-In the current system such adapters, in principle, can be written as
-\glspl{SDS}\footnote{Similar as to resources such as time are available in
-the current \gls{iTasks} implementation} but this requires a very specific
-adapter to be written for every device and function. However, this forces
-a fixed logic in the device that is set at compile time. A lot of the small
-\gls{IoT} devices have limited processing power but can still contain decision
-making. Oortgiese et al.\ lifted \gls{iTasks} from a single server model to a
-distributed server architecture that is also runnable on smaller devices like
-\acrshort{ARM} devices\cite{oortgiese_distributed_2017}. However, this is
-limited to fairly high performance devices that are equipped with high speed
-communication channels. Devices in \gls{IoT} often have only \gls{LTN}
-communication with low bandwidth and a very limited amount of processing power
-and are therefore not suitable to run an entire \gls{iTasks} core.
+In the current system such adapters connecting devices to \gls{iTasks} --- in
+principle --- can be written as \glspl{SDS}\footnote{Similar as to resources
+such as time are available in the current \gls{iTasks} implementation}.
+However, this
+requires a very specific adapter to be written for every device and function.
+This forces a fixed logic in the device that is set at compile time. Many
+small \gls{IoT} devices have limited processing power but can still contain
+decision making. Oortgiese et al.\ lifted \gls{iTasks} from a single server
+model to a distributed server architecture that is also runnable on small
+devices such as those powered by \acrshort{ARM}~\cite{%
+oortgiese_distributed_2017}. However, this is limited to fairly high
+performance devices that are equipped with high speed communication channels.
+Devices in \gls{IoT} often have only \gls{LTN} communication with low bandwidth
+and a very limited amount of processing power and are therefore not suitable to
+run an entire \gls{iTasks} core.