Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:


Or use your Academic/Social account:


You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.


Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message


Verify Password:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Shercliff, Gareth
Languages: English
Types: Doctoral thesis
Subjects: QA75
In a Service Oriented Architecture (SOA), the goal of consumers is to discover and use services which lead to them experiencing the highest quality, such that their expectations and needs are satisfied. In supporting this discovery, quality assessment tools are required to establish the degree to which these expectations will be met by specific services. Traditional approaches to quality assessment in SOA assume that providers and consumers of services will adopt a performance-centric view of quality, which assumes that consumers will be most satisfied when they receive the highest absolute performance. However, adopting this approach does not consider the subjective nature of quality and will not necessarily lead to consumers receiving services that meet their individual needs. \ud By using existing approaches to quality assessment that assume a consumer's primary goal as being optimisation of performance, consumers in SOA are currently unable to effectively identify and engage with providers who deliver services that will best meet their needs. Developing approaches to assessment that adopt a more conformance-centric view of quality (where it is assumed that consumers are most satisfied when a service meets, but not necessarily exceeds, their individual expectations) is a challenge that must be addressed if consumers are to effectively adopt SOA as a means of accessing services.\ud In addressing the above challenge, this thesis develops a conformance-centric model of an SOA in which conformance is taken to be the primary goal of consumers. This model is holistic, in that it considers consumers, providers and assessment services and their relationship; and novel in that it proposes a set of rational provider behaviours that would be adopted in using a conformance-centric view of quality. Adopting such conformance-centric behaviour leads to observable and predictable patterns in the performance of the services offered by providers, due to the relationship that exists between the level of service delivered by the service and the expectation of the consumer. \ud In order to support consumers in the discovery of high quality services, quality assessment tools must be able to effectively assess past performance information about services, and use this as a prediction of future performance. In supporting consumers within a conformance-centric SOA, this thesis proposes and evaluates a new set of approaches to quality assessment which make use of the patterns in provider behaviour described above. The approaches developed are non-trivial – using a selection of adapted pattern classification and other statistical techniques to infer the behaviour of individual services at run-time and calculating a numerical measure of confidence for each result that can be used by consumers to combine assessment information with other evidence. The quality assessment approaches are evaluated within a software implementation of a conformance-centric SOA, whereby they are shown to lead to consumers experiencing higher quality than with existing performance-centric approaches.\ud By introducing conformance-centric principles into existing real-world SOA, consumers will be able to evaluate and engage with providers that offer services that have been differentiated based on consumer expectation. The benefits of such capability over the current state-of-the-art in SOA are twofold. Firstly, individual consumers will receive higher quality services, and therefore will increase the likelihood of their needs being effectively satisfied. Secondly, the availability of assessment tools which acknowledge the conformance-centric nature of consumers will encourage providers to offer a range of services for consumers with varying expectation, rather than simply offering a single service that aims to delivery maximum performance. This recognition will allow providers to use their resources more efficiently, leading to reduced costs and increased profitability. Such benefits can only be realised by adopting a conformance-centric view of quality across the SOA and by providing assessment services that operate effectively in such environments. This thesis proposes, develops and evaluates models and approaches that enable the achievement of this goal.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • [4] R. J. Al-Ali, O. F. Rana, and D. W. Walker. G-QoSM: Grid Service Discovery Using QoS Properties. Journal of Computing and Informatics: Special Issue on Grid Computing, 21(4):363{382, 2002.
    • [5] J. Anselmi, D. Ardagna, and P. Cremonesi. A QoS-Based Selection Approach of Autonomic Grid Services. In Proceedings of the 2007 Workshop on Service-oriented Computing Performance, pages 1{8. ACM, 2007.
    • [6] F. Barbon, P. Traverso, M. Pistore, and M. Trainotti. Run-Time Monitoring of Instances and Classes of Web Service Compositions. In ICWS '06: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Web Services, pages 63{71. IEEE Computer Society, 2006.
    • [7] M.N. Bennani and D.A. Menasce. Resource Allocation for Autonomic Data Centers using Analytic Performance Models. pages 229{240. IEEE Computer Society, 2005.
    • [8] P. Berkhin. Survey of Clustering Data Mining Techniques. Technical report, Accrue Software, Inc., 2002.
    • [9] H. Billhardt, R. Hermoso, S. Ossowski, and R. Centeno. Trust-Based Service Provider Selection in Open Environments. In Proceedings of the 2007 ACM Symposium on Applied Computing, pages 1375{1380. ACM, 2007.
    • [10] B.Larsen and C. Aone. Fast and E ective Text Mining using Linear-Time Document Clustering. In KDD '99: Proceedings of the Fifth ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, pages 16{22, New York, NY, USA, 1999. ACM.
    • [11] P. S. Bradley and U. M. Fayyad. Re ning Initial Points for K-Means Clustering. In Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 91{99. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, CA, 1998.
    • [12] J. Breese, D. Heckerman, and C. Kadie. Empirical Analysis of Predictive Algorithms for Collaborative Filtering. In Proceedings of the 14th Conference on Uncertainty in Arti cial Intelligence, pages 43{52. Morgan Kaufman, San Francisco, CA, 1998.
    • [13] J. Brooke, D. Fellows, and J. MacLaren. Resource Brokering: The EUROGRID/GRIP Approach. In Proceedings (CD-ROM) of the UK eScience All Hands Meetings (AHM 2004), September 2004. URL: http://www.allhands.org.uk/2004/submissions/papers/178.pdf.
    • [14] M. Bruno, G. Canfora, M. Di Penta, G. Esposito, and V. Mazza. Using Test Cases as Contract to Ensure Service Compliance Across Releases. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Service Oriented Computing (ICSOC 2005), pages 87{100. Springer Verlag, Heidelberg, Germany, November 2005.
    • [15] G. Canfora and M. Di Penta. Testing Services and Service-Centric Systems: Challenges and Opportunities. IT Professional, 8(2):10{17, 2006.
    • [16] H. Cao, X. Feng, Y. Sun, Z. Zhang, and Q. Wu. A Service Selection Model with Multiple QoS Constraints on the MMKP. In Proceedings of the FIP International Conference on Network and Parallel Computing Workshops, 2007. NPC Workshops. I, pages 584{589, September 2007.
    • [17] V. Cardellini, E. Casalicchio, V. Grassi, and F. Lo Presti. E cient Provisioning of Service Level Agreements for Service Oriented Applications. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Service Oriented Software Engineering, pages 29{35. ACM, 2007.
    • [18] J. Cardoso, J. Miller, A. Sheth, and J. Arnold. Modeling Quality of Service for Work ows and Web Service Processes. Technical Report UGACS-TR-02-002, LSDIS Lab, Computer Science Department, University of Georgia, May 2002.
    • [19] J. Carter, E. Bitting, and A. A. Ghorbani. Reputation Formalization for an Information-Sharing Multi-Agent System. Computational Intelligence, 18(4):515{534, November 2002.
    • [20] D. Chalmers and M. Sloman. A Survey of Quality of Service in Mobile Computing Environments. IEEE Communications Surveys and Tutorials, 2(2):2{10, 1999.
    • [21] M Chen and J.P. Singh. Computing and Using Reputations for Internet Ratings. In Proceedings of the 3rd ACM conference on Electronic Commerce, pages 154{162. ACM, 2001.
    • [23] M. Claypool, P. Le, M. Waseda, and D. Brown. Implicit Interest Indicators. In Proceedings of the ACM Intelligent User Interfaces Conference, pages 33{40, January 2001.
    • [24] B. Yan D. Qian Z. Luan D. Yang, Z. Wuand. Agent-Based MADM Approach to the Dynamic Web Service Selection. The 2nd IEEE Asia-Paci c Service Computing Conference, pages 260{265, 11-14 Dec. 2007.
    • [25] E. Damiani, S. De Capitani di Vimercati, S. Paraboschi, P. Samarati, and Fabio Violante. A Reputation-Based Approach for Choosing Reliable Resources in Peer-to-Peer Networks. In Proceedings of the 9th ACM conference on Computer and communications security, pages 207{216. ACM, 2002.
    • [26] A. Dan, D. Davis, R. Kearney, R. King, A. Keller, D. Kuebler, H. Ludwig, M. Polan, M. Spreitzer, and A. Youssef. Web Services on Demand: WSLA-Driven Automated Management. IBM Systems Journal, Special Issue on Utility Computing, 43(1):136{158, March 2004.
    • [27] C. Dellarocas. Immunizing Online Reputation Reporting Systems against Unfair Ratings and Discriminatory Behavior. In EC '00: Proceedings of the 2nd ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce, pages 150{157, New York, NY, USA, 2000. ACM Press.
    • [28] G. N. Demir, A. S. Uyar, and S.G. Oguducu.
    • [29] V. Deora, J. Shao, G. Shercli , P.J. Stockreisser, W.A. Gray, and N.J. Fiddian. Incorporating QoS Speci cations in Service Discovery. In Web Information Systems WISE 2004 Workshops, volume 3307 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 252{263. Springer Berlin / Heidelberg, 2004.
    • [30] Vikas Deora, Jianhua Shao, W. Alex Gray, and Nick J. Fiddian. Expectation Based Quality of Service Assessment. International Journal on Digital Libraries, 6(3):260{269, March 2006.
    • [35] R.O. Duda, P.E. Hart, and D.G. Stork. Pattern Classi cation. 2001.
    • [36] M. Ekstrom, A. C. Bicharra Garcia, and H. Bjornsson. Rewarding Honest Ratings through Personalised Recommendations in Electronic Commerce. International Journal of Electronic Business (IJEB), 3(3/4):392{410, 2005.
    • [37] R. Elmasri and S. Navathe. Fundamentals of Database Systems (3rd Edition). Addison Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts, USA, 1999.
    • [38] F. Emekci, O. D. Sahin, D. Agrawal, and A. El Abbadi. A Peer-to-Peer Framework for Web Services Discovery with Ranking. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Web Services, pages 192{199, July 2004.
    • [39] A. Farag and M. Muthucumaru. Evolving and Managing Trust in Grid Computing Systems. In Proceedings of IEEE Canadian Conference on Electrical and Computer Engineering, pages 1424{1429, 2002.
    • [40] E.W. Forgy. Cluster Analysis of Multivariate Data: E ciency vs Interpretability of Classi cations. Biometrics, (21):768{769.
    • [42] I. Foster, C. Kesselman, and S. Tuecke. The Anatomy of the Grid: Enabling Scalable Virtual Organizations. International Journal of High Performance Computing Applications, 15(3):200{222, 2001.
    • [43] C. Fraley and A. E. Raftery. How many Clusters? Which Clustering Method? Answers via Model-Based Cluster Analysis. The Computer Journal, 41:578{588, 1998.
    • [44] S. Frolund and J. Koistinen. Quality of Service Speci cation in Distributed Object System Design. In Proceedings of the 4th USENIX Conference on Object-Oriented Technologies and Systems (COOTS), April 1998.
    • [45] Z. Gao and G. Wu. Combining QoS-based Service Selection with Performance Prediction. Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on e-Business Engineering, 2005. ICEBE 2005, pages 611{614, October 2005.
    • [46] J. Garofalakis, Y. Panagis, E. Sakkopoulos, and A. Tsakalidis. Web Service Discovery Mechanisms: Looking for a Needle in a Haystack? In Proceedings of International Workshop on Web Engineering 2004, 2004.
    • [47] J. Golbeck and J. Hendler. Inferring Reputation on the Semantic Web. In Proceedings of the 13th International World Wide Web Conference. ACM, 2004. URL: http://www.mindswap.org/papers/GolbeckWWW04.pdf.
    • [48] F. A. Grabowski. Plato, Metaphysics and the Forms (Continuum Studies in Ancient Philosophy). Continuum International Publishing Group, London, UK, May 2008.
    • [49] G. Grimmett and D. Stirzaker. Probability and Random Processes (Third Edition). Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, 2001.
    • [50] J. Gross. Linear Regression. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany, 2003.
    • [51] S. Guan, X. Dong, W. Wu, Y. Mei, and S. Liao. Trust Management and Service Selection in Pervasive Computing Environments. Computational Intelligence and Security Workshops, 2007. CISW 2007. International Conference on, pages 620{623, 2007.
    • [52] A. Ha d and S. Fischer. A Multi-Agent Architecture for Cooperative Quality of Service Management. In Proceedings (CD-ROM) of the IFIP/IEEE Conference on Management of Multimedia Networks and Services (MMNS'97), pages 41{54, 1997.
    • [53] J. Hendler and D. L. McGuinness. The DARPA Agent Markup Language. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 15(6):67{73, November 2000.
    • [54] M. Hosomani, H. Narayanappa, and H. Rajan. Monitoring the Monitor: An Approach towards Trustworthiness in Service Oriented Architecture. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Service Oriented Engineering, pages 42{46, September 2007.
    • [55] M. S. Hossain, A. Alamri, and El Saddik A. A Framework for QoS-Aware Multimedia Service Selection for Wireless Clients. In WMuNeP '07: Proceedings of the 3rd ACM workshop on Wireless Multimedia Networking and Performance Modeling, pages 16{22, New York, NY, USA, 2007. ACM.
    • [56] J. Hu, C. Guo, H. Wang, and P. Zou. Quality Driven Web Services Selection. In ICEBE '05: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on e-Business Engineering, pages 681{688, Washington, DC, USA, 2005. IEEE Computer Society.
    • [57] N. Hu, P. A. Pavlou, and J. Zhang. Can Online Reviews Reveal a Product's True Quality?: Empirical Findings and Analytical Modeling of Online Word-of-Mouth Communication. In EC '06: Proceedings of the 7th ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce, pages 324{330, New York, NY, USA, 2006. ACM.
    • [58] M. N. Huhns and M. P. Singh. Service-Oriented Computing: Key Concepts and Principles. IEEE Internet Computing, 9(1):75{81, January 2005.
    • [65] N. R. Jennings. An Agent-Based Approach for Building Complex Software Systems. Communications of the ACM, 44(4):35{41, April 2001.
    • [67] P. Juhua, X. Zhang, and W. Zhenxing. The Research on QoS for Grid Computing. In Communication Technology Proceedings, 2003. ICCT 2003. International Conference on, volume 2, pages 1711{171, 2003.
    • [68] R. Jurca and B. Faltings. An Incentive Compatible Reputation Mechanism. In Proceedings of the International Conference on E-Commerce Technology (CEC'03), pages 285{292. IEEE, June 2003.
    • [69] S. Kalepu, S. Krishnaswamy, and S. W. Loke. Reputation = f (User Ranking, Compliance, Verity). In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Web Services (ICWS' 2004), pages 200{207, California, USA, July 2004. IEEE Press.
    • [70] I. Kant. Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals (translated by L.W. Beck). Prentice Hall, Saddle River, New Jersey, USA, 1989.
    • [71] G. Karypis, E-H. (Sam) Han, and V. Kumar. CHAMELEON: A Hierarchical Clustering Algorithm Using Dynamic Modelling. IEEE Computer, 32:68{75, August 1999.
    • [86] E. Martin, S. Basu, and T. Xie. Automated Robustness Testing of Web Services. In Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on SOA And Web Services Best Practices (SOAWS 2006), October 2006.
    • [87] E. Martin, S. Basu, and T. Xie. WebSob: A Tool for Robustness Testing of Web Services. In Companion to the Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Software Engineering, pages 65{66, Washington, DC, USA, 2007. IEEE Computer Society.
    • [88] O. Martin-Diaz, A. Ruiz-Cortes, D. Benavides, A. Duran, and M. Toro. A Quality-Aware Approach to Web Services Procurement. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2819:42{53, September 2003.
    • [89] Y. Matsui, S. Kihara, A. Mitsuzawa, S. Moriai, and H. Tokuda. An Extensible Object Model for QoS Speci cation in Adaptive QoS Systems. In Proceedings of the Second IEEE International Symposium on Object-Oriented Real-Time Distributed Computing, page 129, 1999.
    • [90] E. M. Maximilien and M. Singh. Conceptual Model of Web Service Reputation. ACM SIGMOD Record, pages 36{41, 2002.
    • [108] J. Patel, W.T.L. Teacy, N. R. Jennings, M. Luck, S. Chalmers, N. Oren, T.J. Norman, A. Preece, P.M.D. Gray, G. Shercli , P.J. Stockreisser, J. Shao, W.A. Gray, N.J. Fiddian, and S. Thompson. CONOISE-G: Agent Based Virtual Organisations for the Grid. International Journal of MultiAgent and Grid Systems: Special Issue on Smart Grid Technologies, 1:237{249, 2005.
    • [109] M. Di Penta, G. Canfora, G. Esposito, V. Mazza, and M. Bruno. Search-Based Testing of Service Level Agreements. In GECCO '07: Proceedings of the 9th Annual Conference on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation, pages 1090{1097, New York, NY, USA, 2007. ACM.
    • [111] A. Preece, S. Chalmers, N. Oren, T. Norman, A. Preece, P. Gray, G Shercli , P. J. Stockreisser, J. Shao, A. Gray, N. Fiddian, J. Patel, L. Teacy, N. Jennings, M. Luck, and S. Thompson. Managing Virtual Organisations on the Grid using Agent Technology. AgentLink News, pages 14{17, 2005.
    • [119] P. Resnick, R. Zeckhauser, E. Friedman, and K. Kuwabara. Reputation Systems. Communications of the ACM, 43(12):45{48, December 2000.
    • [120] M. D. Rohr. Is Goodness Comparative? The Journal of Philosophy, 75(9):494{503, September 1978.
    • [121] P. J. Rousseuw. Silhouettes: A Graphical Aid to the Interpretation and Validation of Cluster Analysis. Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics, 20(1):53{65, November 1987.
    • [122] J. Roy and A. Ramanujan. Understanding Web Services. IT Professional, 3:69{73, November 2001.
    • [123] J. Carbo Rubiera, J. M. Molina Lopez, and J. Davila Muro. A Fuzzy Model of Reputation in Multi-Agent Systems. In AGENTS '01: Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Autonomous Agents, pages 25{26, New York, NY, USA, 2001. ACM Press.
    • [151] P-N. Tan, M. Steinbach, and V. Kumar. Introduction to Data Mining, chapter 8. Addison-Wesley, 2006.
    • [152] W. T. L. Teacy, J. Patel, N. R. Jennings, and M. Luck. TRAVOS: Trust and Reputation in the Context of Inaccurate Information Sources. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 12(2):183{198, March 2006.
    • [153] R. K. Teas. Expectations, Performance Evaluation and Consumers' Perceptions of Quality. Journal of Marketing, 57(4):18{34, 1993.
    • Conference on Web Intelligence, 2006 (WI 2006), pages 553{557, December 2006.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article