2014
DOI: 10.4301/s1807-17752014000300004
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Context management: toward assessing quality of context parameters in a ubiquitous ambient assisted living environment

Abstract: This paper provides an approach to assessing Quality of Context (QoC) parameters in a ubiquitous Ambient Assisted Living (AAL) environment. Initially, the study presents a literature review on QoC, generating taxonomy. Then it introduces the context management architecture used. The proposal is verified with the Siafu simulator in an AAL scenario where the user's health is monitored with information about blood pressure, heart rate and body temperature. Considering some parameters, the proposed QoC assessment … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
2
1

Relationship

0
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 36 publications
(38 reference statements)
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In order to evaluate the model, a context architecture is proposed, and within this architecture, two modules are dedicated to QoC. The first one is responsible for quantifying QoC parameters between 0 and 1, using rules that were defined in [Nazário et al 2014]. It is highlighted that the aggregation method, while using the same weighted average as [Yasar et al 2011], differs from it in the way significance is treated as defined by [Manzoor et al 2008].…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…In order to evaluate the model, a context architecture is proposed, and within this architecture, two modules are dedicated to QoC. The first one is responsible for quantifying QoC parameters between 0 and 1, using rules that were defined in [Nazário et al 2014]. It is highlighted that the aggregation method, while using the same weighted average as [Yasar et al 2011], differs from it in the way significance is treated as defined by [Manzoor et al 2008].…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It is highlighted that the aggregation method, while using the same weighted average as [Yasar et al 2011], differs from it in the way significance is treated as defined by [Manzoor et al 2008]. While [Yasar et al 2011] uses significance as one of the parameters in the weighted average, calling it priority, the approach in [Nazário et al 2014] defines that this parameter should not lower the QoC value, but only be used to give different priorities when evaluating the information.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%