Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- research:doforreal [2010/08/04 14:25] – edited stijnm
+++ research:doforreal [2010/08/04 14:36] – Minor stijnm
@@ Line 39: / Line 39: @@
 ===== Comparison =====
-Having implemented both models, it remains unclear whether one of the models presented in this paper is to be preferred over the other.  As it stands, both models have shown to cater to different kinds of applications.  Moreover, when analysing the strengths and weaknesses of each of the models, they have shown to be largely complementary.
+Having implemented both models, we have found their virtues and limitations to be largely complementary.  As it stands, both models have shown to cater to different kinds of applications.
-The volatile data clouds model treats RFID tags as simple containers of data and aims at providing applications with expressive means to represent a collection of nearby tags which is constantly in flux.  Consequently, the model focusses on being able to expressively filter such collections and detect the presence of (a combination of) tags, to which the application can respond.  Using volatile data clouds as a means to represent nearby tags allows the programmer to abstract over the events that underly the discovery of new tags and the handling of their disappearance.  The cost incurred by using these abstractions is the need for a rather heavy-weight infrastructure to properly handle reactive computation.  Furthermore, this model considers RFID tags almost exclusively as a means to indicate the presence of a physical object in close proximity to the device that is running a particular application.
+The volatile data clouds model treats RFID tags as simple containers of data and aims at providing applications with expressive means to represent a collection of nearby tags which is constantly in flux.  Consequently, the model focusses on being able to expressively filter such collections and detect the presence of (a combination of) tags, to which the application can respond.  Using volatile data clouds as a means to represent nearby tags allows the programmer to abstract over the events that underly the discovery of new tags and the handling of their disappearance.  The cost incurred by using these abstractions is the need for a rather heavy-weight infrastructure to properly handle reactive computation.  In its current incarnation, the volatile data clouds model treats RFID tags as containers of immutable data whose presence indicates the presence of a physical object in close proximity to the device that is running a particular application.
-The tag objects model on the other hand treats the contents of an RFID tag as a full-fledged object.  This makes the model capable of interacting naturally with tags that contain marshalled objects and makes it particularly interesting to model interactions with //active tags//.  Active tags are RFID tags which contain their own power source and are capable of independently performing (some limited form of) computation.  Another advantage is that the model only requires a service discovery mechanism and a means to buffer messages, which makes it considerably more light-weight that the volatile data clouds model.  The downside of this method that it provides only crude support to detect the presence of (combinations of) tags in the environment.  Furthermore, the application needs to explicitly provide listeners to react to the events signalling the disconnection or reconnection of a tag.
+The tag objects model on the other hand treats the contents of an RFID tag as a full-fledged object.  This makes the model capable of interacting naturally with tags that contain mutable objects and makes it particularly interesting to model interactions with //active RFID tags//((Active tags are RFID tags which contain their own power source and are capable of independently performing (some limited form of) computation.)).  Another advantage is that the model only requires a service discovery mechanism and a means to buffer messages, which makes it considerably more light-weight that the volatile data clouds model.  The downside of this method that it provides only crude support to detect the presence of (combinations of) tags in the environment.  Furthermore, the application needs to explicitly provide listeners to react to the events signalling the disconnection or reconnection of a tag.
 In all likelihood, a programming model that fully leverages the advantages of a world teeming with tagged objects will incorporate elements of both models presented here.