Page Comparison

An annotated bibliography is a list of citations to books, articles, and documents. Each citation is followed by a brief (usually about 150 words) descriptive and evaluative paragraph, the annotation. The purpose of the annotation is to inform the reader of the relevance, accuracy, and quality of the sources cited. Cornell University Library

Contributors: Please consider adding entries to this annotated bibliography (AB) as you read and research articles. This AB will serve as a reference for papers and presentations we collaborate on together and as individuals. APA style.

...

Allen, D., Berg, C., Davidson, S., Noval, M., & Potts, J. (2019, May). International policy coordination for blockchain supply chains. Asia & the Pacific Policy Studies, https://doi.org/10.1002/app5.281 | Full text

This document begins by introducing the historical evolution of global trade, and the developments of the standardized shipping container and global trade coordinating bodies. Authors point out that these occurrences allowed economical trade progression to occur, and explain how this supported trade cost reductions, as their implementations were directly correlated with reduced transportation costs and regulatory costs. It is then illustrated that information costs are a current hindrance to favorable trade costs, and that blockchain technology could resolve the issue.

...

Christidis, K., Devetsikotis, M. (2016 May). Blockchains and Smart Contracts for the Internet of Things. IEEE Access, https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/7467408 | Full Text

This paper starts off with one of the better high-level overviews of blockchain technology that I have read. The authors provide a great explanation of the basics around networking, protocols, smart contracts, and more. Following this overview, they discuss the benefits and challenges of using blockchain alongside IoT technology. A few real-world examples are discussed such as Slock.it, a company that allows users to control access to a smart lock by paying in Ether. The last section of the paper discusses some important deployment considerations that any administers of a blockchain network should consider.

...

Junis, F., Prasteya, F.M.W., Lubay, F.I., & Sari, A.K. (2019 June). A revisit on blockchain-based smart contract technology. https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1907/1907.09199.pdf | Full text

Authors open their discussion by explaining that blockchain has grown from digital currency to smart contract utilization by a wide range scope of industries. It is then brought to light that, with this change, there is an issue of blockchain smart contract research not being collocated for concentrated review by experts, and it is proclaimed that this document will explore research gap issues related to this.

...

When comparing to other sources, this one does provide a reliable source. Information and data that is presented is all backed up with additional sources that are also credible. The information presented is neutral and not biased and is being presented as an improvement. The author does not appear to have any reason for the supply chain management to be utilized in either format.

MellMacrinici, PD., DrayCartofeanu, JC., & ShookGao, JS. (20192018 October). Smart contract federated identity management without third party authentication services. applications within blockchain technology: a systematic mapping study. Telematics and Informatics, 35, 2337-2354. https://arxivdoi.org/abs/1906.11057 full text

This document discusses the use of an identity management system (IDMS) and utilizing a smart contract on a blockchain. The purpose is to eliminate the use of third-party authentication to reduce cost to the user and to enhance the security. It allows for a user to have a single login authentication source for multiple uses. Sections of the document break down the IDMS contract and how it is to be utilized with the contract.

It is mentioned several times throughout the document that this is a conceptual design but use strong references to back up the theory on how this can be used. By referencing whitepapers and Sovrin.org, the authors provide a strong sense of reliability on the information that is provided. The source seems to be neutral with only leaning towards the idea that the information being used for access should be controlled and owned by the user and not by the third-party companies, however, this is due more to the topic than the authors’ writing style.

Prause, G., & Boevsky, I. (2019). Smart contracts for smart rural supply chains. Bulgarian Journal of Agricultural Science, 25 (No 3), 454-463. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333798861_Smart_contracts_for_smart_rural_supply_chains | Full text

The paper discusses how smart contracts and blockchain technology can be applied to smart rural supply chains and what new business models for rural companies can look like. The authors, from Bulgaria and Estonia, describe rural challenges that mirror the challenges in the rural community I live in, in California. The reference to IoT as delivery robots was not expected, although the interpretation is interesting and references to 'big ag' ring true.

The authors do not discuss implementation details; however, they offer intriguing ideas. They view the biggest opportunity of blockchain technology and smart contracts in the rural supply chain sector in the restructuring of agricultural commodity trading markets. They note 'big ag' domination allows them to dictate the rules and processes in the agriculture sector, often managed with their own IT systems and organizational structures. Smart contracts can, for example, work to consolidate and organize transportation systems with a trusted and automated execution of transactions with safeguarded information and money streams.

I recommend this article as informative and relevant for rural logistics considerations and challenges.

Sato, T., Himura, Y., & Nemoto, J. (2019 January). Design and evaluation of smart-contract-based system operations for permissioned blockchain-based systems. https://arxiv.org/abs/1901.11249 - Full text

This document is about a possible method for designing smart-contract-based systems and the way they operate. It is discussed that cross-platform Blockchain is not the best or smoothest possible way of evaluating the contract but instead they utilize what they call in-blockchain and out-blockchain with the out being third parties that have systems designed to detect triggered events. According to the document, this triggering will allow for a faster response with times as low as 3 seconds. They determined that this was due to a single system not having to manage all nodes but only parts of the nodes and bringing the information back to where it is required and that with the triggering, it does not rely on human interaction and can be automatically done.

The information provided in this document seems to have been tested and is not just a theory. Times and tracking have actual case studies that provided the data which makes them more than just estimates. The systems that are demonstrated are also reliable in that they do exist in real world scenarios and are also not theory designed systems that may or may not actually work.

With good demonstrations and graphics, this document will assist people in deciding what resources and what parts of a system to place in blockchain and what parts do not need to be. By providing the actual scenarios, it gives good examples of strong and weak systems that can be used.

Wang, X., Yang, W., Noor, S., Chen, C., Guo, M., & van Dam, K.H. (2019). Blockchain-based smart contract for energy demand management. Energy Procedia, 158, 2719-2724. Retrieved from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1876610219311063

This paper discusses the feasibility of a system of automated trading of power resources utilizing blockchain as the trading medium. The authors present the different electrical demand profiles of residential, commercial and industrial users and propose a game theory model which aligns the goals of all users to reduce their load, thereby saving money. In addition to the demand being requested through the blockchain to the utility provider, they present a case study in which users in a microgrid can make spot-trades based on changing needs on a daily basis.

The authors received financial support for the project through a grant provided by the Ministry of Education Academic Research Fund of Singapore. The authors are very credible on the subject as some of them have several other publications on the same subject matter. The source is neutral in its presentation of both the current stated of blockchain ability to support the ideas presented, as well as the challenges that will be faced. They even note the limitations the current infrastructure that will limit the adoption of the ideas presented.

This source is very helpful because it tackles a subject which is assumed to be best managed by large utilities and governments. It gives a new perspective that the users in a system will best manage demand when given the ability to make choices and save money. The idea of placing smart contracts with demand into an open market to be filled by those that have excess can be helpful in many different projects.

Wang, Y., Bracciali, A., Li, T., Li, F., Cui, X., & Zhao, M. (2019) Randomness invalidates criminal smart contracts. Information Sciences, 477, 291-301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2018.10.057

This paper discusses the use of random factors based on PublicLeaks to minimize the ability of those using smart contracts for criminal activities. While it talks of the mitigation of criminal acts via smart contracts it does not give guarantees, but instead looks at them from a risk management viewpoint.

Much of the paper works upon the idea of entering additional factors such randomness. While this may prove somewhat effective the statement of, “As with real-world crimes, CSCs are not as powerful as assumed.” Is not an overly realistic view. Another statement concerning machine learning as an additional method for ferreting out criminal activities and disallowing their usage of the system is actually a far more effective and realistic method for control.

This source has helped me with a better understanding of both sides concerning both legal and illegal applications of smart contracts. While the authors believe in the usage of smart contracts as a way to improve trust in blockchain transactions via adding randomness, they also feel more must be done to ensure their legitimate non-criminal usage.

Westerkamp, J., Victor, F., & Küpper. (2019 January). Tracing manufacturing processes using blockchain-based token compositions. Digital Communications and Networks, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcan.2019.01.007 | Full text

This paper discusses the current traceability that exists in modern supply chains as well as the mechanisms that provide provenance in both manufacturing and high value goods. The authors contend that in today's world, there is more demand by consumers to not only know the source of the end product, but also the source of its components. The authors propose a prototypical implementation of a supply chain traceability system that models the manufacturing process as token recipes. These recipes take source tokens as inputs to make a completed product.

The authors all have a multitude of publications and are fro the University of Berlin. Based on the subject matter of the other publications, they seem highly credible to weigh in on this topic. The source is neutral in its presentation of both the current stated of manufacturing traceability as well as in the presentation of their solution.

This source would be extremely helpful in the implementation of a traceability system in any manufacturing which requires the knowledge of the source of components that make up a finished product. The examples that were given were clear and can aid in implementing of any manufacturing project.

Zakhary, V., Agrawal, D., & El Abbadi, A. (2019 September). Transactional smart contracts in blockchain systems. https://arxiv.org/abs/1909.06494v1 | Full text

By detailing the incongruities within smart contract programming efforts, authors introduce the concept of the Transactional Smart Contract (TXSC) framework as a resolution. Issues of concurrency control and isolation anomalies are defined in the paper concerning the two circumstantial blockchain occurrences of Single Domain Transactional Functions (SDTF) and Cross-Domain Distributed Transactional Functions (CDTF).

Specific program examples of these problems are cited and impartially reviewed, with detailed explanations given of blockchain processes as they are unraveled to explore solutions. The article goes on to explain the role of the Database Management System (DBMS) to support ACID (atomic, consistent, isolated, and durable) properties within a blockchain, and how the TXSC framework can supplement this process to resolve complications through the implementation of proper transactional semantics.

With proof of concept (PoC) examples referenced, I found this writing to be enlightening as to the need for comprehensive semantics and framework standardization requirements for blockchain transactions. It appears the practices detailed are likely applicable within actualized use-case scenarios. As a whole, the report seems to be geared toward examination by those with intermediate and advanced knowledge of blockchain transactional application but could be followed by a layman within minimal research into the subject.

Annotated Bibliography - Example format

2 to 4 sentences to summarize the main idea(s) of the source.
- What are the main arguments?
- What is the point of this book/article?
- What topics are covered?
1 or 2 sentences to assess and evaluate the source.
- How does it compare with other sources in your bibliography?
- Is this information reliable?
- Is the source objective or biased?
1 or 2 sentences to reflect on the source.
- Was this source helpful to you?
- How can you use this source for your research project?
- Has it changed how you think about your topic?

Links to articles for possible inclusion and addition, please read articles of interest and create associated annotations.

Brammertz, W., & Mendelowitz, A.I. (2017 September). From digital currencies to digital finance: the case for a smart financial contract standard. The Journal of Risk Finance, 19 (1), 76-92. https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/JRF-02-2017-0025/full/html

Full text

Hartel, P., & Schumi, R. (2019 September. Gas limit aware mutation testing of smart contracts at scale. https://fr.arxiv.org/abs/1909.12563

Full text

Liu, X., Muhammad, K., Lloret, J., Chen, Y., Yuan, S. (2019). Elastic and cost-effective carrier architecture for smart contract in blockchain. Future Generation Computer Systems, 100, 590-599. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.future.2019.05.042

Full text

Macrinici, D., Cartofeanu, C., & Gao, S. (2018 October). Smart contract applications within blockchain technology: a systematic mapping study. Telematics and Informatics, 35, 2337-2354. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2018.10.004

Full text

Siris, V.A., Dimopoulos, D., Fotiou, N., Voulgaris, S., & Polyzos, G.C. (2019 May). Interledger smart contracts for decentralized authorization to constrained things. https://arxiv.org/abs/1905.01671

Full text

Yoo, M., & Won, Y. (2018 November). A study on the transparent price tracing system in supply chain management based on blockchain. Sustainability 2018, 10 (4037), https://doi:10.3390/su10114037 10.1016/j.tele.2018.10.004

The authors chose to look at a collection of sixty-four different studies done concerning the usage of smart contracts in blockchain technology. The systematic mapping study was designed to offer a broader perspective that focused on trends, methods and approaches.

According to the authors the most common issue relating to smart contracts themselves revolves around the programmability of the smart contracts. The study also attempts to identify smart contract research gaps such as scalability, performance issues and the lack of studies outside of the Ethereum platform.

The takeaway for me was the combination of factors involving security and privacy. This has been an issue that I have seen repeatedly in my research into blockchain technology and smart contracts in particular. More research needs to be put into place regarding the real world usage of smart contracts.

Mell, P., Dray, J., & Shook, J. (2019). Smart contract federated identity management without third party authentication services. https://arxiv.org/abs/1906.11057 full text

This document discusses the use of an identity management system (IDMS) and utilizing a smart contract on a blockchain. The purpose is to eliminate the use of third-party authentication to reduce cost to the user and to enhance the security. It allows for a user to have a single login authentication source for multiple uses. Sections of the document break down the IDMS contract and how it is to be utilized with the contract.

It is mentioned several times throughout the document that this is a conceptual design but use strong references to back up the theory on how this can be used. By referencing whitepapers and Sovrin.org, the authors provide a strong sense of reliability on the information that is provided. The source seems to be neutral with only leaning towards the idea that the information being used for access should be controlled and owned by the user and not by the third-party companies, however, this is due more to the topic than the authors’ writing style.

Prause, G., & Boevsky, I. (2019). Smart contracts for smart rural supply chains. Bulgarian Journal of Agricultural Science, 25 (No 3), 454-463. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333798861_Smart_contracts_for_smart_rural_supply_chains | Full text

The paper discusses how smart contracts and blockchain technology can be applied to smart rural supply chains and what new business models for rural companies can look like. The authors, from Bulgaria and Estonia, describe rural challenges that mirror the challenges in the rural community I live in, in California. The reference to IoT as delivery robots was not expected, although the interpretation is interesting and references to 'big ag' ring true.

The authors do not discuss implementation details; however, they offer intriguing ideas. They view the biggest opportunity of blockchain technology and smart contracts in the rural supply chain sector in the restructuring of agricultural commodity trading markets. They note 'big ag' domination allows them to dictate the rules and processes in the agriculture sector, often managed with their own IT systems and organizational structures. Smart contracts can, for example, work to consolidate and organize transportation systems with a trusted and automated execution of transactions with safeguarded information and money streams.

I recommend this article as informative and relevant for rural logistics considerations and challenges.

Sato, T., Himura, Y., & Nemoto, J. (2019 January). Design and evaluation of smart-contract-based system operations for permissioned blockchain-based systems. https://arxiv.org/abs/1901.11249 - Full text

This document is about a possible method for designing smart-contract-based systems and the way they operate. It is discussed that cross-platform Blockchain is not the best or smoothest possible way of evaluating the contract but instead they utilize what they call in-blockchain and out-blockchain with the out being third parties that have systems designed to detect triggered events. According to the document, this triggering will allow for a faster response with times as low as 3 seconds. They determined that this was due to a single system not having to manage all nodes but only parts of the nodes and bringing the information back to where it is required and that with the triggering, it does not rely on human interaction and can be automatically done.

The information provided in this document seems to have been tested and is not just a theory. Times and tracking have actual case studies that provided the data which makes them more than just estimates. The systems that are demonstrated are also reliable in that they do exist in real world scenarios and are also not theory designed systems that may or may not actually work.

With good demonstrations and graphics, this document will assist people in deciding what resources and what parts of a system to place in blockchain and what parts do not need to be. By providing the actual scenarios, it gives good examples of strong and weak systems that can be used.

Siris, V.A., Dimopoulos, D., Fotiou, N., Voulgaris, S., & Polyzos, G.C. (2019 May). Interledger smart contracts for decentralized authorization to constrained things. https://arxiv.org/abs/1905.01671 | Full text

After discussing various negative tradeoff issues concerning the offloading of blockchain smart contract authorization from constrained Internet of Thing (IoT) devices to a single authorization server (i.e. execution costs, delays, data reduction), authors state their ambition of presenting designs that more effectively perform this task instead utilizing multiple authorization servers (AS). The stated intention for resolving these tradeoffs is to exemplify constrained IoT device interconnection using a decentralized authorization method with multiple blockchains that constitute two interledger mechanisms.

The level of deliberation appears to be meant for those that have already obtained intermediate to advanced knowledge of blockchain, smart contracts, and constrained IoT devices. However, with some additional research, a reader with novice awareness of these subjects would be able to follow and learn more about the aspects of the presented issue. Further, despite a compelling presentation and references listed at the end of the writing, my attention was drawn to the lack of cited sources listed in the article. This absence was initially noted upon reading the Introduction section, which proposed claims of high computation costs, transaction fees, and delays that occur with the utilization of Ethereum as Bitcoin.

I did find the report to be educational as to the various processes involved while implementing blockchain smart contracts in conjunction with constrained IoT devices. What’s more, is I have been persuaded that experimenting with the interconnection of multiple blockchains to improve smart contract efficiency is a worthy pursuit.