skip to main content
research-article

A survey on service quality description

Published:11 July 2013Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Quality of service (QoS) can be a critical element for achieving the business goals of a service provider, for the acceptance of a service by the user, or for guaranteeing service characteristics in a composition of services, where a service is defined as either a software or a software-support (i.e., infrastructural) service which is available on any type of network or electronic channel. The goal of this article is to compare the approaches to QoS description in the literature, where several models and metamodels are included. consider a large spectrum of models and metamodels to describe service quality, ranging from ontological approaches to define quality measures, metrics, and dimensions, to metamodels enabling the specification of quality-based service requirements and capabilities as well as of SLAs (Service-Level Agreements) and SLA templates for service provisioning. Our survey is performed by inspecting the characteristics of the available approaches to reveal which are the consolidated ones and which are the ones specific to given aspects and to analyze where the need for further research and investigation lies. The approaches here illustrated have been selected based on a systematic review of conference proceedings and journals spanning various research areas in computer science and engineering, including: distributed, information, and telecommunication systems, networks and security, and service-oriented and grid computing.

References

  1. Allen, P. 2006. Service Orientation, Winning Strategies and Best Practices. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Andrieux, A., Dan, A., Keahy, K., Ludwig, H., and Rofrano, J. 2004. Negotiability constraints in WS-Agreement. Tech. rep. GRAAP-WG. Version 0.1. http://www.mcs.anl.gov/∼keahey/Meetings/GRAAP/WSAgreement%20Negotiability%20Constraints.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Batini, C., Cappielo, C., Francalanci, C., and Maurino, A. 2009. Methodologies for data quality assessment and improvement. ACM Comput. Surv. 41, 3. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Brandic, I., Buyya, R., Mattess, M., and Venugopal, S. 2009. Towards a meta-negotiation architecture for sla-aware grid services. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Service Oriented Engineering and Optimization (SENOPT'08) in conjunction with Conference on High Performance Computing. 1--9.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Brandic, I., Pllana, S., and Benkner, S. 2006. An approach for the high-level specification of qos-aware grid workows considering location affinity. Sci. Programm. J. 14, 3--4, 231--250. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Cappiello, C. 2006. The quality registry. In Mobile Information Systems -- Infrastructure and Design for Adaptivity and Flexibility, Springer, 307--317.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Cappiello, C., Kritikos, K., Metzger, A., Parkin, M., Pernici, B., Plebani, P., and Treiber, M. 2008. A quality model for service monitoring and adaptation. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Monitoring, Adaptation and Beyond (MONA+) at the ServiceWave Conference. Springer.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Colombo, M., Nitto, E. D., Penta, M. D., Distante, D., and Zuccal, A. M. 2005. Speaking a common language: A conceptual model for describing service-oriented systems. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Service Oriented Computing (ICSOC'05). 48--60. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Comuzzi, M., Kritikos, K., and Plebani, P. 2009. A semantic based framework for supporting negotiation in service oriented architectures. In Proceedings of the 11th IEEE Conference on Commerce and Enterprise Computing (CEC'09). 137--145. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Cortés, A. R., Martín-Díaz, O., Toro, A. D., and Toro, M. 2005. Improving the automatic procurement of web services using constraint programming. Int. J. Cooperative Inf. Syst. 14, 4, 439--468.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Cranor, L., Dobbs, B., Egelman, S., Hogben, G., Humphrey, J., Langheinrich, M., Marchiori, M., Preslermarshall, M., Reagle, J., Schunter, M., Stampley, D. A., and Wenning, R. 2006. Platform for privacy preferences (p3p). Working group note, W3C. November. http://www.w3.org/P3P/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. De Paoli, F., Palmonari, M., Comerio, M., and Maurino, A. 2008. A meta-model for non-functional property descriptions of web services. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Web Services (ICWS'08). 393--400. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Dikaiakos, M. D., Pallis, G., Katsaros, D., Mehra, P., and Vakali, A. 2009. Cloud computing: Distributed internet computing for it and scientific research. IEEE Internet Comput. 13, 5, 10--13. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Dobson, G., Lock, R., and Sommerville, I. 2005. QoSOnt: A qos ontology for service-centric systems. In Proceedings of the 31st EUROMICRO Conference on Software Engineering and Advanced Applications (EUROMICRO'05). 80--87. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Farrell, A. D. H., Sergot, M. J., Trastour, D., and Christodoulou, A. 2004. Performance monitoring of service-level agreements for utility computing using the event calculus. In Proceedings of the 1st IEEE International Workshop on Electronic Contracting (WEC'04). 17--24. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Fosbrook, D. and Laing, A. C. 1996. The A-Z of Contract Clauses. Sweet and Maxwell.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Frølund, S. and Koistinen, J. 1998. Quality of services specification in distributed object systems design. In Proceedings of the 4th Conference on USENIX Conference on Object-Oriented Technologies and Systems (COOTS'98). 179--202. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Frutos, H. M., Kotsiopoulos, I., Gonzalez, L. M. V., and Merino, L. R. 2009. Enhancing service selection by semantic qos. In Proceedings of the 6th European Semantic Web Conference on The Semantic Web: Research and Applications (ESWC'09). 565--577. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Georgakopoulos, D. and Papazoglou, M. P., eds. 2008. Service-Oriented Computing. MIT Press. http://mitpress.mit.edu/sites/default/files/titles/content/9780262072960_sch_0001.pdf. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Giallonardo, E. and Zimeo, E. 2007. More semantics in qos matching. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Service-Oriented Computing and Applications. 163--171. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Grefen, P. and Angelov, S. 2002. On τ-, μ-, π-, and ϵ-contracting. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Web Services, E-Business, and the Semantic Web (WES'02). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2512, Springer, 68--77. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Grosof, B. N. and Poon, T. C. 2004. SweetDeal: Representing agent contracts with exceptions using semantic web rules, ontologies, and process descriptions. Int. J. Electron. Commerce 8, 4, 61--97. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Hoffner, Y., Field, S., Grefen, P., and Ludwig, H. 2001. Contract-driven creation and operation of virtual enterprises. Comput. Netw. 37, 111--136. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Hwang, C. and Yoon, K. 1981. Multiple criteria decision making. Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems. Tech. rep. ISO/IEC 2001. ISO/IEC 9126-1 Software Engineering. Product Quality - Part 1: Quality model. ISO/IEC.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Jiang, Y., Shao, W., Zhang, L., Ma, Z., Meng, X., and Ma, H. 2004. On the classification of umls meta model extension mechanism. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on The Unified Modeling Language: Modeling Languages and Applications (UML'04). 54--68.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Kazhamiakin, R., Pistore, M., and Zengin, A. 2009. Cross-layer adaptation and monitoring of service-based applications. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Service-Oriented Computing (ICSOC/ServiceWave'09). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 6275, Springer, 325--334. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Keller, A. and Ludwig, H. 2003. The wsla framework: Specifying and monitoring service level agreements for web services. J. Netw. Syst. Manag. 11, 1, 57--81. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Kritikos, K. 2008. QoS-based web service description and discovery. PhD thesis, Computer Science Department, University of Crete, Heraklion, Greece. December. http://ercim-news.ercim.eu/qos-based-web-service-description-and-discovery.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Kritikos, K. and Plexousakis, D. 2006. Semantic qos metric matching. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Web Services (ECOWS'06). 265--274. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Kritikos, K. and Plexousakis, D. 2009. Requirements for qos-based web service description and discovery. IEEE Trans. Serv. Comput. 2, 4, 320--337. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Lamanna, D. D., Skene, J., and Emmerich, W. 2003. SLAng: A language for defining service level agreements. In Proceedings of the 9th IEEE International Workshop on Future Trends of Distributed Computing Systems (FTDCS'03). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Linington, P. F., Milosevic, Z., Cole, J., Gibson, S., Kulkarni, S., and Neal, S. 2004. A unified behavioural model and a contract language for extended enterprise. Data Knowl. Engin. 51, 1, 5--29. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Ma, Y., Jin, B., and Feng, U. 2010. Semantic-oriented ontology cohesion metrics for ontology-based systems. J. Syst. Softw. 83, 1, 143--152. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Mabrouk, N. B., Georgantas, N., and Issarny, V. 2009. A semantic end-to-end qos model for dynamic service oriented environments. In Proceedings of the Principles of Engineering Service Oriented Systems collocated with the International Conference on Software Engineering. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Maximilien, E. M. and Singh, M. P. 2002. Conceptual model of web service reputation. SIGMOD Rec. 31, 4, 36--41. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Maximilien, E. M. and Singh, M. P. 2004. A framework and ontology for dynamic web services selection. IEEE Internet Comput. 8, 5, 84--93. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. Mens, T. and Lanza, M. 2002. A graph-based metamodel for object-oriented software metrics. Electron. Notes. Theor. Comput. Sci. 72, 2.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  38. Molina-Jimenez, C., Shrivastava, S., Solaiman, E., and Warne, J. 2003. Contract representation for run-time monitoring and enforcement. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on E-Commerce Technology (CEC'03). 103--110.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Müller, C., Cortés, A. R., and Resinas, M. 2008. An initial approach to explaining sla inconsistencies. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Service-Oriented Computing (ICSOC'08). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 5364, Springer, 394--406. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. Muller, N. J. 1999. Managing service level agreements. Int. J. Netw. Manag. 9, 3, 155--166. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. Nadalin, A., Goodner, M., Gudgin, M., Barbir, A., and Granqvist, H. 2007. WS-trust specification, Tech. rep. OASIS working draft. http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/webservices/library/specification/ws-trust/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. Nejdl, W., Olmedilla, D., and Winslett, M. 2004. PeerTrust: Automated trust negotiation for peers on the semantic web. In Proceedings of the VLDB International Workshop on Secure Data Management in a Connected World (SDM'04). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 3178, Springer, 118--132.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  43. Nessi Open Framework. 2009. Quality model for nexof-ra pattern designing. Tech. rep. http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/apps/projects/logos/6/216446/080/deliverables/001_D10220100901.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. The OASIS Group. 2005. Quality model for web services. Tech. rep., The Oasis Group. http://www.clip.dia.fi.upm.es/Projects/S-CUBE/papers/oasis05:WSQM-2.0.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. The OMG Group. 2005. UMLTM profile for modeling quality of service and fault tolerance characteristics and mechanisms. Tech. rep. ptc/2005-05-02, The OMG Group.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  46. Oldham, N., Verma, K., Sheth, A., and Hakimpour, F. 2006. Semantic ws-agreement partner selection. In Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on World Wide Web (WWW'06). ACM Press, New York, 697--706. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  47. Oren, N., Preece, A., and Norman, T. 2005. Service level agreements for semantic web agents. In AAAI Fall Symposium Series.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. O'sullivan, J., Edmond, D., and Ter Hofstede, A. 2002. What's in a service? Towards accurate description of non-functional service properties. Distrib. Parall. Datab. 12, 2--3, 117--133. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  49. Parkin, M., Badia, R. M., and Martrat, J. 2008. A comparison of sla use in six of the european commissions fp6 projects. Tech. rep. TR-0129, Institute on Resource Management and Scheduling, CoreGRID - Network of Excellence.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  50. Paschke, A. 2005. RBSLA: A declarative rule-based service level agreement language based on ruleml. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Computational Intelligence for Modelling, Control and Automation and International Conference on Intelligent Agents, Web Technologies and Internet Commerce (CIMCAIAWTIC'06). Vol. 2, 308--314. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  51. Paschke, A. and Schnappinger-Gerull, E. 2006. A categorization scheme for sla metrics. In Service Oriented Electronic Commerce: Proceedings zur Konferenz im Rahmen der Multikonferenz Wirtschaftsinformatik. LNI, vol. 80, 25--40.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  52. Ran, S. 2003. A model for web services discovery with QoS. SIGecom Exch. 4, 1, 1--10. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  53. Redman, T. C. 1997. Data Quality for the Information Age. Artech House, Inc., Norwood, MA. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  54. Rossi, F., van Beek, P., and Walsh, T. 2006. Handbook of Constraint Programming (Foundations of Artificial Intelligence). Elsevier Science, New York. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  55. Sabata, B., Chatterjee, S., Davis, M., Sydir, J., and Lawrence, T. 1997. Taxonomy for qos specifications. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Object-Oriented Real-Time Dependable Systems. 100--107. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  56. Sakellariou, R. and Yarmolenko, V. 2008. Job scheduling on the grid: Towards sla-based scheduling. http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/∼rizos/papers/hpc08.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  57. Seth, N., Desmukh, S. G., and Vrat, P. 2005. Service quality models: A review. Int. J. Qual. Reliab. Manag. 22, 9, 913--949.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  58. Skene, J. 2007. Language support for service-level agreements for application-service provision. Ph.D thesis, Department of Computer Science, University College London, London, UK. http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/5607/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  59. Skogsrud, H., Benatallah, B., and Casati, F. 2004. Trust-serv: Model-driven lifecycle management of trust negotiation policies for web services. In Proceedings of the 13th Conference on World Wide Web. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  60. Strong, D. M., Lee, Y. W., and Wang, R. Y. 1997. 10 pitholes in the road to information quality. Comput. 30, 8, 38--46. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  61. Tebbani, B. and Aib, I. 2006. GXLA a language for the specification of service level agreements. In Proceedings of the 1st International IFIP TC6 Conference on Autonomic Networking. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 4195, Springer, 201--214. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  62. Tian, M., Gramm, A., Nabulsi, M., Ritter, H., Schiller, J., and Voigt, T. 2003. QoS integration in web services. Gesellschaft fur Informatik DWS 2003, Doktorandenworkshop Technologien und Anwendungen von XML.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  63. Tosic, V., Esfandiari, B., Pagurek, B., and Patel, K. 2002. On requirements for ontologies in management of web services. In Revised Papers from the International Workshop on Web Services, E-Business, and the Semantic Web (CAiSE'02/WES'02). Springer, 237--247. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  64. Tosic, V., Ma, W., Pagurek, B., and Esfandiari, B. 2003a. On the dynamic manipulation of classes of service for xml web services. Research rep. SCE-03-15, Department of Systems and Computer Engineering, Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  65. Tosic, V. and Pagurek, B. 2005. On comprehensive contractual descriptions of web services. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on e-Technology, e-Commerce and e-Service (EEE'05). 444--449. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  66. Tosic, V., Pagurek, B., and Patel, K. 2003b. WSOL -- A language for the formal specification of classes of service for web services. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Web Services (ICWS'03), L.-J. Zhang, Ed. CSREA Press, Las Vegas, NV, 375--381.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  67. Truong, H.-L., Samborski, R., and Fahringer, T. 2006. Towards a framework for monitoring and analyzing qos metrics of grid services. In Proceedings of the International Conference on e-Science and Grid Computing. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  68. Trustcom Consortium. 2007. TrustCom framework v4 -- Appendix a: Profiles. Report Deliverable D63, European Union.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  69. Wang, X., Vitvar, T., Kerrigan, M., and Toma, I. 2006. A qos-aware selection model for semantic web services. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Service-Oriented Computing (ICSOC'06), A. Dan and W. Lamersdorf, Eds. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 4294, Springer, 390--401. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  70. Welty, C., Kalra, R., and Chu-Carroll, J. 2003. Evaluating ontological analysis. In Proceedings of the ISWC-03 Workshop on Semantic Integration.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  71. WS-Agreement. 2003. WS-agreement framework. https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/graap-wg.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  72. Yi, T., Wu, F., and Gan, C. 2004. A comparison of metrics for uml class diagrams. SIGSOFT Softw. Engin. Notes 29, 5, 1--6. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  73. Yoa, H., Orem, A. M., and Etzkorn, L. 2005. Cohesion metrics for ontology design and application. J. Comput. Sci. 1, 1, 107--113.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  74. Zemni, M. A., Benbernou, S., and Carro, M. 2010. A soft constraint-based approach to qos-aware service selection. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Service Oriented Computing (ICSOC'10). Springer.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  75. Zhou, C., Chia, L.-T., and Lee, B.-S. 2004. DAML-qos ontology for web services. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Web Services (ICWS'04). 472--479. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. A survey on service quality description

                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

                Full Access

                • Published in

                  cover image ACM Computing Surveys
                  ACM Computing Surveys  Volume 46, Issue 1
                  October 2013
                  551 pages
                  ISSN:0360-0300
                  EISSN:1557-7341
                  DOI:10.1145/2522968
                  Issue’s Table of Contents

                  Copyright © 2013 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: 11 July 2013
                  • Accepted: 1 October 2012
                  • Revised: 1 July 2012
                  • Received: 1 November 2009
                  Published in csur Volume 46, Issue 1

                  Permissions

                  Request permissions about this article.

                  Request Permissions

                  Check for updates

                  Qualifiers

                  • research-article
                  • Research
                  • Refereed

                PDF Format

                View or Download as a PDF file.

                PDF

                eReader

                View online with eReader.

                eReader