skip to main content
10.1145/1242572.1242708acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageswwwConference Proceedingsconference-collections
Article

Reliable QoS monitoring based on client feedback

Published:08 May 2007Publication History

ABSTRACT

Service-level agreements (SLAs) establish a contract between service providersand clients concerning Quality of Service (QoS) parameters. Without properpenalties, service providers have strong incentives to deviate from theadvertised QoS, causing losses to the clients. Reliable QoS monitoring (andproper penalties computed on the basis of delivered QoS) are thereforeessential for the trustworthiness of a service-oriented environment. In thispaper, we present a novel QoS monitoring mechanism based on quality ratings from theclients. A reputation mechanism collects the ratings and computes theactual quality delivered to the clients. The mechanism provides incentives forthe clients to report honestly, and pays special attention to minimizing costand overhead1.

References

  1. B. Alunkal, I. Veljkovic, G. Laszewski, and K. Amin. Reputation-Based Grid Resource Selection. In Proceedings of AGridM, 2003.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. A. Andrieux, K. Czajkowski, A. Dan, K. Keahey, H. Ludwig, J. Pruyne, J. Rofrano, S. Tuecke, and M. Xu. Web Services Agreement Specification (WS-Agreement), Version 2005/09, http://www.ggf.org.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. F. Barbon, P. Traverso, M. Pistore, and M. Trainotti. Run-Time Monitoring of Instances and Classes of Web-Service Compositions. In Proceedings of ICWS 2006, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. V. Conitzer and T. Sandholm. Complexity of mechanism design. In Proceedings of the Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence Conference (UAI), 2002. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. A. Dan, D. Davis, R. Kearney, A. Keller, R. P. King, D. Kuebler, H. Ludwig, M. Polan, M. Spreitzer, and A. Youssef. Web services on demand: WSLA-driven automated management. IBM Systems Journal, 43(1):136--158, 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. V. Deora, J. Shao, W. Gray, and J. Fiddian. A Quality of Service Management Framework Based on User Expectations. In Proceedings of ICSOC, 2003.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Y. J. Hu. Trusted Agent-Mediated E-Commerce Transaction Services via Digital Certificate Management. Electronic Commerce Research, 3, 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. R. Jurca and B. Faltings. Reputation-based Service Level Agreements for Web Services. In Service Oriented Computing (ICSOC - 2005), volume 3826 of LNCS, pages 396--409. 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. R. Jurca and B. Faltings. Minimum payments that reward honest reputation feedback. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA, June 11-15 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. S. Kalepu, S. Krishnaswamy, and S. Loke. Verity; A QoS Metric for Selecting Web Services and Providers. In Proceedings of WISEW, 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Y. Liu, A. Ngu, and L. Yeng. QoS Computation and Policing in Dynamic Web Service Selection. In Proceedings of WWW, 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. H. Ludwig, A. Dan, and R. Kearney. Cremona: An architecture and library for creation and monitoring of WS-Agreements. In ICSOC '04: Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on Service oriented computing, pages 65--74, New York, NY, USA, 2004. ACM Press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. K. Mahbub and G. Spanoudakis. A framework for requirements monitoring of service based systems. In Proceedings of ICSOC, 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. E. M. Maximilien and M. P. Singh. Toward Autonomic Web Services Trust and Selection. In Proceedings of ICSOC, 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. M. Maximilien and M. Singh. A Framework and Ontology for Dynamic Web Services Selection. IEEE Internet Computing, 8(5):84--93, 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. S. A. McIlraith and D. L. Martin. Bringing semantics to web services. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 18(1):90--93, 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. N. Miller, P. Resnick, and R. Zeckhauser. Eliciting Informative Feedback: The Peer-Prediction Method. Management Science, 51:1359--1373, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Z. Milosevic and G. Dromey. On expressing and monitoring behaviour in contracts. In Proceedings of EDOC, Lausanne, Switzerland, 2002. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. OWL-S. DAML Services, http://www.daml.org/services/owl-s/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. I. Papaioannou, D. Tsesmetzis, and M. Roussaki, I. abd Anagnostou. A QoS Ontology Language for Web-Services. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Advanced Information Networking and Applications (AINA 2006), 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. M. P. Papazoglou and D. Georgakopoulos. Introduction: Service-oriented computing. Communications of the ACM, 46(10):24--28, Oct. 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. D. Prelec. A bayesian truth serum for subjective data. Science, 306(5695):462--466, 2004.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. S. Ran. A Model for Web Service Discovery with QoS. ACM SIGecom Exchanges, 4(1):1--10, 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. A. Sahai, V. Machiraju, M. Sayal, A. P. A. van Moorsel, and F. Casati. Automated SLA monitoring for web services. In DSOM, volume 2506 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 28--41. Springer, 2002. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. M. P. Singh and M. N. Huhns. Service-Oriented Computing. Wiley, 2005.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. W3C. Web services description language (WSDL) version 1.2, http://www.w3.org/TR/wsdl12.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. X. Wang, T. Vitvar, M. Kerrigan, and I. Toma. A QoS-aware selection model for semantic web services. In 4th International Conference on Service Oriented Computing (ICSOC 2006), Chicago, USA, Dec. 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. WSMO. Web Service Modeling Ontology, http://www.wsmo.org/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. L. Xu and M. A. Jeusfeld. Pro-active Monitoring of Electronic Contracts. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2681:584--600, 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. L. Zeng, B. Benatallah, M. Dumas, J. Kalagnanam, and Q. Z. Sheng. Quality driven web services composition. In WWW, pages 411--421, 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. L. Zeng, B. Benatallah, A. H. H. Ngu, M. Dumas, J. Kalagnanam, and H. Chang. QoS-aware middleware for web services composition. IEEE Trans. Software Eng., 30(5):311--327, 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Reliable QoS monitoring based on client feedback

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in
      • Published in

        cover image ACM Conferences
        WWW '07: Proceedings of the 16th international conference on World Wide Web
        May 2007
        1382 pages
        ISBN:9781595936547
        DOI:10.1145/1242572

        Copyright © 2007 ACM

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 8 May 2007

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • Article

        Acceptance Rates

        Overall Acceptance Rate1,899of8,196submissions,23%

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader