A Quality of Service Management Framework Based on User Expectations

  • Vikas Deora
  • J. Shao
  • W. Alex Gray
  • Nick J. Fiddian
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2910)


The ability to gauge the quality of a service is critical if we are to achieve the service oriented computing paradigm. Many techniques have been proposed and most of them attempt to calculate the quality of a service by collecting quality ratings from the users of the service, then combining them in one way or another. We argue that collecting quality ratings alone from the users is not sufficient for deriving a reliable or accurate quality measure for a service. This is because different users often have different expectations on the quality of a service and their ratings tend to be closely related to their expectations, i.e. how their expectations are met. In this paper, we propose a quality of service management framework based on user expectations. That is, we collect expectations as well as ratings from the users of a service, then calculate the quality of the service only at the time a request for the service is made and only using the ratings that have similar expectations. We give examples to show that our approach can result in a more accurate and meaningful measure for quality of service.


Multi Agent System User Expectation Service Oriented Computing News Service Similar Expectation 
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.


  1. 1.
    Casati, F., Shan, M.C.: Definition, execution, analysis, and optimization of composite e-services. Data Engineering Bulletin 4, 29–34 (2001)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Leymann, F.: Web services: distributed applications without limits. In: Proceedings of 10th Conference on Database Systems for Business, pp. 2–23 (2003)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Piccinelli, G., Stammers, E.: From e-processes to e-networks: an e-service-oriented approach. In: Proceedings of 3rd International Conference on Internet Computing, pp. 549–553 (2002)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rust, R.T., Kannan, P.K.: E-service: a new paradigm for business in the electronic environment. Communications of the ACM 46, 36–42 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    He, M., Jennings, N.R., Leung, H.: On agent-mediated electronic commerce. IEEE Trans on Knowledge and Data Engineering 15, 985–1003 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jennings, N.R., Faratin, P., Norman, T.J., O’Brien, P., Odgers, B.: Autonomous agents for business process management. International Journal of Applied Artificial Intelligence 14, 145–189 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Papazoglou, M.P.: Agent-oriented technology in support of e-business. Communications of the ACM 44, 71–77 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Petersen, S.A., Gruninger, M.: An agent-based model to support the formation of virtual enterprises. In: International ICSC Symposium on Mobile Agents and Multi-agents in Virtual Organisations and E-Commerce (2000)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Aurrecoechea, C., Campbell, A.T., Hauw, L.: A survey of qos architectures. Multimedia Systems Journal 6, 138–151 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chalmers, D., Sloman, M.: A survey of quality of service in mobile computing environments. IEEE Communications Surveys and Tutorials 2, 2–10 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lee, Y.W., Strong, D.M., Khan, B.K., Wang, R.Y.: Aimq: a methodology for information quality assessment. Information and Management 40, 133–146 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A., Berry, L.L.: Reassessment of expectations as a comparison standard in measuring service quality: implications for future research. Journal of Marketing 58, 201–230 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Trzec, K., Huljenic, D.: Intelligent agents for qos management. In: Proceedings of First International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi Agent Systems, pp. 1405–1412 (2002)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Yu, B., Singh, M.: An evidential model of distributed reputation management. In: Proceedings of First International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi Agent Systems, pp. 294–301 (2002)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Zeng, L., Benatallah, B., Dumas, M., Kalagnanam, J.: Quality driven web service composition. In: Proceedings of Twelfth International Conference on World Wide Web, pp. 411–421 (2003)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mui, L., Mohtashemi, M., Halberstadt, A.: A computational model of trust and reputation. In: Proceedings of 35th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, pp. 2423–2431 (2002)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mecella, M., Scannapieco, M., Virgillito, A., Baldoni, R., Catarci, T., Batini, C.: Managing data quality in cooperative information systems. In: Proceedings of 10th International Conference on Cooperative Information Systems, pp. 486–502 (2002)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Braynov, S., Sandholm, T.: Incentive compatible mechanism for trust revelation. In: Proceedings of First International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi Agent Systems, pp. 310–311 (2002)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Schillo, M., Funk, P., Rovatsos, M.: Using trust for detecting deceitful agents in artificial societies. Applied Artificial Intelligence, Special Issue on Trust, Deception and Fraud in Agent Societies, 825–848 (2000)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Maximilien, E.M., Singh, M.: Conceptual model of web service reputation. SIGMOD Record, ACM Special Interest Group on Management of Data, 36–41 (2002)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Maes, P., Guttman, R.H., Moukas, A.G.: Agents that buy and sell. Communications of the ACM 42, 81–91 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Herlocker, J., Konstan, J., Riedl, J.: Explaining collaborative filtering recommendations. In: Proceedings of ACM 2000 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, pp. 241–250 (2000)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Burgess, M., Gray, W.A., Fiddian, N.: Establishing a taxonomy of quality for use in information filtering. In: Proceedings of 19th British National Conference on Databases, pp. 103–113 (2002)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wang, R.Y., Strong, D.M.: Beyond accuracy: what data quality means to data consumers. Journal of Management Information Systems 12, 5–34 (1996)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Schein, A., Popescul, A., Ungar, L., Pennock, D.: Methods and metrics for coldstart recommendations. In: Proceedings of 25th Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, pp. 253–260 (2002)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Vikas Deora
    • 1
  • J. Shao
    • 1
  • W. Alex Gray
    • 1
  • Nick J. Fiddian
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Computer ScienceCardiff UniversityCardiffUK

Personalised recommendations