1 / 18

Ranking services for composition

Ranking services for composition. Hong Qing Yu (Harry). Service composition. “Composition of Web services has received much interest to support business-to-business or enterprise application integration.” [1] Static Dynamic. [2]. Issues for composition. Global services registration

ross-osborn
Download Presentation

Ranking services for composition

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Ranking services for composition Hong Qing Yu (Harry)

  2. Service composition “Composition of Web services has received much interest to support business-to-business or enterprise application integration.” [1] • Static • Dynamic [2]

  3. Issues for composition • Global services registration • Service search/discovery • Understanding composition requirements • Service selection • Workflow generation • Service invoking

  4. Ranking problem for selection • If there are more than two services satisfying functional requirements, • Which one is best to use? Cheapest one Fastest one Best performance • Other non-functional properties. • Logic Scoring preferenceis a technique can help us.

  5. Logic scoring preference • Traditional Scoring Techniques are simple E=W1E1+W2E2+…+WnEn, 0 ≤ E ≤ 1. • There is a problem [4] It is regardless of the level of importance, the contribution of component Ei to the global score is limited to Wi • LSP (Logic Scoring preference)

  6. Logic scoring preference • Differences are r & W E=(W1Er1+W2Er2+…+WnErn)1/r, 0 ≤ E ≤ 1, W1+W2+…+Wn=1, Wi>0, i=1,2,…,n. • r is a real number selected to achieve the desired logical properties of the aggregation function

  7. Logic scoring preference [4] [5]

  8. Ranking by composition context : is an European project • The meaning of context in the project • Context affects service selection • We need a simpler way to define r

  9. Designing evaluation rules E=(W1Er1+W2Er2+…+WnErn)1/r, 0 ≤ E ≤ 1, W1+W2+…+Wn=1, Wi>0, i=1,2,…,n. • Filtering rules • Evaluation function • r selection

  10. Filtering rules Quality>85 Cost<$35 Speed>30/s Irreplaceable preference criteria Replaceable preference criteria If the service’s properties do not achieve the irreplaceable preference, then it will be filtered out.

  11. Evaluation function • Exact match Es=1 (if the criteria is matched) or 0 (if is not matched) • Set overlap Es=(e1+e2+…+ei) /i (with Ei being a score for each criteria) • Level match if i is the number of levels and ic is current service level value, then we define: Es=ic/i

  12. Evaluation function • Specific value if vx is the maximum value of all relevant services in one criteria, vn is the minimum value and vi is the current service value, then we calculate:

  13. r selection • E=W1E1+W2E2+...WnEn • Can we compute the weight for choosing the r instead of using the way introduced in [5]. • On the one hand, Filter makes all aspects criteria is replaceable, which means that we need conjunction. • On the other hand, if the weight of each criterion are so difference, we also need disjunction.

  14. r selection rules • We are in a very balanced position, and we can narrow our r selection tables • To simplify defining the r value, we just select 1.5, 1, 0.5. • If (highest weight – lowest weight)>average weight, then r=1.5 • If (highest weight – lowest weight)<average weight, then r=0.5 • If (highest weight – lowest weight)=average weight, then r=1

  15. Example

  16. Worked Example • Criterion requirement: • More people’s weight=0.6 • Quality’s weight=0.3 • Cost’s weight=-0.1 • The result Eskype=(2/3)1.5·0.6+(2/3)1.5·0.3+11.5·0.1=0.590 Etalkfly=11.5·0.6 +(1/3)1.5·0.3+0=0.658 Ehotmail =11.5·0.6+11.5·0.3+(0.6)1.5·0.1=0.946

  17. References • http://www.zurich.ibm.com/pdf/ebizz/icaps-ws.pdf • http://www.active-endpoints.com/open-source-tutorial.htm • http://www.isi.edu/~thakkar/icaps2003-p4ws.pdf • http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/cache/papers/cs/2874/http:zSzzSzcs.sfsu.eduzSzpeoplezSzjozozSzlsp.pdf/a-method-for-evaluation.pdf • “Continuous Preference Logic for System Evaluation”, Jozo J. Dujmovic, USA

  18. Thanks Questions

More Related