|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ABSTRACT
With the growing number of service advertisements in service marketplaces, there is a need for matchmakers which select and rank functionally similar services based on non-functional properties, such as QoS and reputation parameters. Current matchmakers only support predefined service description languages and predefined third-party repositories of service description documents, which both are hard-coded inside their internal structure, forcing providers to publish their services using a specific service publishing component. Therefore, current matchmakers are not able to look for existing services which are published using different service publishers. In this paper, we propose a flexible matchmaker for service discovery, selection, and ranking, taking both functional and non-functional properties of the services into account. The matchmaker provides an expressive language for the clients to define service requests, specifying involved repositories, non-functional properties and a utility function for ranking Web services. The proposed matchmaker enables clients to search inside existing UDDI and third-party repositories and match already published services, while supporting different service description languages as well as emerging languages. Independency from the service description language and the type of the third-party repository is preserved as long as very basic constraints are satisfied. REFERENCES
Note: OCR errors may be found in this Reference List extracted from the full text article. ACM has opted to expose the complete List rather than only correct and linked references.
INDEX TERMS
Primary Classification:
General Terms:
Keywords:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||