From Service Markets to Service Economies – An infrastructure for protocol-generic SLA negotiations

Conference paper


Visions of 21st century’s information systems show highly specialized digital services and resources, interacting continuously and with a global reach. For a broad adoption of this vision in a commercial context it is crucial to have a mechanism in place to guarantee quality of service and to decentrally coordinate the involved resources. Current service infrastructures try to tackle these problems by applying socioeconomic mechanisms such as electronic negotiations and service level agreements. Such technologies allow for the implementation of electronic service markets in analogy to real-world markets for everyday goods. However, economic theory claims that different market situations and negotiated products (i.e. SLAs) demand different negotiation protocols in order to reach the highest-possible overall efficiency of the system. Thus we argue that next generation service infrastructures will be based on a global service economy where several different service markets and thus protocols are present at any given point in time. In this paper we present a novel approach for such an infrastructure, based on structured protocol descriptions and software-agent technology.


Service Level Agreement Service Market Negotiation Protocol Service Economy Service Orientation 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    A. Andrieux, K. Czajkowski, A. Dan, K. Keahey, H. Ludwig, T. Nakata, J. Pruyne, J. Rofrano, S. Tuecke, and M. Xu. Web services agreement specification, version 03/2007. 2007.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    M. Bichler, G. Kersten, and S. Strecker. Towards a structured design of electronic negotiations. Group Decision and Negotiation, 12(4):311–335, 2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    I. Brandic, S. Venugopal, M. Mattess, and R. Buyya. Towards a meta-negotiation architecture for sla-aware grid services. Technical Report, University of Melbourne, August 2008.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    R. Buyya, C.S. Yeo, S. Venugopal, J. Broberg, and I. Brandic. Cloud computing and emerging it platforms: Vision, hype, and reality for delivering computing as the 5th utility. Future Generation Computer Systems, 25(6):599–616, 2009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Theseus Project Consortium. Texo business webs im Internet der Dienste (german)., 2009. last checked: 13. 01. 2010.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    I. Foster. What is the grid? a three point checklist, 2002.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    I. Foster. Service-oriented science. Science, 308(5723):814–817, 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    I. Foster, C. Kesselman, and S. Tuecke. The anatomy of the grid: Enabling scalable virtual organizations. International Journal of Supercomputer Applications, 15:2001, 2001.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    S. Hudert, T. Eymann, H. Ludwig, and G. Wirtz. A negotiation protocol description language for automated service level agreement negotiations. In Proceedings of the 11th IEEE Conference on Commerce and Enterprise Computing (CEC 09), Vienna, Austria, 2009.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    H. Liu and D. Orban. Gridbatch: Cloud computing for large-scale data-intensive batch applications. In Proceedings of the 8th IEEE International Symposium on Cluster Computing and the Grid 2008 (CCGRID08), pages 295–305, 2008.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    A. Ludwig, P. Braun, R. Kowalczyk, and B. Franczyk. A framework for automated negotiation of service level agreements in services grids. In Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Proceedings of the Workshop on Web Service Choreography and Orchestration for Business Process Management, 2006, Vol. 3812/2006, 2006.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    H. Ludwig, A. Keller, A. Dan, R. King, and R. Franck. A service level agreement language for dynamic electronic services. Journal of Electronic Commerce Research, 3:43–59, 2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    D. Neumann, J. Stoesser, C. Weinhardt, and J. Nimis. A framework for commercial grids - economic and technical challenges. Journal of Grid Computing, 6(3):325–347, September 2008. ISSN: 1570-7873.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    S. Paurobally, V. Tamma, and M. Wooldridge. A framework for web service negotiation. ACM Trans. Auton. Adapt. Syst., 2(4):14, 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    C. Schroth and T. Janner. Web 2.0 and SOA: Converging concepts enabling the internet of services. IT Professional, 9(3):36–41, 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    V. Yarmolenko and R. Sakellariou. Towards increased expressiveness in service level agreements: Research articles. Concurr. Comput. : Pract. Exper., 19(14):1975–1990, 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    W. Ziegler, O. Waeldrich, Ph. Wieder, T. Nakata, and M. Parkin. Considerations for negotiation and monitoring of service level agreements. Technical Report TR-0167, CoreGRID, June 2008.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Information Systems ManagementUniversity of BayreuthBayreuthGermany

Personalised recommendations