ACM Home Page
Please provide us with feedback. Feedback
A framework for QoS-based Web service contracting
Full text PdfPdf (2.06 MB)
Source
ACM Transactions on the Web (TWEB) archive
Volume 3 ,  Issue 3  (June 2009) table of contents
Article No. 10  
Year of Publication: 2009
ISSN:1559-1131
Authors
Marco Comuzzi  City University London, London, UK
Barbara Pernici  Politecnico di Milano, Milan, Italy
Publisher
ACM  New York, NY, USA
Bibliometrics
Downloads (6 Weeks): 159,   Downloads (12 Months): 373,   Citation Count: 0
Additional Information:

abstract   references   index terms   collaborative colleagues  

Tools and Actions: Request Permissions Request Permissions    Review this Article  
DOI Bookmark: Use this link to bookmark this Article: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1541822.1541825
What is a DOI?

ABSTRACT

The extensive adoption of Web service-based applications in dynamic business scenarios, such as on-demand computing or highly reconfigurable virtual enterprises, advocates for methods and tools for the management of Web service nonfunctional aspects, such as Quality of Service (QoS). Concerning contracts on Web service QoS, the literature has mostly focused on the contract definition and on mechanisms for contract enactment, such as the monitoring of the satisfaction of negotiated QoS guarantees. In this context, this article proposes a framework for the automation of the Web service contract specification and establishment. An extensible model for defining both domain-dependent and domain-independent Web service QoS dimensions and a method for the automation of the contract establishment phase are proposed. We describe a matchmaking algorithm for the ranking of functionally equivalent services, which orders services on the basis of their ability to fulfill the service requestor requirements, while maintaining the price below a specified budget. We also provide an algorithm for the configuration of the negotiable part of the QoS Service-Level Agreement (SLA), which is used to configure the agreement with the top-ranked service identified in the matchmaking phase. Experimental results show that, in a utility theory perspective, the contract establishment phase leads to efficient outcomes. We envision two advanced application scenarios for the Web service contracting framework proposed in this article. First, it can be used to enhance Web services self-healing properties in reaction to QoS-related service failures; second, it can be exploited in process optimization for the online reconfiguration of candidate Web services QoS SLAs.


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.

 
1
 
2
Alonso, G., Casati, F., Kuno, H., and Machiraju, V. 2004. Web Services: Concepts, Architectures, and Applications. Springer.
 
3
 
4
 
5
6
 
7
 
8
Ben Halima, R., Drira, K., and Jmaiel, M. 2007. A QoS-driven reconfiguration management system extending Web services with self-healing properties. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Information Systems and Web Services.
 
9
 
10
 
11
Berardi, D., Calvanese, D., De Giacomo, G., Lenzerini, M., and Mecella, M. 2005. Automatic service composition based on behavioral descriptions. Int. J. Coop. Inform. Syst. 14, 4, 333--376.
 
12
 
13
 
14
Bichler, M. and Kalagnanam, J. 2005. Configurable offers and winner determination in multi-attribute auctions. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 160, 380--394.
 
15
Branco, F. 1997. The design of multi-dimensional auctions. RAND J. Econ. 28, 1, 63--81.
 
16
 
17
Cabral, L., Domingue, J., Galizia, S., Gugliotta, A., Norton, B., Tanasescu, V., and Pedrinaci, C. 2006. IRS-III: A broker for semantic Web services-based applications. In Proceedings of the 5th Semantic Web Conference.
 
18
Cappiello, C., Comuzzi, M., and Plebani, P. 2007. On automated generation of Web service level agreements. In Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering.
 
19
 
20
Che, Y.-K. 1993. Design competition through multi-dimensional auctions. RAND J. Econ. 24, 668--680.
 
21
 
22
Comuzzi, M. and Pernici, B. 2004. Negotiation support for Web service selection. In Proceedings of the 5th VLDB Workshop on Technologies for E-Services.
 
23
 
24
Console, L. and Fugini, M. 2007. WS-DIAMOND: An Approach to Web Service - Diagnosability, Monitoring, and Diagnosis. IOS Press, Chapter Expanding the Knowledge Economy: vol. 4. 105--112.
 
25
Cripps, M. and Ireland, N. 1988. The design of auctions and tenders with quality thresholds: The symmetric case. Econ. J. 104, 316--326.
 
26
 
27
 
28
EPAL. 2003. Enterprise privacy architecture language 1.2. http://www.w3.org/Submission/2003/SUBM-EPAL-20031110/.
 
29
Garofalakis, J., Panagis, Y., Sakkopoulos, E., and Tsakalidis, A. 2006. Contemporary Web service discovery mechanisms. J. Web Engin. 5, 3, 265--290.
 
30
Gimpel, H., Ludwig, H., Dan, A., and Kearney, R. 2003. PANDA: Specifying policies for automated negotiations of service contracts. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Service-Oriented Computing.
31
 
32
 
33
Klemperer, P. 1999. Auction theory: A guide to the literature. J. Econ. Surv. 13, 3, 227--286.
 
34
Lamparter, S. and Agarwal, S. 2005. Specification of policies for Web service negotiations. In Proceedings of the Semantic Web and Policy Workshop.
 
35
36
 
37
 
38
Mahbub, K. and Spanoudakis, G. 2007. Monitoring WS-Agreements: An event calculus-based approach. In Test and Analysis of Web Services, Baresi, L. and Di Nitto, E. Eds, Springer, 265--306.
 
39
Mani, A. and Nagarajan, A. 2002. Understanding quality of service for Web services. http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/library/ws-quality.html.
40
 
41
McAfee, R. P. and McMillan, J. 1987. Auctions and bidding. J. Econ. Lit. 25, 2, 699--738.
 
42
43
 
44
Naccache, H. and Gannod, G. C. 2007. A self-healing framework for Web services. In Proceedings of the 4th IEEE International Conference on Web Services.
 
45
OASIS. 2005. OASIS WS quality model TC - Quality model for Web services. http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tc\_home.php?wg\_abbrev=wsqm.
 
46
OASIS. 2006. Web service security: SOAP message security 1.1. OASIS standard specification. http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tc\_home.php?wg\_abbrev=wss.
 
47
Osborne, M. J. and Rubinstein, A. 1994. A Course in Game Theory. The MIT Press.
 
48
OWL-S. Web service ontology language working group (OWL-S). http://www.daml.org/services/owl-s/.
 
49
P3P. 2002. Platform for privacy preferences 1.0 specification. http://www.w3.org/TR/P3P/.
 
50
 
51
 
52
 
53
 
54
Racanati, M. 2006. Sistema di asta e negoziazione per Web service adattativi. M.S. thesis, Politecnico di Milano.
 
55
 
56
Raiffa, H. and Richardson, J., and Metcalfe, D. 2002. Negotiation Analysis: The Science and Art of Collaborative Decision Making. Harvard University Press.
57
 
58
 
59
Stevens, S. S. 1946. On the theory of scales of measurement. Sci. 103, 677--680.
 
60
Stroulia, E. and Wang, Y. 2003. Semantic structure matching for assessing Web service similarity. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Service-Oriented Computing.
 
61
 
62
W3C. 2003. QoS for Web services: Requirements and possible approaches - W3C working group note. http://www.w3c.or.kr/kr-office/TR/2003/ws-qos/.
 
63
W3Ca. 2002. XML encryption syntax and processing, W3C recommendation. http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlenc-core/.
 
64
 
65
Wang, Y. and Vassileva, J. 2007. Toward trust and reputation based Web service selection: A survey. Int. Trans. Syst. Sci. Appl. 3, 2, 118--132.
 
66
WS-Agreement. 2003. WS-Agreement framework. https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/graap-wg.
 
67
WS-Reliability. 2003. Web service reliability (ws-reliability) version 1.0. http://developers.sun.com/sw/platform/technologies/ws-reliability.html.
 
68
WSMO. Web service modeling ontology working group (WSMO). http://www.wsmo.org/.
 
69
70
 
71
 
72

Collaborative Colleagues:
Marco Comuzzi: colleagues
Barbara Pernici: colleagues