Introduction to Wireless Sensor

Networks

-System Architecture of Networked
Sensor Platforms and Applications
Wireless sensor networks consists of group of sensor nodes
to perform distributed sensing task using wireless medium.

Characteristics
- low-cost, low-power, lightweight
- densely deployed
- prone to failures
- two ways of deployment: randomly, pre-determined or engineered

Objectives
- Monitor activities
- Gather and fuse information
- Communicate with global data processing unit

Sensor Networks

Application Areas [Akyildiz+ 2002]

1. Military:
Monitoring equipment and ammunition
Battlefield surveillance and damage assessment
Nuclear, biological, chemical attack detection and reconnaissance
Sensor Networks
2. Environmental:
Forest fire / flood detection
3. Health:
Tracking and monitoring doctors and patients inside a hospital
Drug administration in hospitals
Sensor Networks
5. Other Commercial Applications:
Environmental control in office buildings
Detecting and monitoring car thefts
Managing inventory control
Vehicle tracking and detection


Application Areas [Akyildiz+ 2002]

4. Home:
Home automation
Smart environment


Sensor Networks Preliminaries

For large scale environment monitoring applications, dense
sensor networks are mainly used
Sensing capabilities should be distributed and coordinated
amongst the sensor nodes
Algorithms deployed should be localized since transmissions
between large distances are expensive and lowers networks life
time
These networks should be self-configuring, scalable, redundant
and robust during topology changes
Clustering
Partitioning of the network
Identification of vital nodes (clusterheads)

Routing
Discovering routes from source to destination
Maintaining the routes
Rediscovery and repair of routes

Topology management
Maintain the links
Minimize the changes in underlying graph

Security
Research Problems in
Sensor Networks
Medium Access Control Protocols
Sensor data management
Power conservation/energy consumption
Data fusion and dissemination of sensor data
New applications for ad hoc and sensor networks

Research Problems in Ad hoc and
Sensor Networks
Compared to analysis and simulation techniques, designing a system
platform has the following advantages:
Provides genuine executive environment: various proposed
algorithms can be exactly evaluated; good way to examine existing
design principles and discover new ones under different
configurations
More attention can be focused on the application-layer
A real system platform can accelerate the pace of research and
development

Why Sensor Platforms?
Constructing a platform for WSN falls into the area of embedded system
development which usually consists of developing environment,
hardware and software platforms.

1. Hardware Platform
Consists of the following four components:

a) Processing Unit
Associates with small storage unit (tens of kilo bytes order) and
manages the procedures to collaborate with other nodes to carry out the
assigned sensing task

b) Transceiver Unit
Connects the node to the network via various possible transmission
medias such as infra, light, radio and so on
General WSN System Architecture
1. Hardware Platform

c) Power Unit
Supplies power to the system by small size batteries which makes the
energy a scarce resource

d) Sensing Units
Usually composed of two subunits: sensors and analog-to-digital
Converters (ADCs). The analog signal produced by the sensors are
converted to digital signals by the ADC, and fed into the processing unit

e) Other Application Dependent Components
Location finding system is needed to determine the location of sensor
nodes with high accuracy; mobilizer may be needed to move sensor
nodes when it is required to carry out the task
General WSN System Architecture
2. Software Platform
Consists of the following four components:

a) Embedded Operating System (EOS)
Manages the hardware capability efficiently as well as supports
concurrency-intense operations. Apart from traditional OS tasks such as
processor, memory and I/O management, it must be real-time to rapidly
respond the hardware triggered events, multi-threading to handle
concurrent flows

b) Application Programming Interface (API)
A series of functions provided by OS and other system-level components
for assisting developers to build applications upon itself
General WSN System Architecture
2. Software Platform

c) Device Drivers
A series of routines that determine how the upper layer entities
communicate with the peripheral devices

d) Hardware Abstract Layer (HAL)
Intermediate layer between the hardware and the OS. Provides uniform
interfaces to the upper layer while its implementation is highly dependent
on the lower layer hardware. With the use of HAL, the OS and
applications easily transplant from one hardware platform to another
General WSN System Architecture
Motes are tiny, self-contained, battery powered computers with radio
links, which enable them to communicate and exchange data with one
another, and to self-organize into ad hoc networks
Motes form the building blocks of wireless sensor networks
TinyOS [TinyOS], component-based runtime environment, is designed to
provide support for these motes which require concurrency intensive
operations while constrained by minimal hardware resources
Berkeley Motes [Hill+ 2000]
Figure 3: Berkeley Mote
Introduction

Habitat and environmental monitoring represent essential class of sensor
network applications by placing numerous networked micro-sensors in
an environment where long-term data collection can be achieved
The sensor nodes perform filtering and triggering functions as well as
application-specific or sensor-specific data compression algorithms thru
the integration of local processing and storage
The ability to communicate allows nodes to cooperate in performing
tasks such as statistical sampling, data aggregation, and system health
and status monitoring
Increased power efficiency assists in resolving fundamental design
tradeoffs, e.g., between sampling rates and battery lifetimes
Wireless Sensor Networks for Habitat
Monitoring
[Mainwaring+ 2002]
Introduction

The sensor nodes can be reprogrammed or retasked after deployment in
the field by the networking and computing capabilities provided
Nodes can adapt their operation over time in response to changes in the
environment
The application context helps to differentiate problems with simple and
concrete solutions from open research areas
An effective sensor network architecture and general solutions should be
developed for the domain
The impact of sensor networks for habitat and environmental monitoring
is measured by their ability to enable new applications and produce new
results
Wireless Sensor Networks for Habitat
Monitoring
[Mainwaring+ 2002]
Introduction

This paper develops a specific habitat monitoring application, but yet a
representative of the domain
It presents a collection of requirements, constraints and guidelines that
serve as a basis for general sensor network architecture
It describes the core components of the sensor network for this domain
hardware and sensor platforms, the distinct networks involved, their
interconnection, and the data management facilities
The design and implementation of the essential network services
power management, communications, re-tasking, and node management
can be evaluated in this context

Wireless Sensor Networks for Habitat
Monitoring
[Mainwaring+ 2002]
Habitat Monitoring

Researchers in the Life Sciences are concerned about the impacts of
human presence in monitoring plants and animals in the field conditions
It is possible that chronic human disturbance may adversely effect results
by changing behavioral patterns or distributions
Disturbance effects are of concern in small island situations where it may
be physically impossible for researchers to avoid some impact on an
entire population
Seabird colonies are extreme sensitive to human disturbance
Research in Maine [Anderson 1995], suggests that a 15 minute visit to a
cormorant colony can result in up to 20% mortality among eggs and
chicks in a given breeding year. Repeated disturbance can lead to the
end of the colony
Wireless Sensor Networks for Habitat
Monitoring
[Mainwaring+ 2002]
Habitat Monitoring

On Kent Island, Nova Scotia, research learned that Leachs Storm Petrels
are likely to desert their nesting burrows in case of disturbance during the
first two weeks of incubation
Sensor networks advances the monitoring methods over the traditional
invasive ones
Sensors can be deployed prior to the breeding season or other sensitive
period or while plants are dormant or the ground is frozen on small islets
where it would be unsafe or unwise to repeatedly attempt field studies
Sensor network deployment may be more economical method for
conducting long-term studies than traditional personnel-rich methods
A deploy em and leave em strategy of wireless sensor usage would
decrease the logistical needs to initial placement and occasional servicing

Wireless Sensor Networks for Habitat
Monitoring
[Mainwaring+ 2002]
Great Duck Island

The College of Atlantic (COA) is field testing in-situ sensor networks for
habitat monitoring
Great Duck Island (GDI) is a 237 acre island located 15 km south of
Mount Desert Island, Maine
At GDI, three major questions in monitoring the Leachs Storm Petrel
[Anderson 1995]:
1. What is the usage pattern of nesting burrows over the 24-72 hour
cycle when one or both members of a breeding pair may alternate
incubation duties with feeding at sea?
2. What changes can be observed in the burrow and surface
environmental parameters during the course of the approximately 7
month breeding season (April-October)?
Wireless Sensor Networks for Habitat
Monitoring
[Mainwaring+ 2002]
Great Duck Island

3. What are the differences in the micro-environments with and without
large numbers of nesting petrels?
Presence/absence data is obtained through occupancy detection and
temperature differentials between burrows with adult birds and burrows
that contain eggs, chicks, or are empty
Petrels will most likely enter or leave during the daytime; however, 5-10
minutes during late evening and early morning measurements are
needed to capture the entry and exit timings
More general environmental differentials between burrow and surface
conditions can be captured by records every 2-4 hours during the
extended breeding season; whereas, the differences between popular
and unpopular sites benefit from hourly sampling
Wireless Sensor Networks for Habitat
Monitoring
[Mainwaring+ 2002]
Great Duck Island Requirements

1. Internet Access
The sensor networks at GDI must be accessible via the Internet since the
ability to support remote interactions with in-situ networks is essential
2. Hierarchical Network
Habitats of interest are located up to several kilometers away. A second
tier of wireless networking provides connectivity to multiple patches of
sensor networks deployed at each of the areas.
3. Sensor Network Longevity
Sensor networks that runs for several month from non-rechargeable
power sources would be desirable since studies at GDI can span multiple
field seasons
Wireless Sensor Networks for Habitat
Monitoring
[Mainwaring+ 2002]
Great Duck Island Requirements

4. Operating off-the grid
Every level of the network must operate with bounded energy supplies
Renewable energy such as solar power may be available some
locations, disconnected operation is a possibility
GDI has enough solar power that run the application 24x7 with small
probabilities of service interruptions due to power loss
5. Management at-a-distance
Remoteness of the field sites requires the ability to monitor and manage
sensor networks over the Internet. The goal is no on-site presence for
maintenance and administration during the field season, except for
installation and removal of nodes
Wireless Sensor Networks for Habitat
Monitoring
[Mainwaring+ 2002]
Great Duck Island Requirements

6. Inconspicuous operation
It should not disrupt the natural processes or behaviors under study
Removing human presence from the study areas would eliminate a
source of error and variation in data collection and source of disturbance
7. System behavior
Sensor networks should present stable, predictable, and repeatable
behavior at all times since unpredictable system is difficult to debug and
maintain
Predictability is essential in developing trust in these new technologies
for life scientists
Wireless Sensor Networks for Habitat
Monitoring
[Mainwaring+ 2002]
Great Duck Island Requirements

8. In-situ interactions
Local interactions are required during initial development, maintenance
and on-site visits
PDAs can be useful in accomplishing these tasks they may directly
query a sensor, adjust operational parameters and so on
9. Sensors and sampling
The ability to sense light, temperature, infrared, relative humidity, and
barometric pressure are essential set of measurements
Additional measurements may include acceleration/vibration, weight,
chemical vapors, gas concentrations, pH, and noise levels
Wireless Sensor Networks for Habitat
Monitoring
[Mainwaring+ 2002]
Great Duck Island Requirements

10. Data archiving
Sensor readings must be achieved for off-line data mining and analysis
The reliable offloading of sensor logs to databases in the wired, powered
infrastructure is essential
It is desirable to interactively drill-down and explore sensors in near
real-time complement log-based studies. In this mode of operation, the
timely delivery of sensor data is the key
Nodal data summaries and periodic health-and-status monitoring also
requires timely delivery of the data

Wireless Sensor Networks for Habitat
Monitoring
[Mainwaring+ 2002]
System Architecture

A tiered architecture is developed
The lowest level consists of the sensor nodes that perform general
purpose computing and networking as well as application-specific sensing
The sensor nodes may be deployed in dense patches and transmit their
data through the sensor network to the sensor network gateway
Gateway is responsible for transmitting sensor data from the sensor patch
through a local transit network to the remote base station that provides
WAN connectivity and data logging
The base station connects to database replicas across the internet
At last, the data is displayed to researchers through a user interface
Wireless Sensor Networks for Habitat
Monitoring
[Mainwaring+ 2002]
System Architecture


Wireless Sensor Networks for Habitat
Monitoring
[Mainwaring+ 2002]
Figure 1: System architecture for habitat monitoring
System Architecture

The autonomous sensor nodes are placed in the areas of interest where
each sensor node collects environmental data about its immediate
surroundings
Since these sensors are placed close to the area of interest, they can be
built using small and inexpensive individual sensors high spatial
resolution can be achieved through dense deployment of sensor nodes
This architecture offers higher robustness compared to traditional
approaches which use a few high quality sensors with complex signal
processing
The computational module is a programmable unit that provides
computation, storage and bidirectional communication with other nodes
Wireless Sensor Networks for Habitat
Monitoring
[Mainwaring+ 2002]
System Architecture

The computational module interfaces with the analog and digital sensors
on the sensor module, performs basic signal processing and dispatches
the data according to the needs of the application
Compared to traditional data logging systems, networked sensors offer
two main advantages: they can be re-tasked in the field and they can
communicate with the rest of the system
In-situ re-tasking gives researchers the ability to refocus their
observations based on the analysis of the initial results initially, absolute
temperature readings are desired, after a while, only significant
temperature changes exceeding a threshold may become more useful
Wireless Sensor Networks for Habitat
Monitoring
[Mainwaring+ 2002]
System Architecture

Individual sensor nodes communicate and coordinate with one another
These nodes form a multi-hop network by forwarding each others
messages and if needed, the network can perform in-network aggregation
(e.g., relaying the average temperature across the region)
Eventually, data from each sensor needs to be propagated to the Internet
The propagated data may be raw, filtered or processed data
Since direct wide area connectivity cannot be brought to each sensor path
due to several reasons (e.g., cost of equipment, power, disturbance
created by the installation of the equipment in the environment), wide are
connectivity is brought to a base station instead

Wireless Sensor Networks for Habitat
Monitoring
[Mainwaring+ 2002]
System Architecture

The base station may communicate with the sensor patch using a
wireless LAN where each sensor patch is equipped with a gateway that
can communicate with the sensor network and provides connectivity to
the transit network
The transit network may consist of a single hop link or series of networked
wireless nodes and each transit network design has different
characteristics with respect to expected robustness, bandwidth, energy
efficiency, cost and manageability
To provide data to remote end-users, the base station includes WAN
connectivity and persistent data storage for the collection of sensor
patches
Wireless Sensor Networks for Habitat
Monitoring
[Mainwaring+ 2002]
System Architecture

It is expected that WAN connection will be wireless
The architecture needs to address the disconnection possibilities
Each layer (sensor nodes, gateways, base stations) has some persistent
storage to protect against data loss due to power outage as well as data
management services
At the sensor level, these will be primitive, taking the form of data logging
The base station may provide relational database service while the data
management at the gateways falls somewhere in between
When it comes to data collection, long-latency is preferable to data loss
Users interact with the sensor network in two ways
Wireless Sensor Networks for Habitat
Monitoring
[Mainwaring+ 2002]
System Architecture

Remote users access the replica of the base station database
This approach assists on integration with data analysis and mining tools
while masking the potential wide area disconnections with the base
stations
On-site users may require direct interaction with the network and this can
be accomplished with a small, PDA-sized device, referred to as gizmo
Gizmo allows the user to interactively control the network parameters by
adjusting the sampling rates, power management parameters and other
network parameters
The connectivity between any sensor node and gizmo may or may not
rely on functioning on multi-hop sensor network routing
Wireless Sensor Networks for Habitat
Monitoring
[Mainwaring+ 2002]
Introduction

Focus is on issues related to dynamic sensor networks with mobile
nodes and wireless communication between them
In this system, the sensor nodes collars carried by the animals under
study; wireless ad hoc networking techniques are used to swap and store
data in a peer-to-peer manner and to pass it towards a mobile base
station that sporadically traverses the area to upload data
Biology and biocomplexity research has been focused on gathering data
and observations on a range of species to understand their interactions
and influences on each other
For example, how human development into wilderness areas affects
indigenous species there; understand the migration patterns of wild
animals and how they may be affected by changes in weather patterns or
plant life, by introduction of non-native species, and by other influences
Energy-Efficient Computing for Wildlife Tracking:
Design Tradeoffs and Early Experiences with ZebraNet
[Juang+ 2002]
Introduction

Finding and learning these details require long-term position logs and
other biometric data such as heart rate, body temperature, and frequency
feeding
Current wildlife tracking studies rely on simple technology, for example,
many studies rely on collaring a sample subset of animals with simple
VHF transmitters
Researchers periodically drive through and/or fly over an area with a
receiver antenna, and listen for pings from previously collared animals
Once animal is found, its behavior can be observed and its observed
position can be logged; however, there are limits to such studies
First, data collection is infrequent and can miss many interesting events
Energy-Efficient Computing for Wildlife Tracking:
Design Tradeoffs and Early Experiences with ZebraNet
[Juang+ 2002]
Introduction

Second, data collection is mostly limited to daylight hours, but animal
behavior and movements in night hours can be different
Third, data collection is impossible or very limited for secluded species
that avoid human contact
The most elegant trackers commercially available use GPS to track
position and use satellite uploads to transfer data to a base station
These systems also suffer from several limitations
First, at most a log of 3000 position samples can be logged and no
biometric data
Second, since satellite uploads are slow and uses high power
consumption, they are done infrequently this limits how often position
samples can be gathered without overflowing 3000-entry log storage
Energy-Efficient Computing for Wildlife Tracking:
Design Tradeoffs and Early Experiences with ZebraNet
[Juang+ 2002]
Introduction

Third, downloads of data from the satellite to the researchers are both
slow and expensive, therefore, constraining the amount of data collected
Finally, these systems operate on batteries without recharge when
power is drained, the system become unusable unless it is retrieved,
recharged and re-deployed
ZebraNet project is building tracking nodes that include a low-power
miniature GPS system with user-programmable CPU, non-volatile
storage for data logs, and radio transceivers for communicating either
with other nodes or with a base station
Energy-Efficient Computing for Wildlife Tracking:
Design Tradeoffs and Early Experiences with ZebraNet
[Juang+ 2002]
Introduction

One of the key principles of ZebraNet is that the system should work in
arbitrary wilderness locations; no assumptions are made about the
presence of of fixed antenna towers or cellular phone service
The system uses peer-to-peer data swaps to move the data around;
periodic researcher drives bys and/or fly-overs can collect logged data
from several animals despite encountering relatively few within range
Even though ad hoc sensor networks have been heavily studied, not
much has been published about the characteristics of mobile sensor
networks with mobile base stations and very few studies focus on
building real systems
Energy-Efficient Computing for Wildlife Tracking:
Design Tradeoffs and Early Experiences with ZebraNet
[Juang+ 2002]
Introduction

This paper has the following unique contributions:
o To the best knowledge of authors, this is the first study of mobile
sensor networks protocols in which the base station is also mobile. It
is presumed that researchers will upload data while driving or flying
by the region
o Zebra-tracking is a domain in which the node mobility models are
unknown which makes it a research goal. Understanding how, when
and why zebras undertake long-term migrations is the most
essential biological question of this work.
o ZebraNets data collection has communication patterns in which
data can be cooperatively passed towards a base station
o Energy tradeoffs are examined in detail using real system energy
measurements for ZebraNet prototype hardware in operation
Energy-Efficient Computing for Wildlife Tracking:
Design Tradeoffs and Early Experiences with ZebraNet
[Juang+ 2002]
Introduction

Some of the interesting research questions to be explored are:
o How to make the communications protocol both effective and power-
efficient?
o To what extent can we rely on ad hoc, peer-to-peer transfers in a
sparsely-connected spatially-huge sensor network?
o How can we provide comprehensive tracking of a collection of
animals, even if some of the animals are reclusive and rarely are
close enough to humans to have their data logs updated directly?
This research work gives quantitative explorations of the design
decisions behind some of these questions
Energy-Efficient Computing for Wildlife Tracking:
Design Tradeoffs and Early Experiences with ZebraNet
[Juang+ 2002]
ZebraNet Design Goals

The ZebraNet project is a direct and ongoing collaboration between
researchers in experimental computer systems and in wildlife biology
The wildlife biologists have determined the trackers overall design goals:
o GPS position samples are taken every three minutes
o Detailed activity logs taken for three minutes every hour
o One year of operation without direct human intervention that is, not
counting on tranquilizing and re-collaring an animal more than once
per year
o No fixed base stations, antennas, or cellular service
o A high success rate for eventually delivering all logged data is
essential while latency is not as critical
o For a zebra collar, a weight limit of 3-5 lbs is recommended
Energy-Efficient Computing for Wildlife Tracking:
Design Tradeoffs and Early Experiences with ZebraNet
[Juang+ 2002]
ZebraNet Design Goals

Ultimately, this detailed information may include several position
estimates, temperature information, weather data, environmental data,
and body movements that will serve as signatures of behavior; however,
in this initial system, the focus is only on position data
Overall, the key goal is to deliver to researchers a very high fraction of the
data collected over the months or years that the system is in operation
Therefore, ZebraNet must be power-efficient, designed with appropriate
data log storage, and must be rugged to ensure reliability under tough
environmental conditions
Energy-Efficient Computing for Wildlife Tracking:
Design Tradeoffs and Early Experiences with ZebraNet
[Juang+ 2002]
ZebraNet Problem Statement

The biologists design goals need to be translated into the engineering
task at hand
Success rate at delivering position data to the researchers data homing
rate should approach 100%
Weight limits on each node translate almost directly to computational
energy limits since weight of the battery and solar panel takes bulk of the
total weight of a ZebraNet node; therefore, collar and protocol design
decisions must manage the number and size of data transmissions
required
System design choices must be made that limit the range of
transmissions since the required transmitter energy increases
dramatically with the distance transmitted
Energy-Efficient Computing for Wildlife Tracking:
Design Tradeoffs and Early Experiences with ZebraNet
[Juang+ 2002]
ZebraNet Problem Statement

The amount of storage needed to hold position logs must be limited if
many redundant copies are stored and swapped, the storage
requirements can scale as O(n
2
)
Although the energy cost of storage is small compared to that of
transmissions, it is still necessary to develop storage-efficient design
Due to limited transceiver, coverage and a base station only sporadically
available, ZebraNet must forward data through other nodes in peer-to-
peer manner and store redundant copies of position logs in other tracking
nodes
Some of the key challenges in ZebraNet come from the spatial and
temporal scale of the system
Energy-Efficient Computing for Wildlife Tracking:
Design Tradeoffs and Early Experiences with ZebraNet
[Juang+ 2002]
ZebraNet Problem Statement

In terms of temporal scale, keeping a system running autonomously
months at a time is challenging; it requires tremendous design-time
attention to both hardware and software reliability
In terms of spatial scale, ZebraNet is also aggressive; it is the specific
intent of the system to operate over an area of hundreds or thousands of
square square kilometers
Due to the large distances involved and sparse sensor coverage,
energy/connectivity tradeoffs become key

Energy-Efficient Computing for Wildlife Tracking:
Design Tradeoffs and Early Experiences with ZebraNet
[Juang+ 2002]
ZebraNet Problem Statement

These challenges mentioned here tackles several open problems:
ZebraNet protocol promises good communication behavior on mobile
sensors forwarding data towards a mobile base station
ZebraNet explores design issues for sensors that are more coarse-
grained than many prior sensor proposals. Larger the weight limits
and storage budgets allow researchers to consider different protocols
with improved leverage for sparsely-connected, physically-
widespread sensors
Energy-Efficient Computing for Wildlife Tracking:
Design Tradeoffs and Early Experiences with ZebraNet
[Juang+ 2002]
[Abrach+ 2003] H. Abrach, S. Bhatti, J. Carlson, H. Dai, J. Rose, A. Sheth, B. Shucker, J, Deng and
R. Han, MANTIS: System Support for MultimodAl NeTworks of In-Situ Sensors, 2
nd
ACM
International Workshop on Wireless Sensor Networks and Applications (WSNA 2003),
September 2003.

[Akyildiz+ 2002] I. F. Akyildiz, W. Su, Y. Sankarasubramaniam, and E. Cayirci, A Survey on Sensor
Networks, IEEE Communications Magazine, Vol. 40, No. 8, pp. 102-114, August 2002.

[Anderson 1995] J.G.T. Anderson, Pilot survey of mid-coast Maine seabird colonies: an evaluation of
techniques, Bangor, ME, 1995. Report to the State of Maine Dept. of Inland Fisheries and
Wildlife.

[Hill+ 2000] J. Hill, R. Szewczyk, A. Woo, S. Hollar, D. Culler, and K. Pister, System Architecture
Directions for Networked Sensors, Architectural Support for Programming Languages and
Operating Systems (ASPLOS) 2000.

[Juang+ 2002] P. Juang, H. Oki, Y. Wang, M. Martonosi, L-S Peh, and D. Rubenstein, Energy-
Efficient Computing for Wildlife Tracking: Design Tradeoffs and Early Experiences with ZebraNet,
ACM SIGARCH Computer Architecture News, vol. 30, no. 5, December 2002 .

[Mainwaring+ 2002] A. Mainwaring, J. Polastre, R. Szewczyk, D. Culler, and J. Anderson, Wireless
Sensor Networks for Habitat Monitoring, 1
st
ACM International Workshop on Wireless Sensor
Networks and Applications (WSNA 2002), Atlanta, Georgia, September 28, 2002.

[TinyOS] TinyOS: a component-based OS for the networked sensor regime.




References