skip to main content
10.1145/1242572.1242709acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesthewebconfConference Proceedingsconference-collections
Article

Preference-based selection of highly configurable web services

Published: 08 May 2007 Publication History

Abstract

A key challenge for dynamic Web service selection is that Web services are typically highly configurable and service requesters often have dynamic preferences on service configurations. Current approaches, such as WS-Agreement, describe Web services by enumerating the various possible service configurations, an inefficient approach when dealing with numerous service attributes with large value spaces. We model Web service configurations and associated prices and preferences more compactly using utility function policies, which also allows us to draw from multi-attribute decision theory methods to develop an algorithm for optimal service selection. In this paper, we present an OWL ontology for the specification of configurable Web service offers and requests, and a flexible and extensible framework for optimal service selection that combines declarative logic-based matching rules with optimization methods, such as linear programming. Assuming additive price/preference functions, experimental results indicate that our algorithm introduces an overhead of only around 2 sec.~compared to random service selection, while giving optimal results. The overhead, as percentage of total time, decreases as the number of offers and configurations increase.

References

[1]
S. Agarwal and R. Studer. Automatic matchmaking of web services. In 5th Int. Conf. on Web Service, Chicago,USA, 2006.
[2]
F. Baader, D. Calvanese, D. McGuinness, D. Nardi, and P. F. Patel-Schneider, editors. The Description Logic Handbook: Theory Implemenation and Applications. Cambridge University Press, 2003.
[3]
W. T. Balke and M. Wagner. Towards personalized selection of web services. In 12th Int. WWW Conf., Budapest, Hungary, 2003.
[4]
M. Bichler and J. Kalagnanam. Configurable offers and winner determination in multi-attribute auctions. European Journal of Operational Research, 160(2):380--394, 2005.
[5]
P. A. Bonatti and P. Festa. On optimal service selection. In Proc. of the 14th Int. WWW Conf., New York, USA, 2005.
[6]
S. Brockmans, R. Volz, A. Eberhart, and P. Löffler. Visual modeling of OWL DL ontologies using UML. In Proc. of the 3rd Int. Semantic Web Conf., Hiroshima, Japan, 2004.
[7]
P. Bruckner and S. Knust. Complex Scheduling. Springer, 2006.
[8]
DAML Services Coalition. DAML-S: Web service description for the semantic web. In 1st Int. Semantic Web Conf., Sardinia, Italy, 2002.
[9]
R. Dumitru, U. Keller, H. Lausen, J. de Bruijn, R. Lara, M. Stollberg, A. Polleres, C. Feier, C. Bussler, and D. Fensel:. Web service modeling ontology. Applied Ontology, 1(1):77--106, 2005.
[10]
Y. Engel, M. P. Wellman, and K. M. Lochner. Bid expressiveness and clearing algorithms in multiattribute double auctions. In Proc. of the 7th ACM Conf. on e-Commerce, New York, USA, 2006.
[11]
Global Grid Forum. Grid Resource Allocation Agreement Protocol. Web Services Specification. Available from http://www.ogf.org/Public_Comment_Docs/Documents/Oct-2006/WS-AgreementSpecificationDraftFinal_sp_tn_jpver_v2.pdf, October 2006.
[12]
B. Grosof and T. Poon. SweetDeal: Representing agent contracts with exceptions using XML rules, ontologies, and process descriptions. In 12th Int. WWW Conf., Budapest, Hungary, 2003.
[13]
I. Horrocks, P. F. Patel-Schneider, H. Boley, S. Tabet, B. Grosof, and M. Dean. SWRL: A semantic web rule language combining OWL and RuleML, 2004. W3C Submission.
[14]
IBM Corporation. WSLA language specification, version 1.0. http://www.research.ibm.com/wsla, 2003.
[15]
L. Kagal, T. Finin, and A. Joshi. Declarative Policies for Describing Web Service Capabilities and Constraints. In W3C Workshop on Constraints and Capabilities for Web Services, CA, USA, 2004.
[16]
R. L. Keeney and H. Raiffa. Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Tradeoffs. J. Wiley, New York, 1976.
[17]
J. O. Kephart and W. E. Walsh. An artificial intelligence perspective on autonomic computing policies. In 5th IEEE Int. Workshop on Policies for Distributed Systems and Networks, NY, USA, 2004.
[18]
M. Klusch, B. Fries, M. Khalid, and K. Sycara. OWLS-MX: Hybrid Semantic Web Service Retrieval. In 1st Int. AAAI Fall Symposium on Agents and the Semantic Web, Arlington, USA, 2005.
[19]
S. Lamparter and A. Ankolekar. Automated selection of configurable web services. In 8. Int. Tagung Wirtschaftsinformatik, Karlsruhe, Germany, 2007.
[20]
S. Lamparter, A. Ankolekar, D. Oberle, R. Studer, and C. Weinhardt. A policy framework for trading configurable goods and services in open electronic markets. In 8th Int. Conf. on Electronic Commerce, New Brunswick, Canada, 2006.
[21]
D. J. Mandell and S. McIlraith. Adapting BPEL4WS for the Semantic Web: The Bottom-Up Approach to Web Service Interoperation. In 2nd Int. Semantic Web Conf., FL, USA, 2003.
[22]
B. Motik. On the properties of metamodeling in OWL. In 4th Int. Semantic Web Conf. (ISWC 2005), Galway, Ireland, 2005.
[23]
B. Motik and U. Sattler. A comparison of reasoning techniques for querying large description logic aboxes. In Proc. of the 13th Int. Conf. on Logic for Programming Artificial Intelligence and Reasoning, Phnom Penh, Cambodia, 2006.
[24]
B. Motik, U. Sattler, and R. Studer. Query answering for OWL-DL with rules. Journal of Web Semantics: Science, Services and Agents on the WWW, 3(1):41--60, 2005.
[25]
OASIS. Web Services Business Process Execution Language (WS-BPEL). http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbrev=wsbpel, 2007. Version 2.0.
[26]
N. Oldham, K. Verma, A. Sheth, and F. Hakimpour. Semantic WS-Agreement Partner Selection. In 15th Int. WWW Conf., Edinburgh, UK, 2006.
[27]
M. Paolucci, T. Kawamura, T. R. Payne, and K. P. Sycara. Semantic matching of web services capabilities. In 1st Int. Semantic Web Conference, pages 333--347, Sardinia, Italy, 2002.
[28]
C. H. Papadimitriou and K. Steiglitz. Combinatorial Optimization. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1982.
[29]
C. Pautasso and G. Alonso. Flexible binding for reusable composition of web services. In Proc. of the 4th Workshop on Software Composition, Edinburgh, Scotland, 2005.
[30]
S. Russel and P. Norvig. Artificial Intelligence - A Modern Approach. Prentice Hall, 2nd edition, 2003.
[31]
A. Sahai, V. Machiraju, M. Saya, A. v. Moorsel, and F. Casati. Automated SLA monitoring for web services. In Proc. of 13th Int. Workshop on Distributed Systems, Montreal, Canada, 2002.
[32]
B. Schnizler, D. Neumann, D. Veit, and C. Weinhardt. Trading grid services - a multi-attribute combinatorial approach. European Journal of Operational Research, forthcoming.
[33]
I. Toma, D. Foxvog, and M. C. Jaeger. Modeling QoS characteristics in WSMO. In 1st Workshop on Middleware for Service-oriented Computing, New York, USA, 2006.
[34]
V. Tosic, K. Patel, and B. Pagurek. WSOL - web service offerings language. In CAiSE Workshop on Web Services, E-Business, and the Semantic Web, Toronto, Canada, 2002.
[35]
K. Verma, R. Akkiraju, R. Goodwin, P. Doshi, and J. Lee. On accommodating inter service dependencies in web process flow composition. In AAAI Spring Symposium on SWS, CA, USA, 2004.
[36]
W3C. Web Services Definition Language (WSDL) 1.1. http://www.w3.org/TR/wsdl, 2001.
[37]
W3C. Web Ontology Language (OWL). http://www.w3.org/2004/OWL/, 2004.
[38]
W3C. Web Services Policy Framework 1.5. http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/policy/, July 2006.
[39]
W3C. W3C XML Query (XQuery 1.0). http://www.w3.org/XML/Query/, January 2007.
[40]
L. Zeng, B. Benatallah, A. H. Ngu, M. Dumas, J. Kalagnanam, and H. Chang. QoS-aware middleware for web services composition. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 30(5):311--327, 2004.

Cited By

View all
  • (2021)Selecting Services for Multiple Users: Let’s Be DemocraticIEEE Transactions on Services Computing10.1109/TSC.2018.287569114:5(1531-1544)Online publication date: 1-Sep-2021
  • (2021)Definition and Induction of a Specification Order Relation between Capabilities2021 IEEE International Conference on Services Computing (SCC)10.1109/SCC53864.2021.00025(126-133)Online publication date: Sep-2021
  • (2019)Combine availability with user preferences for efficient WSCWeb Intelligence10.3233/WEB-19040517:2(105-119)Online publication date: 8-Apr-2019
  • Show More Cited By

Recommendations

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

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
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]

Sponsors

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 08 May 2007

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. customisation
  2. preference-based service selection
  3. web services

Qualifiers

  • Article

Conference

WWW'07
Sponsor:
WWW'07: 16th International World Wide Web Conference
May 8 - 12, 2007
Alberta, Banff, Canada

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 1,899 of 8,196 submissions, 23%

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)9
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)1
Reflects downloads up to 05 Mar 2025

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all
  • (2021)Selecting Services for Multiple Users: Let’s Be DemocraticIEEE Transactions on Services Computing10.1109/TSC.2018.287569114:5(1531-1544)Online publication date: 1-Sep-2021
  • (2021)Definition and Induction of a Specification Order Relation between Capabilities2021 IEEE International Conference on Services Computing (SCC)10.1109/SCC53864.2021.00025(126-133)Online publication date: Sep-2021
  • (2019)Combine availability with user preferences for efficient WSCWeb Intelligence10.3233/WEB-19040517:2(105-119)Online publication date: 8-Apr-2019
  • (2019)A Case for a New IT Ecosystem: On-The-Fly ComputingBusiness & Information Systems Engineering10.1007/s12599-019-00627-x62:6(467-481)Online publication date: 9-Dec-2019
  • (2019)A User Constraint Awareness Approach for QoS-Based Service CompositionWeb Services – ICWS 201910.1007/978-3-030-23499-7_4(48-62)Online publication date: 14-Jun-2019
  • (2018)Effective BigData-Space Service Selection over Trust and Heterogeneous QoS PreferencesIEEE Transactions on Services Computing10.1109/TSC.2015.248039311:4(644-657)Online publication date: 1-Jul-2018
  • (2018)A New Framework of Frequent Uncertain Subgraph MiningProcedia Computer Science10.1016/j.procs.2018.07.275126(413-422)Online publication date: 2018
  • (2017)Modelling and Analysing Highly-Configurable ServicesProceedings of the 21st International Systems and Software Product Line Conference - Volume A10.1145/3106195.3106211(114-122)Online publication date: 25-Sep-2017
  • (2017)Integrating Trust with User Preference for Effective Web Service CompositionIEEE Transactions on Services Computing10.1109/TSC.2015.249192610:4(574-588)Online publication date: 1-Jul-2017
  • (2017)Cognitively Adjusting Imprecise User Preferences for Service SelectionIEEE Transactions on Network and Service Management10.1109/TNSM.2017.273105014:3(717-729)Online publication date: Sep-2017
  • Show More Cited By

View Options

Login options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Figures

Tables

Media

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media