  31. http://amsskolkata.gov.in/mc/ranchi

  32. https://www.timeanddate.com, last accessed: July 2020.

  33. Federer, L. M., Belter, C. W., Joubert, D. J., Livinski, A., Lu, Y. L., Snyders, L. N., & Thompson, H. (2018). Data sharing in PLOS ONE: An analysis of data availability statements. PLoS ONE, 13(5), e0194768.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Larsen, M. A. D., Petrovic, S., Engström, R. E., Drews, M., Liersch, S., Karlsson, K. B., & Howells, M. (2019). Challenges of data availability: Analysing the water-energy nexus in electricity generation. Energy Strategy Reviews, 26, 100426.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Xiong, J., Ren, J., Chen, L., Yao, Z., Lin, M., Wu, D., & Niu, B. (2018). Enhancing privacy and availability for data clustering in intelligent electrical service of IoT. IEEE Internet of Things Journal, 6(2), 1530–1540.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Akhrif, O., Benfaress, C., Jai, M.E., El Idrissi, Y.E.B. & Hmina, N. (2021). Completeness based classification algorithm: a novel approach for educational semantic data completeness assessment. Interactive Technology and Smart Education.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of CSE, BIT Mesra, Mesra, India

    Rishabh Deo Pandey & Itu Snigdh

Authors
  1. Rishabh Deo Pandey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Itu Snigdh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rishabh Deo Pandey.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pandey, R.D., Snigdh, I. Validity as a Measure of Data Quality in Internet of Things Systems. Wireless Pers Commun 126, 933–948 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11277-022-09777-w

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11277-022-09777-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation