Modeling Service Level Agreements with Binary Decision Diagrams

  • Constantinos Kotsokalis
  • Ramin Yahyapour
  • Miguel Angel Rojas Gonzalez
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5900)


The vision of automated service composition for enabling service economies is challenged by many theoretical and technical limitations of current technologies. There is a need for complete, dependable service hierarchies created on-the-fly for critical business environments. Such automatically-constructed, complex and dynamic service hierarchies imply a similarly automated process for establishing the contracts that specify the rules governing the consumption of services; and for binding them into respective contract hierarchies. Deducing these required contracts is a computationally challenging task. This also applies to the optimization of such contract sets to maximize utility. We propose the application of (Shared) Reduced Ordered Binary Decision Diagrams, a suitable graph-based data structure well-known in the area of Electronic Design Automation. These diagrams can be used as a canonical representation of SLAs, thus allowing their efficient and unambiguous management independent of their structure’s specifics. As such, this representation can facilitate the process of negotiating SLAs, subcontracting parts of them, optimizing their utility, and managing them during runtime for monitoring and enforcement.


  1. 1.
    Bryant, R.: Graph-Based Algorithms for Boolean Function Manipulation. IEEE Transactions on Computers C-35(8), 677–691 (1986)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lee, C.: Representation of switching circuits by binary decision diagrams. Bell System Technical Journal (38), 985–999 (1959)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Akers, S.: Binary Decision Diagrams. IEEE Transactions on Computers C-27(6), 509–516 (1978)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Open Grid Forum: Web Services Agreement Specification, WS-Agreement (2007)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Keller, A., Ludwig, H.: The WSLA Framework: Specifying and Monitoring Service Level Agreements for Web Services. Journal of Network and Systems Management 11(1), 57–81 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Binder, W., Constantinescu, I., Faltings, B.: Scalable Automated Service Composition Using a Compact Directory Digest. Database and Expert Systems Applications, 317–326 (2006)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Campailla, A., Chaki, S., Clarke, E., Jha, S., Veith, H.: Efficient filtering in publish-subscribe systems using binary decision diagrams. In: ICSE 2001: Proc. 23rd International Conference on Software Engineering, pp. 443–452 (2001)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Paschke, A., Bichler, M.: Knowledge representation concepts for automated SLA management. Decision Support Systems 46(1), 187–205 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ebendt, R., Drechsler, R., Fey, G.: Advanced BDD optimization. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Shannon, C.E.: A symbolic analysis of relay and switching circuits. AIEE (57), 713–723 (1938)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bhoj, P., Singhal, S., Chutani, S.: SLA management in federated environments. Computer Networks 35(1), 5–24 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bryant, R.E.: Symbolic Boolean manipulation with ordered binary-decision diagrams. ACM Comput. Surv. 24(3), 293–318 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Friedman, S., Supowit, K.: Finding the optimal variable ordering for binary decision diagrams. IEEE Transactions on Computers 39(5), 710–713 (1990)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rudell, R.: Dynamic variable ordering for ordered binary decision diagrams. In: ICCAD 1993: Proc. 1993 IEEE/ACM international conference on Computer-aided design, pp. 42–47. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (1993)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Keutzer, K.: DAGON: Technology Binding and Local Optimization by DAG Matching. In: 24th Conference on Design Automation, June 1987, pp. 341–347 (1987)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Detjens, E., Rudell, R., Gannot, G., Wang, A., Sangiovanni-Vincentelli, A.: Technology mapping in MIS. In: Proc. International Conference on Computer Aided Design, November 1987, pp. 116–119 (1987)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ehrgott, M.: Multicriteria Optimization. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Fatima, S., Wooldridge, M., Jennings, N.: A Comparative Study of Game Theoretic and Evolutionary Models of Bargaining for Software Agents. Artificial Intelligence Review 23(2), 187–205 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Figueroa, C., Figueroa, N., Jofre, A., Sahai, A., Chen, Y., Iyer, S.: A Game Theoretic Framework for SLA Negotiation. Technical report, HP Laboratories (2008)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Comuzzi, M., Kotsokalis, C., Spanoudakis, G., Yahyapour, R.: Establishing and Monitoring SLAs in Complex Service Based Systems. In: ICWS 2009: Proceedings of the 2009 IEEE International Conference on Web Services, pp. 783–790 (2009)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Constantinos Kotsokalis
    • 1
  • Ramin Yahyapour
    • 1
  • Miguel Angel Rojas Gonzalez
    • 1
  1. 1.Dortmund University of TechnologyGermany

Personalised recommendations