Adaptability, Autonomicity, Self-, - Aware and Manageability

Adaptability, Autonomicity, Self-*, *-Aware and
Manageability
Antônio Marcos Alberti
alberti@inatel.br
antonioalberti@gmail.com
http://antonioalberti.blogspot.com/
www.inatel.br/docentes/alberti
© Antônio M. Alberti 2011
Topics
 Introduction
 Autonomic Computing
 Cognitive Computing
 Autonomic Communications
 Cognitive Radio
 Autonomic versus Cognitive
1
Introduction
 (Wang, 2009) classifies computer technologies and systems as:
 Imperative – Based on Von Neumann architecture, in which
programs are created as sets of instructions that reside in the
computer's main memory as well as the data to be computed.
 Autonomic – “Goal-driven and self-decision-driven technologies

that do not rely on instructive and procedural information.”
 Cognitive – “Implements computational intelligence by

autonomous inferences and perceptions mimicking the
mechanisms of the brain.”
Autonomic Computing
 Digital technological development, especially in computing,
communications and data storage technologies, considerably
increased the diversity, quantity and complexity of
computational systems.
 Moreover, the speed of technological change has required more

systems adaptability to the environment in which they operate.
 In this scenario, to implement, integrate, install, configure and

mantain large software systems is a highly stressful job and
often brings to us a deep sense of failure.
2
Autonomic Computing
 Concerned about this scenario, some IBM researchers have
published a manifesto in 2001 that became famous, giving rise
to so-called autonomic computing.
 “Computing systems’ complexity appears to be approaching the

limits of human capability” claimed IBM researchers.
Autonomic Computing
 Like the human autonomic nervous system governs various
functions without our awareness, the IBM researchers have
proposed that computational systems should manage
themselves according to high-level objectives outlined by human
operators.
 The idea is to reduce human interference in system’s OAM,

keeping its complexity tratable to us, reducing OPEX and
allowing IT industry to continue its grow.
 (Strassner, 2008) defends that “(…) complexity is everywhere.

Hence, autonomics is first and foremost, a way to manage
complexity.”
3
Autonomic Computing
 The autonomic computing defined by (Kephart and Chess,
2001) has four autonomic properties:
 Self-Configuration - To configure components and the system
itself to achieve high-level goals.
 Self-Optimization - To optimize proactively system resources and

other aspects in order to improve performance, efficiency, quality,
etc.
 Self-Healing - To detect, diagnose and repair localized problems

and failures.
 Self-Protection - To defend against attackers, threads or cascade

failures.
Autonomic Computing
 These properties are implemented in autonomous managers,
that interact each other and with human operators to obtain the
expected behavior for the system: the so called self-emergent or
“social” behavior.
 European Commission Report on Future and Emerging

Technologies (FET) consultations (FET, 2008) defends that
“the concept of decentralised heterogeneous self-organised
systems depends on specifying desired properties and behavior
unambiguously so that the system can be persuaded to exhibit
emergent behavior to satisfy requirements without a top-down
or centralised control mechanism”.
4
Autonomic Computing
 Therefore, autonomic computing systems are decentralized and
cooperative; following a bottom-up design approach, where
basic functions cooperate to achieve top level goals.
 Each autonomic manager can be responsible for the self-

management of one or more traditional software systems,
allowing the integration of the autonomic computing with legacy
systems.
Autonomic Computing
 To make efective autonomous operation, (Kephart and Chess,
2001) have proposed that autonomic elements monitor its
managed elements, analyzing collected data, planning actions,
executing them, gaining knowledgement about its operation.
 Such control loop was named Monitor-Analyze-Plan-Execute-

Knowledge (MAPE-K).
Autonomic Manager Structure of an

Knowledge Autonomic
Element
Monitor Analyze Plan Execute
Adapted from (Kephart
and Chess, 2001).
Managed Element
5
Autonomic Computing
 Autonomous elements use communication resources to
exchange obtained knowledge.
 (Dobson et al., 2010) points this as one of the most notable

omissions from Kephart’s and Chess’s original vision:
 How do autonomous elements communicate to each other?
 Taking an opposite path, (Clark et al., 2003) have proposed to

incorporate more autonomy in communication networks,
creating the so-called network knowledge plane.
 Also according to (Dobson et al, 2010), this idea influenced

Fraunhofer FOKUS researcher Mikhail Smirnov to propose the
idea of autonomic communications in 2004 (Smirnov, 2004).
Autonomic Computing
 (Sterrit and Bustard, 2003) argues that to achieve the four goals
of autonomic computing, the system must be aware of its
internal state (self-awareness) and the conditions of the external
environment (self-situation) as well as to automatically detect
changes in circumstances (self-monitoring) and to adapt
appropriately to them (self-adjustment).
 The autonomous system must then be aware of their skills,

available/unavailable resources, internal and external status,
communication procedures and status, as well as their rules,
goals and other high-level information necessary to operate
(Sterrit and Bustard, 2003).
6
Autonomic Computing
 (Berns and Ghosh, 2009) complain that there is too much
ambiguity concerning autonomous systems’ self-* properties.
Thus, they define precisely the following properties:
 Self-management
 Self-stabilization
 Self-healing
 Self-organization
 Self-protection
 Self-optimization
 Self-configuration
 Self-scaling
 Self-immunity
 Self-containment
Autonomic Computing
 Self-Management - It can be thought as an umbrella under
which the other self-* properties remain. It is a property that
allows the system to maintain, improve or restore itself
automatically to achieve a desired safety property, given that
actions occur outside of this system.
 Self-Stabilization – “A system is self-stabilizing if, (1) starting

from an arbitrary initial configuration, it recovers to a legal
configuration (…), and (2) remains in that configuration
thereafter”, (Berns and Ghosh, 2009).
 Self-Optimization – A system is capable to self-optimize if it can

improve the value of a predefined objective function from an
arbitrary initial value to an optimal one.
7
Autonomic Computing
 Self-Configuration – “A system is self-configuring with respect to
a set of actions (…), if it is able to change its configuration to
restore, or improve some safety property defined over the
configuration space”, (Berns and Ghosh, 2009).
 Self-Scaling – Refers to the ability to maintain or improve the

properties of the system during the occurrence of actions that
influence systems scale.
Autonomic Computing
 (Dobson et al., 2010), argues that the vision of autonomic
computing as presented in 2001 has not yet been completely
fulfilled:
 “Researchers have devised innovative autonomic solutions to
individual problems, but the larger, more difficult task of
combining these point solutions into autonomic systems remains.”
 (EURESCOM, 2009) report addresses autonomic computing

and networking from the telecommunications’ operators point of
view, presenting operators’ vision on technologies, opportunities
and risks.
 The study concludes that the autonomic solutions are being

implemented on an ad-hoc fashion, to solve specific problems.
8
Autonomic Computing
 However, to be used in the operators environment autonomic
systems must combine self-* properties in a gracefull and
holistic way.
 “Structuring the development, deployment, management and co-
operation of autonomic features is essential to meeting such a
challenge,” (EURESCOM, 2009).
 The document also points out the importance of standardization,

since interoperability of self-* properties is fundamental to
deploy “open, end-to-end and heterogeneous autonomic
features”.
Autonomic Computing
 Without being exhaustive, we can cite some examples of
applications of autonomic computing in:
 System management tools – IBM DB2™, HP SIM™, Novell
ZENworks™, Computer Associates Unicenter™ (EURESCOM,
2009).
 Commercial web application servers – IBM Websphere 6.1 XD™,

WebLogic LOC™ (EURESCOM, 2009).
 Cloud computing - Applied Autonomics, iwave Software,

IPANEMA
 Device healthcare – HandsFree Networks.
 IT outsourcing – IPsoft.
9
Cognitive Computing
 Cognitive computing is inspired on the inference, perception and
cognitive mechanisms of the human brain as defined in the
Layered Reference Model of the Brain (LRMB) (Wang et al.,
2006).
 This model has exactly 43 process divided into seven layers:

 Layer 1: Sensational processes – e.g. vision, audition
 Layer 2: Memory processes – e.g. long-term, short-term
 Layer 3: Perception processes – e.g. attention, goal-setting
 Layer 4: Action processes – e.g. skills
 Layer 5: Meta-cognitive processes – e.g. categorization, selection
 Layer 6: Meta-inference processes – e.g. induction, analysis
 Layer 7: Higher cognitive processes – e.g. planning, decision
making, learning.
Cognitive Computing
 Interestingly, (Wang, 2009) presents a cognitive computing
model of an Autonomous Agent System based on the LRMB
and defines it as:
 “A composition of distributed agents that possesses autonomous
computing and decision making abilities as well as interactive
communication capability to peers and the environment.”
 In addition, (Wang et al., 2010) presents the collective

perspectives of the cognitive computing in the areas of AI
(Artificial Intelligence), knowledge representation, machine
learning, role-based social computing.
10
Autonomic Communications
 According to (Zseby et al., 2009), Fraunhofer FOKUS institute
established in 2004 a research initiative in autonomic
communications aimed to develop self-* properties for
communication networks.
 In 2004, (Smirnov, 2004) presented the vision of Situated and

Autonomic Communications (SAC) as a “radical paradigm shift
towards a self-organising, self-managing and context-aware
autonomous network – considered in a technological, social and
economic context – to respond to the increasingly high
complexity and demands now being placed on the Internet”.
 (Dobson et al., 2006) defined autonomic communication as “all
these research thrusts involved in a deep foundational
rethinking of communication, networking, and distributed
computing paradigms to face the increasing complexities.”
 The authors argued that these networks will be composed of

devices and services capable to work totallly without human
intervenience, self-configuring, self-monitoring, self-adapting,
self-optimizing and self-healing.
 (Dobson et al., 2006) also contented that context awareness

and semantics are important to improve network operation.
11
 (Clark et al., 2003) addressed the need for a new network
research objective towards more autonomicity: “to build a
different sort of network that can assemble itself given high-level
instructions, reassemble itself as requirements change,
automatically discover when something goes wrong, and
automatically fix a detected problem or explain why it cannot do
so.”
 (Sterrit and Bustard, 2003) work regarding additional self-*

properties to achieve self-management in autonomic computing
(self-awareness, self-situation, self-monitoring and self-
adjustment) has also been adopted in some degree for
autonomic communications.
 *-aware can be seen as a generalization of contextualized
actions in ICT.
 Take for example a service enablement platform. It is said

network-aware if it considers network condition (situation) on its
actions.
 Therefore, SAC means an environment-aware autonomic

network or a network capable to self-situate according to its
environment.
 Contrary, self-awareness can be seen as introspective to the

own node status and capabilities.
12
 (Smirnov et al., 2009) focused in demystifying self-awareness
from the autonomic networking point of view.
 The authors advocate that “self-awareness of autonomic

systems is the only challenge that helps to rigorously and
systematically address” the intricate hierarchy behind autonomic
ICT.
 (Smirnov et al., 2009) claimed that information contextualization

is important to achieve self-situation/self-awareness as well as
to allow sound decisions.
 Self-contextualization mechanisms could be used to determine

in which context some information is relevant.
 The cooperation among autonomic nodes is being pointed to
achieve common objectives and self-management property.
 (Galis et al., 2009) defends that self-awareness is necessary

simultaneously for both computation and communication
resources.
 They propose an increased level of self-awareness, self-

contextualization, self-organization, self-adaptation and context
awareness to obtain the desired self-emergent behavior.
13
 Cross-ETP vision document (Cross-ETP, 2009) argues that if
adequate self-situation occurs, the decisions to be made in the
control loop become evident.
 Thus, the problem of how to achieve self-awareness/self-

situation appears to be very important in autonomic ICT.
 A first glance view of the problem indicates that detailed network

data needs to be collected, filtered using self-contextualization
(or other contextualization) techniques and distributed to the
other cooperating nodes, in the right time.
 Therefore, cooperation among autonomic nodes appears to be
relevant to improve quality and scalability of information
gathering as well as to maintain privacy and security.
 Also, decision-making software often will have to decide without

sound self-awareness and situation awareness.
 (Wang et al., 2010) points out the same problem as being a

subject of recent research in cognitive informatics:
 “The “best” means suboptimal and the most reliable (robust)
solution, given not only limited resources (financial and
environmental) but also incomplete knowledge of the problem and
partial observability of the environment.”
14
 Although there is a historical separation between autonomic
computing and communication, ICT convergence tells us that it
does not make sense to think in both separately – such
convergent effort is being called autonomic ICT.
 The Autonomic Technologies (AT) came to stay and possibly

will be used in ICT convergent solutions and in other areas.
 In summary, “to maximize business potentials and society

wishes while maintaining excellence in quality is a tremendous
challenge for ICT. Therefore, it is clear that we need more
autonomic operation than in actual solutions.” (Alberti, 2010).
 A non exhaustive list of the main applications of autonomicity in
communication networks is:
 Network Management
 Network Control
 Compose-ability of Services and Applications
 Management of Services and Applications
 Traffic Engineering
 Virtual Networks
 Information-Centric Approaches
 Semantic World Wide Web
 Security and Authentication
 Content Distribution
 Grid Computing
 Digital Ecosystems
15
 … and some quite referenced approaches are (1/3):
 FOCALE (Foundation – Observe – Compare – Act – Learn –
rEason)
 ANA (Autonomic Network Architecture)
 AutoI (Autonomic Internet)
 4WARD and SAIL (Scalable and Adaptive Internet Solutions);
 SELF-MAN (Self-Management)
 SELF-NET (Self-Management of Cognitive Future InterNET
Elements)
 E3 (End-to-End Efficiency)
 HAGGLE
 BIONETS (BIOlogically-inspired NETworks and Services)
 CASCADAS (Component-ware for Autonomic, Situation-aware
Communications, And Dynamically Adaptable Services)
 … continuing (2/3):
 SOCRATES (Self-Optimisation and self-ConfiguRATion in
wirelEss networkS)
 EFIPSANS (Exposing the Features in IP version Six
 protocols that can be exploited/extended for the purposes of
 designing/building Autonomic Networks and Services)
 MANA (Management and Service-aware Architectures)
 Akari
 FOKUS NCS (Node Collaboration System)
 OPNEX (Optimization Driven Multihop Network Design and
Experimentation)
 RESUMENET (Resilience and Survivability for Future Networking)
 MOMENT (Monitoring and Measurement in the Next Generation
Technologies)
16
 … continuing (3/3):
 NET-REFOUND
 ECODE (Experimental COgnitive Distributed Engine)
 MAGNETO
 AutHoNe (Autonomic Home Networking)
 SymbioticSphere
 ACCORD
 AUTONOMIA
 4D
 DASADA (Dynamic Assembly of Systems for Adaptability
Dependability and Assurance)
 … and finally, some standardization efforts:
 3GPP/NGMN: Self-Organizing Networks for LTE
 TR 36.902, TR 32.821.
 ETSI: ISG (Industry Specification Group)

 AFI (Autonomic network engineering for the self-managing Future
Internet)
 GANA (Generic Autonomic Networking Architecture)

 “Unifies within a single Holistic Framework, concepts from IBM‐MAPE
Model, 4D model, CONMan, FOCALE, Knowledge Plane for the
Internet, GENI” (Chaparadza, 2010).
 IETF: Autoconf (Ad-Hoc Network Auto-configuration)

 RFC 5889 for IPv6 address self-configuration.
17
Cognitive Radio
 Two very important terms regarding radio evolution are
frequently attributed to Joseph Mitola III:
 Software Defined Radio (SDR) in 1991
 and Cognitive Radio (CR) in 1999;
 A Software Defined Radio (SDR) is a radio where physical layer

signal processing is software-based rather than using dedicated
hardware to handle the signals. It is capable to reconfigure its
parameters and even functionalities.
 A Cognitive Radio uses SDR reconfigurability to assert

operational decisions accordingly to the state of the radio
environment as well as the available physical hardware
capabilities.
Cognitive Radio
 (Haykin, 2005) defined CR as:
 “an intelligent wireless communication system that is aware of its
surrounding environment (i.e., outside world), and uses the
methodology of understanding-by-building to learn from the
environment and adapt its internal states to statistical variations in
the incoming RF stimuli by making corresponding changes in
certain operating parameters (e.g., transmit-power, carrier-
frequency, and modulation strategy) in real-time, with two primary
objectives in mind: highly reliable communications whenever and
wherever needed; efficient utilization of the radio spectrum.”
 ‘…aware of its (…) environment…’  Situation Awareness

 ‘…learn from the environment…’  Gaining Knowledge
 ‘…adapt its internal states…’  Self-adaptation
 ‘…making (…) changes in certain operating parameters…’  Acting
 ‘…understanding-by-building…’  Experimentation
18
Cognitive Radio
 (NSF, 2009) define Cognitive Radio Networks (CRNs) as:
 “networks that can sense their operating environment and adapt
their implementation to achieve the best performance.”
 ‘…sense their operating environment…’  Situation Awareness
 ‘…adapt their implementation…’  Self-adaptation
 (Strassner, 2008) defines CRNs as:

 “networks that can dynamically alter their functionality and/or
topology in accordance with the changing needs of its users,
taking into account current environmental conditions. This
dynamic modification is done in accordance with applicable
business rules and regulatory policies.”
 ‘…can dynamically alter their functionality…’  Self-adaptation
 ‘…accordance with the changing needs of its users…’  User-Aware
 ‘…accordance with applicable business rules…’  Business-Aware
 ‘…accordance with regulatory policies…’  Regulatory-Aware
Cognitive Radio
 CRNs characteristics make them interesting to dynamically
manage access to the radio frequency spectrum.
 Radio spectrum is a key resource for future wireless networks,

mainly because its utilization is low.
 The idea is to share opportunistically the same radio spectrum

between primary and secondary network operators/users.
 “A primary operator is a licensed one, e.g. a cellular telephony

operator, a television operator, etc. A secondary operator can
be authorized to explore dynamically unused frequency bands
(or frequency holes) assigned to primary operators.”, (Alberti,
2010).
19
Cognitive Radio
 CRs must constantly search for new bandwidth opportunities
that could be explored by its radio capabilities (self-awareness).
 When an opportunity is found, a decision must be made

(planning and acting): to use it or not.
 Also, CRs need to monitor their environment (situation-

awareness) in order to detect primary users’ transmissions as
well as other secondary users’ transmissions (co-existence).
 If a primary signal is detected, secondary transmission should

stop to avoid interference.
 Therefore, CRs could cooperate and compete each other.

Cognitive Radio
 Cooperation helps:
 To avoid shadowing areas and other phenomena that can cause
false opportunities detection as well as interference.
 To establish trustable networks in order to improve security.
 To avoid attackers.
 Competition occurs:
 When secondary operators/users co-exist.
 When two or more CR detect the same opportunity.
 Thus, there is a clear dispute of interests between cooperation

and competition in CRNs:
 A design that can accommodate these conflicts and solve them in
a dynamic, adaptive way is a quite interesting approach.
20
Cognitive Radio
 Also, autonomic networking can be very useful to:
 (i) organize the collaborating radios;
 (ii) enable collaborative monitoring of the environment;
 (iii) to improve scheduling considering increasing situation
awareness;
 (iv) to optimize transmission power, coding, etc.;
 (v) to configure physical parameter profiles;
 (vi) to exchange planning and decisions on spectrum holes and
interference, etc;
 (vii) to self-protect CRNs against attacks.
Cognitive Radio
 Cognitive radio networks are pushing wireless networks towards
more dynamic, efficient, autonomous, self-aware, situation-
aware and ubiquitous networks.
 CR is becoming a general research term for radio technology

and its influence is already being presented in Future Internet
proposals, such as E3, HAGGLE, BIONETS, AKARI, OneFIT.
 However, research on Future Internet and Cognitive Radio are

still very disjointed. Greater integration is needed.
21
Autonomic versus Cognitive
 According to Wikipedia, in human biology:
 Autonomic Nervous System:
 “is the part of the peripheral nervous system that acts as a control
system functioning largely below the level of consciousness.”
 Human Cognition:
 “human cognition is the study of how the human brain thinks” and
therefore involves some kind of consciousness .
 (Kephart and Chess, 2001) original idea of autonomic

computing is inspired on the biological nervous system:
 “The idea is that built-in regulatory mechanisms in the body that
require no conscious thought can suggest the construction of
mechanisms that will likewise enable a computer system to
become self-managing.”
Autonomic versus Cognitive

 (Strassner, 2008) defends that “the autonomic nervous system
and the brain in human body are the ‘management plane’ and
‘inference plane’, respectively (…)”.
 According to him, autonomic deals with involuntary, basic, time-

consuming functioning aimed to safely automate imperative
functioning, while cognitive is related to “higher level, more
complex system-wide functions.”
22
References
 Kephart JO, Chess DM (2003) The Vision of Autonomic
Computing. IEEE Computer Magazine 36(1):41-50.
 Dobson S, Sterritt R, Nixon P, Hinchey M (2010) Fulfilling the

Vision of Autonomic Computing. Computer Magazine 43(1):35-
41;
 Clark D, Partridge C, Ramming J, Wroclawski J (2003) A

Knowledge Plane for the Internet. Proc. of the Conference on
Applications, Technologies, Architectures, and Protocols for
Computer Comm., Karlsruhe, Germany;
 Smirnov M (2004) Autonomic Communication: Research

Agenda for a New Communications Paradigm. Fraunhofer
FOKUS technical Report;
References
 Dobson S, Denazis S, Fernández A, Gaïti D, Gelenbe E,
Massacci F, Nixon P, Saffre F, Schmidt N, Zambonelli F, (2006)
A Survey of Autonomic Communications. ACM Transactions on
Autonomous and Adaptive Systems 1(2):223-259.
 Sterritt R, Bustard D W, (2003), Autonomic Computing—A

Means of Achieving Dependability?, Proc. 10th IEEE Int’l Conf.
and Workshop on the Eng. of Computer-Based Systems
(ECBS 2003), IEEE Press:247-251.
 Chaparadza R, (2010), Can Autonomicity help Migration, and

what could be a possible Evolution Path?, FIA‐GHENT:
Migration Session, December 2010.
23
References
 Strassner J, (2008) The Role of Autonomic Networking in
Cognitive Networks, Cognitive Networks: Towards Self-Aware
Networks. John Wiley and Sons, Book Chapter 23-52.
24

Adaptability, Autonomicity, Self-, - Aware and Manageability

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Adaptability, Autonomicity, Self-, - Aware and Manageability

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Adaptability, Autonomicity, Self-*, *-Aware and

Antônio Marcos Alberti

© Antônio M. Alberti 2011

© Antônio M. Alberti 2011

 Autonomic – “Goal-driven and self-decision-driven technologies

 Cognitive – “Implements computational intelligence by

© Antônio M. Alberti 2011

 Moreover, the speed of technological change has required more

 In this scenario, to implement, integrate, install, configure and

© Antônio M. Alberti 2011

 “Computing systems’ complexity appears to be approaching the

© Antônio M. Alberti 2011

 The idea is to reduce human interference in system’s OAM,

 (Strassner, 2008) defends that “(…) complexity is everywhere.

© Antônio M. Alberti 2011

 Self-Optimization - To optimize proactively system resources and

 Self-Healing - To detect, diagnose and repair localized problems

 Self-Protection - To defend against attackers, threads or cascade

© Antônio M. Alberti 2011

 European Commission Report on Future and Emerging

© Antônio M. Alberti 2011

 Each autonomic manager can be responsible for the self-

© Antônio M. Alberti 2011

 Such control loop was named Monitor-Analyze-Plan-Execute-

Autonomic Manager Structure of an

© Antônio M. Alberti 2011

 (Dobson et al., 2010) points this as one of the most notable

 Taking an opposite path, (Clark et al., 2003) have proposed to

 Also according to (Dobson et al, 2010), this idea influenced

 The autonomous system must then be aware of their skills,

© Antônio M. Alberti 2011

© Antônio M. Alberti 2011

 Self-Stabilization – “A system is self-stabilizing if, (1) starting

 Self-Optimization – A system is capable to self-optimize if it can

© Antônio M. Alberti 2011

 Self-Scaling – Refers to the ability to maintain or improve the

© Antônio M. Alberti 2011

 (EURESCOM, 2009) report addresses autonomic computing

 The study concludes that the autonomic solutions are being

© Antônio M. Alberti 2011

 The document also points out the importance of standardization,

© Antônio M. Alberti 2011

 Commercial web application servers – IBM Websphere 6.1 XD™,

 Cloud computing - Applied Autonomics, iwave Software,

 Device healthcare – HandsFree Networks.

 This model has exactly 43 process divided into seven layers:

© Antônio M. Alberti 2011

 In addition, (Wang et al., 2010) presents the collective

© Antônio M. Alberti 2011

 In 2004, (Smirnov, 2004) presented the vision of Situated and

© Antônio M. Alberti 2011

 The authors argued that these networks will be composed of

 (Dobson et al., 2006) also contented that context awareness

© Antônio M. Alberti 2011

 (Sterrit and Bustard, 2003) work regarding additional self-*

© Antônio M. Alberti 2011

 Take for example a service enablement platform. It is said

 Therefore, SAC means an environment-aware autonomic

 Contrary, self-awareness can be seen as introspective to the

© Antônio M. Alberti 2011

 The authors advocate that “self-awareness of autonomic

 (Smirnov et al., 2009) claimed that information contextualization

 Self-contextualization mechanisms could be used to determine

Adaptability, Autonomicity, Self-, -Aware and