Multicriteria Evaluation Based Framework for Composite Web
Transcript of Multicriteria Evaluation Based Framework for Composite Web
Web service architectureWeb services selection
Proposed modelConclusion
Multicriteria Evaluation Based Framework forComposite Web Service Selection
Samir Youcef and Salem Chakhar
Laboratoire d’Analyse et de Modélisationdes Systèmes pour l’Aide à la Décision
Université de Paris-Dauphine21 February 2008
youcef, [email protected]
Decision Deck, February 21-02-2008 Multicriteria Framework for Composite Web Selection
Web service architectureWeb services selection
Proposed modelConclusion
Elementary Web Service
Web service definition (W3C)
B Web service is a software system designed to supportinteroperable machine to machine interaction over a network
B Interoperability among services is insured by the openprotocols:
Description: XML (eXtensible Markup language)
Transport: SOAP (Simple Object Access Protocol)
Interface: WSDL (Web Service Description Language)
WSDL is limited to simple operations:
How compose the different operations (Need a standarddescription of the process)
Decision Deck, February 21-02-2008 Multicriteria Framework for Composite Web Selection
Web service architectureWeb services selection
Proposed modelConclusion
Composite Web service
Composition languages
WSFL (Web Services Flow Language): IBM
XLANG (XML Business Process Language): Microsoft
PBML (Business Process Modeling Language): BPMI.org
BPEL4WS
BPEL4WS is the merger of WSFL, XLANG et PBML
BPEL4WS constructorsBasic: invoke, receive, reply, wait, assign,...
Structured: sequence, switch, while, flow, pick,...
Decision Deck, February 21-02-2008 Multicriteria Framework for Composite Web Selection
Web service architectureWeb services selection
Proposed modelConclusion
Conventional Web service architecture
B A Web service can be discovered in UDDI registry.
SOAP
HTTP,FTP...
Search
UDDI
Publication of the WSDLDecsription
Service customer Service provider
Recuperation of the WSDL description
Bind
Decision Deck, February 21-02-2008 Multicriteria Framework for Composite Web Selection
Web service architectureWeb services selection
Proposed modelConclusion
Web services selection
B Composite Web service=A+B+C (What is the best composition?)
Search
UDDI
Publication of the WSDLDecsription
Service customer
Recuperation of the WSDL description
Bind
Service A: provider 1,provider 2.
Service B:
provideer 1,provider 2, provider 3.
Service C: provider 1, provider 2.
Travel site: airline booking, hotel reservation, car reservation
http
Decision Deck, February 21-02-2008 Multicriteria Framework for Composite Web Selection
Web service architectureWeb services selection
Proposed modelConclusion
Web services selection
Quality of service (QoS)
QoS is a combinaison of several properties:
Qualitative: security, reputation,...
Quantitative: response time, availability,...
Previous studies
Single evaluation criterion
Successive evaluation ("general level" of differentcomposition)
Local strategy selection
Decision Deck, February 21-02-2008 Multicriteria Framework for Composite Web Selection
Web service architectureWeb services selection
Proposed modelConclusion
Web services selection
LimitationsA single criterion does not permit to encompass all thefacets of the problem
Weighted sum-like aggregation rules may lead to thecompensation problem
Several QoS evaluation criteria are naturally qualitative
Proposed solution
Using multicreteria evaluation of the different composition
Extend the conventional Web service architecture, usingQoS
Decision Deck, February 21-02-2008 Multicriteria Framework for Composite Web Selection
Web service architectureWeb services selection
Proposed modelConclusion
Extended conventional Web service architecture
Multicriterai Evalutaion?
yesno
infer
evaluate
Multicriteria Evaluation Component (MEC)
W-IRISDecisionDeck
Conventional Evaluation
CustomerProvider
UDDI registry
response responsefind
bind
publish
Decision Deck, February 21-02-2008 Multicriteria Framework for Composite Web Selection
Web service architectureWeb services selection
Proposed modelConclusion
Extended conventional Web service architecture
Multicriterai Evalutaion?
yesno
infer
evaluate
Multicriteria Evaluation Component (MEC)
W-IRISDecisionDeck
Conventional Evaluation
CustomerProvider
UDDI registry
response responsefind
bind
publish
Decision Deck, February 21-02-2008 Multicriteria Framework for Composite Web Selection
Web service architectureWeb services selection
Proposed modelConclusion
Extended conventional Web service architecture
Multicriterai Evalutaion?
yesno
infer
evaluate
Multicriteria Evaluation Component (MEC)
W-IRISDecisionDeck
Conventional Evaluation
CustomerProvider
UDDI registry
response responsefind
bind
publish
Decision Deck, February 21-02-2008 Multicriteria Framework for Composite Web Selection
Web service architectureWeb services selection
Proposed modelConclusion
Extended conventional Web service architecture
Multicriterai Evalutaion?
yesno
infer
evaluate
Multicriteria Evaluation Component (MEC)
W-IRISDecisionDeck
Conventional Evaluation
CustomerProvider
UDDI registry
response responsefind
bind
publish
Decision Deck, February 21-02-2008 Multicriteria Framework for Composite Web Selection
Web service architectureWeb services selection
Proposed modelConclusion
Extended conventional Web service architecture
Multicriterai Evalutaion?
yesno
infer
evaluate
Multicriteria Evaluation Component (MEC)
W-IRISDecisionDeck
Conventional Evaluation
CustomerProvider
UDDI registry
response responsefind
bind
publish
Decision Deck, February 21-02-2008 Multicriteria Framework for Composite Web Selection
Web service architectureWeb services selection
Proposed modelConclusion
Dynamics of the system
Decision Deck, February 21-02-2008 Multicriteria Framework for Composite Web Selection
Web service architectureWeb services selection
Proposed modelConclusion
Definitions
Elementary Web service definition
Web service si , i ∈ 1, .., n is characterized by the tuple:
Fi : description functionality
Qi : specification of its QoS
Ci : cost specification
Pi : set of providers of functionality Fi , i ∈ 1, ..., n
Composite Web service definition
G = (X , V ) composite graphe associated with s1, ..., sn
A composite Web service is an instance s1, ..., sn of G,such: s1 ∈ P1,...,sn ∈ Pn
sji : i th elementary Web service offered by the j th provider
Decision Deck, February 21-02-2008 Multicriteria Framework for Composite Web Selection
Web service architectureWeb services selection
Proposed modelConclusion
Potential composite Web services
Algorithm CompositionsConstructionINPUT: G = (X , V ): compositiongraph
P = P1, P2, · · · , Pn: providersOUTPUT: C: potential compositionsT ← Construct −Tree( X , P)t ← 1WHILE t <=
Qni=1 |Pi |
Xt ← ElementaryPath( T )//Xt = s·1, s·2, · · · , s·nFOR each (Sh, Sk ) ∈ V
Vt ← (s·h, s·k )END−FOR
ct ← Gt = (Xt , Vt )C ← C ∪ ctt ← t + 1END−WHILE
r
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
s11 s2
1 s31
s41
s12 s2
2 s32
s32s2
2s12
s13 s2
3 s13
s23
s14
s14
s15 s2
5 s35 s4
5 s55
s15 s2
5 s35 s4
5s5
5
s16 s2
6s1
6 s26
. . .
Decision Deck, February 21-02-2008 Multicriteria Framework for Composite Web Selection
Web service architectureWeb services selection
Proposed modelConclusion
Potential composite Web services
Algorithm CompositionsConstructionINPUT: G = (X , V ): compositiongraph
P = P1, P2, · · · , Pn: providersOUTPUT: C: potential compositionsT ← Construct −Tree( X , P)t ← 1WHILE t <=
Qni=1 |Pi |
Xt ← ElementaryPath( T )//Xt = s·1, s·2, · · · , s·nFOR each (Sh, Sk ) ∈ V
Vt ← (s·h, s·k )END−FOR
ct ← Gt = (Xt , Vt )C ← C ∪ ctt ← t + 1END−WHILE
r
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
s11 s2
1 s31
s41
s12 s2
2 s32
s32s2
2s12
s13 s2
3 s13
s23
s14
s14
s15 s2
5 s35 s4
5 s55
s15 s2
5 s35 s4
5s5
5
s16 s2
6s1
6 s26
. . .
Decision Deck, February 21-02-2008 Multicriteria Framework for Composite Web Selection
Web service architectureWeb services selection
Proposed modelConclusion
Potential composite Web services
Algorithm CompositionsConstructionINPUT: G = (X , V ): compositiongraph
P = P1, P2, · · · , Pn: providersOUTPUT: C: potential compositionsT ← Construct −Tree( X , P)t ← 1WHILE t <=
Qni=1 |Pi |
Xt ← ElementaryPath( T )//Xt = s·1, s·2, · · · , s·nFOR each (Sh, Sk ) ∈ V
Vt ← (s·h, s·k )END−FOR
ct ← Gt = (Xt , Vt )C ← C ∪ ctt ← t + 1END−WHILE
r
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
s11 s2
1 s31
s41
s12 s2
2 s32
s32s2
2s12
s13 s2
3 s13
s23
s14
s14
s15 s2
5 s35 s4
5 s55
s15 s2
5 s35 s4
5s5
5
s16 s2
6s1
6 s26
. . .
Decision Deck, February 21-02-2008 Multicriteria Framework for Composite Web Selection
Web service architectureWeb services selection
Proposed modelConclusion
Potential composite Web services
Algorithm CompositionsConstructionINPUT: G = (X , V ): compositiongraph
P = P1, P2, · · · , Pn: providersOUTPUT: C: potential compositionsT ← Construct −Tree( X , P)t ← 1WHILE t <=
Qni=1 |Pi |
Xt ← ElementaryPath( T )//Xt = s·1, s·2, · · · , s·nFOR each (Sh, Sk ) ∈ V
Vt ← (s·h, s·k )END−FOR
ct ← Gt = (Xt , Vt )C ← C ∪ ctt ← t + 1END−WHILE
r
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
s11 s2
1 s31
s41
s12 s2
2 s32
s32s2
2s12
s13 s2
3 s13
s23
s14
s14
s15 s2
5 s35 s4
5 s55
s15 s2
5 s35 s4
5s5
5
s16 s2
6s1
6 s26
. . .
Decision Deck, February 21-02-2008 Multicriteria Framework for Composite Web Selection
Web service architectureWeb services selection
Proposed modelConclusion
Potential composite Web services
Algorithm CompositionsConstructionINPUT: G = (X , V ): compositiongraph
P = P1, P2, · · · , Pn: providersOUTPUT: C: potential compositionsT ← Construct −Tree( X , P)t ← 1WHILE t <=
Qni=1 |Pi |
Xt ← ElementaryPath( T )//Xt = s·1, s·2, · · · , s·nFOR each (Sh, Sk ) ∈ V
Vt ← (s·h, s·k )END−FOR
ct ← Gt = (Xt , Vt )C ← C ∪ ctt ← t + 1END−WHILE
r
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
s11 s2
1 s31
s41
s12 s2
2 s32
s32s2
2s12
s13 s2
3 s13
s23
s14
s14
s15 s2
5 s35 s4
5 s55
s15 s2
5 s35 s4
5s5
5
s16 s2
6s1
6 s26
. . .
Decision Deck, February 21-02-2008 Multicriteria Framework for Composite Web Selection
Web service architectureWeb services selection
Proposed modelConclusion
Potential composite Web services
Algorithm CompositionsConstructionINPUT: G = (X , V ): compositiongraph
P = P1, P2, · · · , Pn: providersOUTPUT: C: potential compositionsT ← Construct −Tree( X , P)t ← 1WHILE t <=
Qni=1 |Pi |
Xt ← ElementaryPath( T )//Xt = s·1, s·2, · · · , s·nFOR each (Sh, Sk ) ∈ V
Vt ← (s·h, s·k )END−FOR
ct ← Gt = (Xt , Vt )C ← C ∪ ctt ← t + 1END−WHILE
r
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
s11 s2
1 s31
s41
s12 s2
2 s32
s32s2
2s12
s13 s2
3 s13
s23
s14
s14
s15 s2
5 s35 s4
5 s55
s15 s2
5 s35 s4
5s5
5
s16 s2
6s1
6 s26
. . .
Decision Deck, February 21-02-2008 Multicriteria Framework for Composite Web Selection
Web service architectureWeb services selection
Proposed modelConclusion
Potential composite Web services
Algorithm CompositionsConstructionINPUT: G = (X , V ): compositiongraph
P = P1, P2, · · · , Pn: providersOUTPUT: C: potential compositionsT ← Construct −Tree( X , P)t ← 1WHILE t <=
Qni=1 |Pi |
Xt ← ElementaryPath( T )//Xt = s·1, s·2, · · · , s·nFOR each (Sh, Sk ) ∈ V
Vt ← (s·h, s·k )END−FOR
ct ← Gt = (Xt , Vt )C ← C ∪ ctt ← t + 1END−WHILE
r
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
s11 s2
1 s31
s41
s12 s2
2 s32
s32s2
2s12
s13 s2
3 s13
s23
s14
s14
s15 s2
5 s35 s4
5 s55
s15 s2
5 s35 s4
5s5
5
s16 s2
6s1
6 s26
. . .
Decision Deck, February 21-02-2008 Multicriteria Framework for Composite Web Selection
Web service architectureWeb services selection
Proposed modelConclusion
Potential composite Web services
Algorithm CompositionsConstructionINPUT: G = (X , V ): compositiongraph
P = P1, P2, · · · , Pn: providersOUTPUT: C: potential compositionsT ← Construct −Tree( X , P)t ← 1WHILE t <=
Qni=1 |Pi |
Xt ← ElementaryPath( T )//Xt = s·1, s·2, · · · , s·nFOR each (Sh, Sk ) ∈ V
Vt ← (s·h, s·k )END−FOR
ct ← Gt = (Xt , Vt )C ← C ∪ ctt ← t + 1END−WHILE
r
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
s11 s2
1 s31
s41
s12 s2
2 s32
s32s2
2s12
s13 s2
3 s13
s23
s14
s14
s15 s2
5 s35 s4
5 s55
s15 s2
5 s35 s4
5s5
5
s16 s2
6s1
6 s26
. . .
Decision Deck, February 21-02-2008 Multicriteria Framework for Composite Web Selection
Web service architectureWeb services selection
Proposed modelConclusion
Evaluation of compositions
General formula:
vj(x) = Φj [gj(x),Ω(Γ+(x)) (1)
Response time:
v1(x) = gj(x) + maxv1(y) : y ∈ Γ+(x) (2)
or
v1(x) = gj(x) +∑
y∈Γ+(x)
π(x , y) · v1(y) (3)
Security
v4(x) = mingj(x), miny∈Γ+(x)
v4(y) (4)
Decision Deck, February 21-02-2008 Multicriteria Framework for Composite Web Selection
Web service architectureWeb services selection
Proposed modelConclusion
Evaluation of compositions
s
s
s
s
s
s
1
2
3
4
5
6
P
P
1
2
Composition graph
flow
switch join
s
s
s
s
s
s
1
2
3
4
5
6
P
P
1
2
C1
2
2
1
4
2
3
s
s
s
s
s
s
1
2
3
4
5
6
P
P
1
2
C1
3
2
2
3
2
2
Decision Deck, February 21-02-2008 Multicriteria Framework for Composite Web Selection
Web service architectureWeb services selection
Proposed modelConclusion
Evaluation of compositions
Response time of composite Web service:
s
s
s
s
s
s
1
2
3
4
5
6
P
P
1
2
flow
switch join
2
2
1
4
2
3
2
2
4
3
1
2
V( )=2s63
bottom − up algorithm
Decision Deck, February 21-02-2008 Multicriteria Framework for Composite Web Selection
Web service architectureWeb services selection
Proposed modelConclusion
Evaluation of compositions
Response time of composite Web service:
s
s
s
s
s
s
1
2
3
4
5
6
P
P
1
2
flow
switch join
2
2
1
4
2
3
2
2
4
3
1
2
V( )=2
V( )=6
s63
s52
bottom − up algorithmDecision Deck, February 21-02-2008 Multicriteria Framework for Composite Web Selection
Web service architectureWeb services selection
Proposed modelConclusion
Evaluation of compositions
Response time of composite Web service:
s
s
s
s
s
s
1
2
3
4
5
6
P
P
1
2
flow
switch join
2
2
1
4
2
3
2
2
4
3
1
2
V( )=2
V( )=6
V( )=4
s63
s52
s 44
bottom − up algorithmDecision Deck, February 21-02-2008 Multicriteria Framework for Composite Web Selection
Web service architectureWeb services selection
Proposed modelConclusion
Evaluation of compositions
Response time of composite Web service:
s
s
s
s
s
s
1
2
3
4
5
6
P
P
1
2
flow
switch join
2
2
1
4
2
3
2
2
4
3
1
2
V( )=2
V( )=6
V( )=4
V( )= 5
s63
s52
s 4
s
4
13
bottom − up algorithmDecision Deck, February 21-02-2008 Multicriteria Framework for Composite Web Selection
Web service architectureWeb services selection
Proposed modelConclusion
Evaluation of compositions
Response time of composite Web service:
s
s
s
s
s
s
1
2
3
4
5
6
P
P
1
2
flow
switch join
2
2
1
4
2
3
2
2
4
3
1
2
V( )=2
V( )=6
V( )=4
V( )=5
s63
s52
s 4
s
V( )=3
s
4
13
22
bottom − up algorithmDecision Deck, February 21-02-2008 Multicriteria Framework for Composite Web Selection
Web service architectureWeb services selection
Proposed modelConclusion
Evaluation of compositions
Response time of composite Web service:
s
s
s
s
s
s
1
2
3
4
5
6
P
P
1
2
flow
switch join
2
2
1
4
2
3
2
2
4
3
1
2
V( )=2
V( )=6
V( )=4
V( )=5
s63
s52
s 4
s
V( )=
V( )=7
s 3
s 2
4
13
22
1
bottom − up algorithmDecision Deck, February 21-02-2008 Multicriteria Framework for Composite Web Selection
Web service architectureWeb services selection
Proposed modelConclusion
Conclusion
Proposed model
General framework to composite Web services using QoS
Multicriteria evaluation based approach
QoS criterion evaluation
Generate the different potentials compositions
Futur research
Finalization of the being developed prototype
Extension for the framework to support dynamiccomposition (composition graph)
Quantitatives criteria: random variables (response time,availability,...)
Decision Deck, February 21-02-2008 Multicriteria Framework for Composite Web Selection
Web service architectureWeb services selection
Proposed modelConclusion
Second Workshop Decision Deck
Area: Web servicesTopic: Performance evaluation of Web servicesLaboratory: Lamsade (Paris-Dauphine)Home page: http://www.lamsade.dauphine.fr/∼youcef
Thank you for your attention !
Decision Deck, February 21-02-2008 Multicriteria Framework for Composite Web Selection