Download as PDF, PPTX
![Estimating remote procedure call cost
[Murthy and Robson, 2008]
Transfer
Send Receive
Lookup
Receive Send
Transfer](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/miguelpardal-costmodelforrfid-basedtraceabilityinformationsystems-pptx-121012093616-phpapp01/85/Cost-model-for-RFID-based-traceability-information-systems-7-320.jpg)
![Decentralized Centralized
unstructured P2P metadata integration
Virtual data integration GS1 PoC [3] Verisign DS [4] IBM PoC [5]
ePedigree [1]
Theseos [2]
PTSP [6] EPCDS [7] ADS [8]
Theseos has several distributed data stores.
Queries are answered recursively.
Each company can enforce data ownership.
Afilias ESDS [9]
BRIDGE Directory [10] BRIDGE Query
Relay [11]
BRIDGE Directory relies on centralized
services to store data provider links.
There are scalability and single point-of-
failure issues to be considered. UniSalento DS
SLS [12]
[13]
UniPR DS [14]
IOTA [17]
EPCIS caching
[15] TraceSphere
LoTR [18] [16]
Materialized data integration
UniKoeln DS [19] OIDA [20] ID @URI [23]
OIDA relies on a Peer-to-Peer network with a ID@URI uses a product-agent architecture.
hashing algorithm for data placement in nodes. It All data concerning the item is forwarded to a
is fully decentralized and has potential for high central data store, managed by the product’s
scalability. manufacturer.
InnoSem [21] There are issues about response quality and
timeliness. Query capabilities are limited to
object ID matching.
WWAI [22]
structured P2P data integration](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/miguelpardal-costmodelforrfid-basedtraceabilityinformationsystems-pptx-121012093616-phpapp01/85/Cost-model-for-RFID-based-traceability-information-systems-8-320.jpg)
![Decentralized Centralized
unstructured P2P metadata integration
Virtual data integration GS1 PoC [3] Verisign DS [4] IBM PoC [5]
ePedigree [1]
Theseos [2]
PTSP [6] EPCDS [7] ADS [8]
Theseos has several distributed data stores.
Queries are answered recursively.
Each company can enforce data ownership.
Afilias ESDS [9]
BRIDGE Directory [10] BRIDGE Query
Relay [11]
BRIDGE Directory relies on centralized
services to store data provider links.
There are scalability and single point-of-
failure issues to be considered. UniSalento DS
SLS [12]
[13]
UniPR DS [14]
IOTA [17]
EPCIS caching
[15] TraceSphere
LoTR [18] [16]
Materialized data integration
UniKoeln DS [19] OIDA [20] ID @URI [23]
OIDA relies on a Peer-to-Peer network with a ID@URI uses a product-agent architecture.
hashing algorithm for data placement in nodes. It All data concerning the item is forwarded to a
is fully decentralized and has potential for high central data store, managed by the product’s
scalability. manufacturer.
InnoSem [21] There are issues about response quality and
timeliness. Query capabilities are limited to
object ID matching.
WWAI [22]
structured P2P data integration](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/miguelpardal-costmodelforrfid-basedtraceabilityinformationsystems-pptx-121012093616-phpapp01/85/Cost-model-for-RFID-based-traceability-information-systems-13-320.jpg)
![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](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/miguelpardal-costmodelforrfid-basedtraceabilityinformationsystems-pptx-121012093616-phpapp01/85/Cost-model-for-RFID-based-traceability-information-systems-18-320.jpg)
Uploaded byMiguel Pardal
Cost model for RFID-based traceability information systems
This document presents a cost model for comparing radio frequency identification (RFID)-based traceability information systems. The cost model considers parameters such as the number of companies in the supply chain, average item records, message size, item record size, bandwidth, and processing speed. The model is intended to quantitatively compare different traceability systems and evaluate how costs may change based on the structure and depth of the supply chain. Future work plans to add more detail to the model and validate it using real traceability systems.
More Related Content
Similar to Cost model for RFID-based traceability information systems
Cost model for RFID-based traceability information systems
- 1. Cost model forRFID-based Traceability Information Systems Miguel.Pardal@ .utl.pt Jose.Marques@ .pt September 16th, 2011
- 3. Traceability • Where ismy object? – Track • Where has it been? – Trace • What are its components? – Bill-of-materials
- 4. Product recall Food, Medicines,... Emergency!
- 5. HasData(M, x) HasData( D, x ) Directory 1. WhoHasData(x) 2.1 getEvents (x) 2.2 getEvents (x) Query Query Query Manufacturer M Distributor D Retailer R Repository Repository Repository Capture Capture Capture EPC x
- 7. Estimating remote procedurecall cost [Murthy and Robson, 2008] Transfer Send Receive Lookup Receive Send Transfer
- 8. Decentralized Centralized unstructured P2P metadata integration Virtual data integration GS1 PoC [3] Verisign DS [4] IBM PoC [5] ePedigree [1] Theseos [2] PTSP [6] EPCDS [7] ADS [8] Theseos has several distributed data stores. Queries are answered recursively. Each company can enforce data ownership. Afilias ESDS [9] BRIDGE Directory [10] BRIDGE Query Relay [11] BRIDGE Directory relies on centralized services to store data provider links. There are scalability and single point-of- failure issues to be considered. UniSalento DS SLS [12] [13] UniPR DS [14] IOTA [17] EPCIS caching [15] TraceSphere LoTR [18] [16] Materialized data integration UniKoeln DS [19] OIDA [20] ID @URI [23] OIDA relies on a Peer-to-Peer network with a ID@URI uses a product-agent architecture. hashing algorithm for data placement in nodes. It All data concerning the item is forwarded to a is fully decentralized and has potential for high central data store, managed by the product’s scalability. manufacturer. InnoSem [21] There are issues about response quality and timeliness. Query capabilities are limited to object ID matching. WWAI [22] structured P2P data integration
- 9. Metadata integration: centralized, virtualdata integration
- 10. Data integration: centralized, materializeddata integration
- 11. Unstructured P2P: decentralized, virtualdata integration
- 12. Structured P2P: decentralized, materializeddata integration
- 13. Decentralized Centralized unstructured P2P metadata integration Virtual data integration GS1 PoC [3] Verisign DS [4] IBM PoC [5] ePedigree [1] Theseos [2] PTSP [6] EPCDS [7] ADS [8] Theseos has several distributed data stores. Queries are answered recursively. Each company can enforce data ownership. Afilias ESDS [9] BRIDGE Directory [10] BRIDGE Query Relay [11] BRIDGE Directory relies on centralized services to store data provider links. There are scalability and single point-of- failure issues to be considered. UniSalento DS SLS [12] [13] UniPR DS [14] IOTA [17] EPCIS caching [15] TraceSphere LoTR [18] [16] Materialized data integration UniKoeln DS [19] OIDA [20] ID @URI [23] OIDA relies on a Peer-to-Peer network with a ID@URI uses a product-agent architecture. hashing algorithm for data placement in nodes. It All data concerning the item is forwarded to a is fully decentralized and has potential for high central data store, managed by the product’s scalability. manufacturer. InnoSem [21] There are issues about response quality and timeliness. Query capabilities are limited to object ID matching. WWAI [22] structured P2P data integration
- 14. Chain parameters Number of companies Application parameters Average item records Message size Average length Item record size System parameters Bandwidth Product parameters Processing speed Average sub -components Seek time Average component depth Traceability cost model Report
- 15. Auto supply chain Shortand broad chain – 700 companies, 6 levels deep, 3 components per level
- 16. Conclusion • Developed acost model to quantitatively compare traceability systems • Future work – More detail – Address scale and security concerns – Validate model using actual systems
- 17. Towards the Internetof Things... Sybase.pt Thank you! miguel.pardal@ist.utl.pt
- 18. 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