; presentation3
Documents
Resources
Learning Center
Upload
Plans & pricing Sign in
Sign Out
Your Federal Quarterly Tax Payments are due April 15th Get Help Now >>

presentation3

VIEWS: 2 PAGES: 20

  • pg 1
									A Comparative Study of Two Bluetooth APIs for
    Implementation in an Automated Wireless
                 Identification System (AWIS)




                                    Sam Knights
                                Rhodes University
         Supervisors: Dr G. Foster and Prof P. Clayton
         Presentation Outline
 Brief Background and Motivation
 Methodology
 Results/Test Applications:
     Windows API
     Widcomm API

 Discussion
 Future Work
 Conclusion
             Brief Background
 Individual animal identification and
interaction
     Behavioral patterns
     GPS, infrared imagery, GSM, satellite
   Bluetooth Enabled devices - collars
     Transmit information when in range of other
      animals = “Encounter”
     Transfer to Beacons (on trees/ rocks)
   Motivation for using Bluetooth:
     10m range, low power and cost, small size
     Dynamic nature of networks formed
                  Project Aims
   Investigate Bluetooth APIs
     Device connectivity, data-transfer
     Limits to APIs flexibility, functionality
     Feasibility of extending API

   Motivation
     No standard API in Bluetooth specification
     Only way to compare APIs
        “Use tools available directly”…
         Methodology - Approach
    Iterative development of test applications
        Not complex, speed of development
    Stages towards AWIS
    1.   Simple inquiry, one device then many
    2.   Discover who went out of range
    3.   Build up Encounter log
    4.   Upload onto Beacons (Service Discovery)
    Compare each API in terms of functionality
     provided to complete each stage
        Test applications
Iterative Development Methodology
Start

                          Stage of
                          System                 Research



                            AWIS
        Evaluate
                          Progress

                                     Implement

                   Test
    Methodology – Materials Software
   Pocket PC 2003 SDK, Windows CE
       Rapid development, sophisticated IDE
   Windows API: Winsock and
                 Virtual Serial Ports
       Not “easy or quick”, recommended
   Widcomm API
       Most widely used, choice of proprietary API
   Different approaches to application
    development
       Windows insulate developer
       Widcomm protocol layer direct access.
Methodology – Materials Hardware
          iPAQ Pocket PC h4150
              Familiar UI, concentrate on software
              Active Sync, fast testing of applications
              Small, portable
          DLink Dongle
              Test broadcasting MAC Address
              Connect PC to Bluetooth Devices
    Methodology – Test Applications
   Virtual Serial Ports
       Experimented with Terminal Type Application
       Connection, data transfer
   Winsock
       Discover devices and services
   Widcomm
       Discover devices, L2CAP
   Field test – attached iPAQ to front desk
       iPAQs running AWIS application
       Bluetooth devices switched on
       Encounter log written to a file
Results
           API Comparison - Documentation
                           Virtual Com Winsock   Widcomm
          Device Inquiry
                                                
AWIS




          Service
          Discovery                             
          Information
          Transfer                              
                                      
          Rapid
          prototyping                             
GENERAL




          Functionality
                                                
          Flexibility
                                                
          Compatibility
                                                
                 API Comparison - Results
                           Virtual Com Winsock   Widcomm
          Device Inquiry
                                                 
AWIS




          Service
          Discovery                              
                                           
          Information
          Transfer                                
                                        
          Rapid
          prototyping                                
GENERAL




          Functionality
                                                 
          Flexibility
                                                 
          Compatibility
                                                 
     API Comparison - Results
   Virtual Serial Ports
       No device discovery, limited service discovery
   Winsock
       “Network down”
   Widcomm
       Choice of stack access:
            L2CAP, RFCOMM, SDP, OBEX etc
       Device discovery and Service discovery –
        L2CAP
       Information transfer
            L2CAP Connection vs OBEX
                      Discussion

   Virtual Serial Ports
       Familiar, low-level, no device inquiry functions
   Winsock
       “Network down” – iPAQ had Widcomm stack
       Wrapper class to extend API
   Widcomm
       Approach allows flexibility and functionality
       Simple Device discovery and Service discovery
       Extend API only by Encounter Class
                        Discussion
   Test done in CS department
       Did the application discover all devices?
          Discovery   when discovering a problem
       Time taken for encounters?
          Slow   – 10s for inquiry
     Information uploaded correctly?
     Did AWIS applications interfere
      with each other?
                       Discussion
   Limitation to Results
     No hardware considerations
     Experience limited to AWIS application
     For developer: Stack incompatibility
     IPAQs the way to go?
         Sufficient  for pilot study – rapid development
         GUI not always ideal
         Not for actual implementation
         Fits into iterative development
                     Future Work
   Could look to some other technologies
       ZigBee
   Investigate more APIs
       Allow more interaction with stack,
        hardware
   Some other possibilities for the AWIS
    system:
       Check employees are doing their job
       Monitor human psychological behaviour
                       Conclusion
   Comparing APIs through testing
     Valuable to the developer
     Result: Widcomm most suitable
         Flexible   but simple, functionality needed for AWIS
 Iterative development, rapid prototyping
 AWIS works
     Implementation issues overcome
     Future work could be done
Questions?
         Wireless Projects
  A. King : Peer-to-peer       B.Clayton : Scatternets,
networking , Data transfer       Ad-hoc networking

                S. Knights : Application
                     Programming
                       Interfaces

                BLUETOOTH STACK

                  B. Fox : Custom
                  operating system
                       image

								
To top