# Authorization Mechanism Based on Blockchain Technology for Protecting Museum-Digital Property Rights

^{1}

^{2}

^{3}

^{4}

^{*}

## Abstract

**:**

## Featured Application

## Abstract

## 1. Introduction

- Direct authorization model of museum digitized collections

- 2
- Proxy authorization model of museum digitized collections

- 3
- Comprehensive authorization model for museum digital collections

- (a)
- In the 20th century, international museums and governments, based on the mission of preservation and promotion of cultural policies to protect cultural resources, implemented digital plans for various museum collections, so that museums can share digital resources, which will not only help to promote social education, but also benefit the operation of museums.
- (b)
- Under the guidance of the “activation and reproduction” thinking, this research uses a “digital authorization” model for museums to provide online users with information and increase financial resources to become a sustainable development of museum operations.

## 2. Preliminary

#### 2.1. Smart Contract

#### 2.2. ECDSA

^{80}operations to find the private key), the size of an ECDSA public key would be 160 bits, whereas the size of a DSA public key is at least 1024 bits. On the other hand, the signature size is the same for both DSA and ECDSA: Approximately 4t bits, where t is the security level measured in bits; that is, about 320 bits for a security level of 80 bits.

#### 2.3. Bilinear Pairings

- (a)
- Bilinearity: $e(aP,bQ)=e{(P,Q)}^{ab}$, $P,Q\in {G}_{1}$, $a,b\in {Z}_{q}$.
- (b)
- Non-degeneracy: There exists $P,Q\in {G}_{1}$ such that $e(P,Q)\ne 1$, in other words, the map does not send all pairs in ${G}_{1}\ast {G}_{1}$ to the identity in ${G}_{2}$.
- (c)
- Computability: There is an efficient algorithm to compute $e(P,Q)$, $P,Q\in {G}_{1}$.

#### 2.4. Proxy Re-Encryption

- (a)
- System parameter establishment

- (b)
- Key generation

- (c)
- Alice encrypts the plaintext m:
- ${P}_{m}$ is the embedding message, which is calculated by $f(m)$: ${P}_{m}=f(m)$;
- generate an arbitrary number $r\in {Z}_{n}{}^{\ast}$ and output the ciphertext $({C}_{1},{C}_{2})=(raG,r{G}^{2}+{P}_{m})$;
- send the ciphertext (${C}_{1},{C}_{2}$) to the proxy.

- (d)
- Generation of the re-encryption key:
- Alice wants to authorize the information to Bob such that Bob can decrypt the ciphertext; Alice sends the proxy key ${\pi}_{A\to B}=bG/a$ to the proxy.
- The semi-honest agent proxy re-encrypts the ciphertext (${C}_{1},{C}_{2}$) into (${C}_{1}{}^{\prime},{C}_{2}{}^{\prime}$) and sends it to Bob.

- (e)
- Re-encryption process:
- For the ciphertext $({C}_{1},{C}_{2})=(raG,r{G}^{2}+{P}_{m})$, the proxy uses the re-encryption key to re-encrypt (${C}_{1},{C}_{2}$) into (${C}_{1}{}^{\prime},{C}_{2}{}^{\prime}$).
- (${C}_{1}{}^{\prime},{C}_{2}{}^{\prime}$)
- =$(raG{\pi}_{A\to B},r{G}^{2}+{P}_{m})$
- =$(raGbG/a,r{G}^{2}+{P}_{m})$
- =$(rb{G}^{2},r{G}^{2}+{P}_{m})$

- The proxy sends the converted ciphertext $({C}_{1}{}^{\prime},{C}_{2}{}^{\prime})=(rb{G}^{2},r{G}^{2}+{P}_{m})$ to Bob.

- (f)
- Bob decrypts the ciphertext:
- Bob can decrypt the embedding message ${P}_{m}$ with key $b$:${P}_{m}$ = ${C}_{2}{}^{\prime}-{b}^{-1}{C}_{1}{}^{\prime}$;
- then apply the inverse of the function $f$ to get the original message $m$ from ${P}_{m}$: $m={f}^{-1}({P}_{m})$.

## 3. Method

#### 3.1. System Architecture

- (a)
- Museum (M): The museum is the owner of the digital content. The museum collects the cultural relics and is responsible for the generation and management of the museum’s digital content resource. The digital content resource is classified and protected by the museum.
- (b)
- Content Administrator (CA): The CA is a cloud platform of the museum. It is responsible for reviewing the Licensee’s request to determine ‘allow or not’ to access the digital content resource.
- (c)
- Licensee (L): When citizens or institutions want to access the digital content resource of the museum, the Licensee should pay a premium to the museum.
- (d)
- Blockchain Center (BCC): This center records the access information of the digital right resource for the Licensee. The BCC accepts the parties’ registration and issues the identity certificate and public/private key pair to each party.
- (e)
- Proxy (P): The proxy is an agency of the museum. After CA authenticates the Licensee’s identity, P is responsible for actually cloud authorization for the Licensee to access the museum’s digital content resource.
- (f)
- Bank (B): Bank is authorized by a Licensee to pay a premium to the museum.We briefly illustrate the scenarios in the following steps.

- Step 1: Registration phase:

- Step 2: Digital content production phase:

- Step 3: Authentication phase and issuing invoice phase:

- Step 4: Payment phase:

- Step 5: Digital content browsing phase:

#### 3.2. Smart Contract Initialization

#### 3.3. Registration Phase

- Step 1: Role X generates an identity $I{D}_{X}$, and sends it to the Blockchain Center.
- Step 2: The Blockchain center generates an ECDSA private key ${d}_{X}$ based on the role X, calculates:

- Step 3: The role X stores $({d}_{X},{Q}_{X},P{K}_{X},S{K}_{X},Cer{t}_{X})$.

#### 3.4. Digital Content Production Phase

- Step 1: Content Administrator (CA) collects cultural relics in a systematic and planned way according to the categories of different collections. CA also uses information technology to convert the collected media data into a form that can be stored, processed, and edited.
- Step 2: CA encrypts these encoded multimedia data with KeyID and Seed, organizes and categorizes each digitized archive resource, and records the data description of the archive itself, as an annotation explanation for the archive itself and various media materials, as well as an indexing tool for users to inquire.
- Step 3: Through the overall planning of the collection environment, a suitable information system can be constructed, and the functions of digital data preservation and management can be achieved through the operation of the system. When a Licensee wants to access these multimedia materials, it must first obtain legal authorization from the Content Administrator (CA).
- Step 4: The CA will provide the Licensee with an authorization key; the Licensee can use the authorization key to unlock the information provided by the CA and get a decryption key, which can be used to obtain the plaintext of multimedia messages. The details will be introduced in the following phase.

#### 3.5. Authentication and Issuing Invoice Phase

#### 3.5.1. Case 1: Direct Authorization

- Step 1: The Licensee generates a random value ${k}_{L-M}$, calculates:

_{L}is encrypted to check integrity. The second ID

_{L}is to show the Licensee’s identity to the content administrator.

- Step 2: The Content Administrator first calculates:

- Step 3: The Licensee first calculates:

#### 3.5.2. Case 2: Proxy Authorization

- Step 1: The Licensee generates a random value ${k}_{L-A}$, calculates:

- Step 2: The proxy first calculates:

- Step 3: The proxy generates a random value ${k}_{A-M}$ and calculates:

- Step 4: The CA first calculates:

- Step 5: The CA generates a random value ${k}_{M-A}$ and calculates:

- Step 6: The proxy first calculates:

- Step 7: The proxy generates a random value ${k}_{A-L}$ and calculates:

- Step 8: The Licensee first calculates:

#### 3.6. Payment Verification and Browsing Phase

#### 3.6.1. Case 1: Direct Authorization

- Step 1: The Licensee generates a random value ${k}_{L-C}$, calculates:

- Step 2: The CA first calculates:

- Step 3: The Licensee first calculates:

#### 3.6.2. Case 2: Proxy Authorization

- Step 1: The Licensee generates a random value ${k}_{L-P}$, calculates:

- Step 2: The Proxy first calculates:

- Step 3: The Proxy then generates a random value ${k}_{P-C}$ and calculates:

- Step 4: The CA first calculates:

- Step 5: The content administrator generates a random value ${k}_{C-P}$ and calculates:

- Step 6: The Proxy first calculates:

- Step 7: The Proxy generates a random value ${k}_{P-L}$ and calculates:

- Step 8: The Licensee first calculates:

## 4. Analysis

#### 4.1. Verifiable

#### 4.2. Trustless

#### 4.3. Unforgery

#### 4.4. Traceable

#### 4.5. Non-Repudiation

#### 4.6. Data Format Standardization

#### 4.7. Timeliness

#### 4.8. Decentralization/Distribution

#### 4.9. Sustainability

## 5. Discussions and Comparisons

#### 5.1. Computation Cost

#### 5.2. Communication Cost

#### 5.3. Comparison

## 6. Conclusions and Future Works

## Author Contributions

## Funding

## Informed Consent Statement

## Data Availability Statement

## Conflicts of Interest

## Abbreviations

q | A k-bit prime number |

GF(q) | Finite group q |

E | The elliptic curve defined on finite group q |

G | A generating point based on the elliptic curve E |

ID_{x} | A name representing identity x |

k_{x} | A random value on elliptic curve |

(r_{x}, s_{x}) | Elliptic curve signature value of x |

M_{x-y} | A message from x to y |

ID_{BC} | An index value of blockchain message |

BC_{x} | Blockchain message of x |

PK_{X}/SK_{X} | An asymmetric public/private key |

E_{PKX}(M) | Use X’s public key PKx to encrypt the message M |

D_{SKX}(M) | Use X’s private key SKx to decrypt the message M |

TID | The transaction identity |

ID_{DC} | An identity of digital content |

key_{m} | Asymmetric key containing KeyID and Seed |

Cert_{x} | A digital certificate of x conforms to the X.509 standard |

h(.) | Hash function |

$A\stackrel{?}{=}B$ | Verify whether A is equal to B |

## References

- Parry, R. Recoding the Museum: Digital Heritage and the Technologies of Change; Routledge: London, UK, 2007; pp. 58–81. [Google Scholar]
- Fenton, R. Photographer of the 1850s; South Bank: London, UK, 1988. [Google Scholar]
- The Getty Foundation. Available online: https://www.getty.edu/foundation/initiatives/current/osci/ (accessed on 30 November 2020).
- Creative Economy Report 2010. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. Available online: https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/ditctab20103_en.pdf (accessed on 23 January 2021).
- Chiou, S.-C.; Wang, Y.-C. The example application of genetic algorithm for the framework of cultural and creative brand design in Tamsui Historical Museum. Soft Comput.
**2018**, 22, 2527–2545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - UNESCO. Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage. 2003. Available online: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0013/001325/132540e.pdf (accessed on 30 November 2020).
- Chang, C.-W.; Wang, S.-I.; Yang, C.-J.; Shao, K.-T. Fish fauna in subtidal waters adjacent to the National Museum of Marine Biology and Aquarium. P1atax
**2011**, 8, 41–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Liu, M.-C. Image management procedures of the National Museum of Marine Biology and Aquarium. Museol. Q.
**2013**, 27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - ARTouch Editorial Department. The Epidemic Is Not Far Away: 1/3 of the US Museums May Be Permanently Closed, and Japanese Exhibitions with No Works. Available online: https://artouch.com/news/content-12951.html (accessed on 26 November 2020).
- Chen, H.Y.; Wang, H.A.; Lin, C.L. Using watermarks and offline DRM to protect digital images in DIAS. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Theory and Practice of Digital Libraries; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2007; pp. 529–531. [Google Scholar]
- Thomas, T.; Emmanuel, S.; Subramanyam, A.V.; Kankanhalli, M.S. Joint watermarking scheme for multiparty multilevel DRM architecture. IEEE Trans. Inf. Forensics Secur.
**2009**, 4, 758–767. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Tsai, M.J.; Luo, Y.F. Service-oriented grid computing system for digital rights management (GC-DRM). Expert Syst. Appl.
**2009**, 36, 10708–10726. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Chen, C.L. A secure and traceable E-DRM system based on mobile device. Expert Syst. Appl.
**2008**, 35, 878–886. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Chen, C.L. An all-in-one mobile DRM system design. Int. J. Innov. Comput. Inf. Control
**2010**, 6, 897–911. [Google Scholar] - Chen, C.L.; Tsaur, W.J.; Chen, Y.Y.; Chang, Y.C. A secure mobile DRM system based on cloud architecture. Comput. Sci. Inf. Syst.
**2014**, 11, 925–941. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Hassan, H.E.R.; Tahoun, M.; ElTaweel, G.S. A robust computational DRM framework for protecting multimedia contents using AES and ECC. Alex. Eng. J.
**2020**, 59, 1275–1286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Zhao, B.; Fang, L.; Zhang, H.; Ge, C.; Meng, W.; Liu, L.; Su, C. Y-DWMS: A digital watermark management system based on smart contracts. Sensors
**2019**, 19, 3091. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Ma, Z.; Jiang, M.; Gao, H.; Wang, Z. Blockchain for digital rights management. Future Gener. Comput. Syst.
**2018**, 89, 746–764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Vishwa, A.; Hussain, F.K. A blockchain based approach for multimedia privacy protection and provenance. In Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE Symposium Series on Computational Intelligence (SSCI), Bengaluru, India, 18–21 November 2018; pp. 1941–1945. [Google Scholar]
- Ma, Z.; Huang, W.; Bi, W.; Gao, H.; Wang, Z. A master-slave blockchain paradigm and application in digital rights management. China Commun.
**2018**, 15, 174–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Ma, Z.; Huang, W.; Gao, H. Secure DRM scheme based on Blockchain with high credibility. Chin. J. Electron.
**2018**, 27, 1025–1036. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Lu, Z.; Shi, Y.; Tao, R.; Zhang, Z. Blockchain for digital rights management of design works. In Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE 10th International Conference on Software Engineering and Service Science (ICSESS), Beijing, China, 18–20 October 2019; pp. 596–603. [Google Scholar]
- American Association of Museums. Museums for a New Century, a Report of the Commission on Museums for a New Century; American Association of Museums: Washington, DC, USA, 1984. [Google Scholar]
- Ma, Z. Digital rights management: Model, technology and application. China Commun.
**2017**, 14, 156–167. [Google Scholar] - Du Toit, J. Protecting private data using digital rights management. J. Inf. Warf.
**2018**, 17, 64–77. [Google Scholar] - Mrabet, H.; Belguith, S.; Alhomoud, A.; Jemai, A. A survey of IoT security based on a layered architecture of sensing and data analysis. Sensors
**2020**, 20, 3625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Szabo, N. Smart contracts: Building blocks for digital markets. EXTROPY J. Transhumanist Thought
**1996**, 18, 16. [Google Scholar] - Szabo, N. The Idea of Smart Contracts. 1997. Available online: http://www.fon.hum.uva.nl/rob/Courses/InformationInSpeech/CDROM/Literature/LOTwinterschool2006/szabo.best.vwh.net/smart_contracts_idea.html (accessed on 26 November 2020).
- Han, W.; Zhu, Z. An ID-based mutual authentication with key agreement protocol for multiserver environment on elliptic curve cryptosystem. Int. J. Commun. Syst.
**2014**, 27, 1173–1185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Boneh, D.; Lynn, B.; Shacham, H. Short signatures from the Weil pairing. In Proceedings of the International Conference on the Theory and Application of Cryptology and Information Security; Springer: Heidelberg/Berlin, Germany, 2001; pp. 514–532. [Google Scholar]
- Chen, C.-L.; Yang, T.-T.; Chiang, M.-L.; Shih, T.-F. A privacy authentication scheme based on cloud for medical environment. J. Med. Syst.
**2014**, 38, 143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Chen, C.-L.; Yang, T.-T.; Shih, T.-F. A secure medical data exchange protocol based on cloud environment. J. Med. Syst.
**2014**, 38, 112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Blaze, M.; Bleumer, G.; Strauss, M. Divertible protocols and atomic proxy cryptography. In Proceedings of the International Conference on the Theory and Applications of Cryptographic Techniques; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1998; pp. 127–144. [Google Scholar]
- Marcus, M.J. 5G and IMT for 2020 and beyond. IEEE Wirel. Commun.
**2015**, 22, 2–3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

Item | Signature | Sender | Receiver | Signature Verification | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|

Phase | |||||

Authentication and issuing invoice phase (direct authorization) | $({r}_{L-M},{s}_{L-M})$ | L | CA | ${x}_{L-M}{}^{\prime}\stackrel{?}{=}{r}_{L-M}\mathrm{mod}n$ | |

$({r}_{M-L},{s}_{M-L})$ | CA | L | ${x}_{M-L}{}^{\prime}\stackrel{?}{=}{r}_{M-L}\mathrm{mod}n$ | ||

Authentication and issuing invoice phase (proxy authorization) | $({r}_{L-A},{s}_{L-A})$ | L | P | ${x}_{L-A}{}^{\prime}\stackrel{?}{=}{r}_{L-A}\mathrm{mod}n$ | |

$({r}_{A-M},{s}_{A-M})$ | P | CA | ${x}_{A-M}{}^{\prime}\stackrel{?}{=}{r}_{A-M}\mathrm{mod}n$ | ||

$({r}_{M-A},{s}_{M-A})$ | CA | P | ${x}_{M-A}{}^{\prime}\stackrel{?}{=}{r}_{M-A}\mathrm{mod}n$ | ||

$({r}_{A-L},{s}_{A-L})$ | P | L | ${x}_{A-L}{}^{\prime}\stackrel{?}{=}{r}_{A-L}\mathrm{mod}n$ | ||

Payment verification and browsing phase (direct authorization) | $({r}_{L-C},{s}_{L-C})$ | L | CA | ${x}_{L-C}{}^{\prime}\stackrel{?}{=}{r}_{L-C}\mathrm{mod}n$ | |

$({r}_{C-L},{s}_{C-L})$ | CA | L | ${x}_{C-L}{}^{\prime}\stackrel{?}{=}{r}_{C-L}\mathrm{mod}n$ | ||

Payment verification and browsing phase (proxy authorization) | $({r}_{L-P},{s}_{L-P})$ | L | P | ${x}_{L-P}{}^{\prime}\stackrel{?}{=}{r}_{L-P}\mathrm{mod}n$ | |

$({r}_{P-C},{s}_{P-C})$ | P | CA | ${x}_{P-C}{}^{\prime}\stackrel{?}{=}{r}_{P-C}\mathrm{mod}n$ | ||

$({r}_{C-P},{s}_{C-P})$ | CA | P | ${x}_{C-P}{}^{\prime}\stackrel{?}{=}{r}_{C-P}\mathrm{mod}n$ | ||

$({r}_{P-L},{s}_{P-L})$ | P | L | ${x}_{P-L}{}^{\prime}\stackrel{?}{=}{r}_{P-L}\mathrm{mod}n$ |

Role | BCC | CA | P | L | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|

Phase | |||||

System role registration phase | $1{T}_{Mul}$ | N/A | N/A | N/A | |

Authentication and issuing invoice phase (direct authorization) | N/A | $\begin{array}{l}7{T}_{Mul}+3{T}_{H}\\ +2{T}_{Cmp}+2{T}_{Sig}\end{array}$ | N/A | $\begin{array}{l}7{T}_{Mul}+3{T}_{H}\\ +1{T}_{Cmp}+2{T}_{Sig}\end{array}$ | |

Authentication and issuing invoice phase (entrusted authorization) | N/A | $\begin{array}{l}7{T}_{Mul}+3{T}_{H}\\ +3{T}_{Cmp}+2{T}_{Sig}\end{array}$ | $\begin{array}{l}7{T}_{Mul}+3{T}_{H}\\ +2{T}_{Cmp}+2{T}_{Sig}\end{array}$ | $\begin{array}{l}7{T}_{Mul}+3{T}_{H}\\ +1{T}_{Cmp}+2{T}_{Sig}\end{array}$ | |

Payment verification and browsing phase (direct authorization) | N/A | $\begin{array}{l}9{T}_{Mul}+3{T}_{H}\\ +3{T}_{Cmp}+2{T}_{Sig}\end{array}$ | N/A | $\begin{array}{l}7{T}_{Mul}+3{T}_{H}\\ +1{T}_{Cmp}+2{T}_{Sig}\end{array}$ | |

Payment verification and browsing phase (entrusted authorization) | N/A | $\begin{array}{l}10{T}_{Mul}+3{T}_{H}\\ +4{T}_{Cmp}+2{T}_{Sig}\end{array}$ | $\begin{array}{l}7{T}_{Mul}+3{T}_{H}\\ +3{T}_{Cmp}+2{T}_{Sig}\end{array}$ | $\begin{array}{l}7{T}_{Mul}+3{T}_{H}\\ +1{T}_{Cmp}+2{T}_{Sig}\end{array}$ |

Item | Message Length | Rounds | 3.5G (14 Mbps) | 4G (100 Mbps) | 5G (20 Gbps) | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

Phase | ||||||

System role registration phase | 3552 bits | 2 | 0.254 ms | 0.036 ms | 0.178 us | |

Authentication and issuing invoice phase (direct authorization) | 2528 bits | 2 | 0.181 ms | 0.025 ms | 0.126 us | |

Authentication and issuing invoice phase (proxy authorization) | 5056 bits | 4 | 0.361 ms | 0.051 ms | 0.253 us | |

Payment verification and browsing phase (direct authorization) | 2528 bits | 2 | 0.181 ms | 0.025 ms | 0.126 us | |

Payment verification and browsing phase (proxy authorization) | 5056 bits | 4 | 0.361 ms | 0.051 ms | 0.253 us |

Authors | Year | Objective | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

Zhao et al. [17] | 2019 | Proposed a YODA-based digital watermark management system. | N | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | N | Y |

Ma et al. [18] | 2018 | Proposed efficient and secure authentication, privacy protection, and multi-signature-based conditional traceability approaches. | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | N | N |

Vishwa & Hussain [19] | 2018 | Presented a decentralized data management framework that ensures user data privacy and control. | Y | N | N | Y | Y | N | N | N |

Ma et al. [21] | 2018 | Proposed a blockchain-based DRM platform with high-level credit and security for the Content provider (CP), the Service provider (SP), and customers. | Y | N | Y | N | N | Y | N | N |

Lu et al. [22] | 2019 | Proposed a scheme for digital rights management of design works using blockchain. | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | N | N |

Ours | 2020 | Proposed an authorization of the museum’s collections. | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |

© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

## Share and Cite

**MDPI and ACS Style**

Wang, Y.-C.; Chen, C.-L.; Deng, Y.-Y.
Authorization Mechanism Based on Blockchain Technology for Protecting Museum-Digital Property Rights. *Appl. Sci.* **2021**, *11*, 1085.
https://doi.org/10.3390/app11031085

**AMA Style**

Wang Y-C, Chen C-L, Deng Y-Y.
Authorization Mechanism Based on Blockchain Technology for Protecting Museum-Digital Property Rights. *Applied Sciences*. 2021; 11(3):1085.
https://doi.org/10.3390/app11031085

**Chicago/Turabian Style**

Wang, Yun-Ciao, Chin-Ling Chen, and Yong-Yuan Deng.
2021. "Authorization Mechanism Based on Blockchain Technology for Protecting Museum-Digital Property Rights" *Applied Sciences* 11, no. 3: 1085.
https://doi.org/10.3390/app11031085