Advertisement

Introducing Preferences over NFPs into Service Selection in SOA

  • Christian Schröpfer
  • Maxim Binshtok
  • Solomon Eyal Shimony
  • Aviram Dayan
  • Ronen Brafman
  • Philipp Offermann
  • Oliver Holschke
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4907)

Abstract

When implementing a business or software activity in SOA, a match is sought between the required functionality and that provided by a web service. In selecting services to perform a certain business functionality, often only hard constraints are considered. However, client requirements over QoS or other NFP types are often soft and allow tradeoffs. We use a graphical language for specifying hard constraints, preferences and tradeoffs over NFPs as well as service level objectives (SLO). In particular, we use the TCP and UCP network formalisms to allow for a simple yet very flexible specification of hard constraints, preferences, and tradeoffs over these properties. Algorithms for selecting web services according to the hard constraints, as well as for optimizing the selected web service configuration, according to the specification, were developed.

Keywords

Service Level Agreement Service Selection Hard Constraint Ranking Algorithm Business Class 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    Hevner, A.R., March, S.T., Park, J., Ram, S.: Design science in information system research. MIS Quarterly (2004)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Brafman, R.I., Domshlak, C., Shimony, S.E.: On graphical modeling of preference and importance. Journal of AI Research 25, 389–424 (2006)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Boutilier, C., Bacchus, F., Brafman, R.I.: UCP-networks: A directed graphical representation of conditional utilities. In: Proceedings of Seventeenth Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 56–64 (2001)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Frolund, S., Koistinen, J.: Quality of service specification in distributed object systems design. QML of HP Laboratories (1998)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ludwig, H., Keller, A., Dan, A., King, R.P., Franck, R.: Web services level agreement (wsla) language specification (2003)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Tosic, V., Patel, K., Pagurek, B.: WSOL - web service offerings language. In: Bussler, C.J., McIlraith, S.A., Orlowska, M.E., Pernici, B., Yang, J. (eds.) CAiSE 2002 and WES 2002. LNCS, vol. 2512, pp. 57–67. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lamanna, D.D., Skene, J., Emmerich, W.: Slang: A language for defining service level agreements (2003)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Andrieux, A., Czajkowski, K., Dan, A., Keahey, K., Ludwig, H., Pruyne, J., Rofrano, J., Tuecke, S., Xu, M.: Web services agreement specification, ws-agreement (2005)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Grønmo, R., Jaeger, M.C.: Model-driven methodology for building qoS-optimised web service compositions. In: Kutvonen, L., Alonistioti, N. (eds.) DAIS 2005. LNCS, vol. 3543, pp. 68–82. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Oldham, N., Verma, K., Sheth, A., Hakimpour, F.: Semantic ws-agreement partner selection. In: International World Wide Web Conerence Committee (IW3C2), Edinburgh, Scotland. ACM Press, New York (2006)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Maximilien, E.M., Singh, M.P.: A framework and ontology for dynamic web services selection. IEEE Internet Computing 08(05), 84–93 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tian, M.: QoS integration in Web services with the WS-QoS framework. PhD thesis, Freie Universität Berlin (2005)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dobson, G.: Quality of service in service-oriented architectures. Dependability Infrastructure for Grid Services Project (2004)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Tsang, E.: Foundations of Constraint Satisfaction. Academic Press, London (1993)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bistarelli, S., Fargier, H., Montanari, U., Rossi, F., Schiex, T., Verfaillie, G.: Semiring-based CSPs and valued CSPs: Frameworks, properties, and comparison. Constraints 4(3), 275–316 (1999)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bacchus, F., Grove, A.: Graphical models for preference and utility. In: UAI 1995, pp. 3–10. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (1995)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christian Schröpfer
    • 2
  • Maxim Binshtok
    • 1
  • Solomon Eyal Shimony
    • 1
  • Aviram Dayan
    • 1
  • Ronen Brafman
    • 1
  • Philipp Offermann
    • 2
  • Oliver Holschke
    • 2
  1. 1.Dept. of Comp. Sci.Ben-Gurion University Beer-Sheva IsraelIsrael
  2. 2.Dept. of Comp. Sci. and Electrical Eng.Technische Universität BerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations