Software & Systems Modeling

, Volume 10, Issue 2, pp 265–280 | Cite as

A model-driven method for describing and predicting the reliability of composite services

Regular Paper


Service-oriented computing is the prominent paradigm for viewing business processes as composed of functions provided by modular and standardized services. Web services are the building blocks for the application of service-oriented computing on the Web and provide the necessary support for the consolidation of multiple services into a single composite service corresponding to the overall process. In such a context, service providers are strategically interested in both describing the quality of service (QoS) characteristics of offered services, to better qualify their offer and gain a significant advantage in the global marketplace, and predicting the level of QoS that can be offered to service consumers when building composite web services that make use of services managed by various service providers. This paper illustrates a model-driven method to automatically describe and predict the QoS of composite web services specified by use of business process execution language (BPEL). The paper specifically addresses the reliability characteristic of the QoS. The proposed method is founded on Q-WSDL, a lightweight WSDL extension for the description of the QoS characteristics of a web service, and exploits Q-WSDL to annotate reliability data onto a BPEL-based UML model of the composite service. The UML model is then used to predict and describe the reliability of the composite web service. The proposed method is illustrated by use of an example application that deals with a composite web service for the migration of PSTN telephone numbers.


QoS Service oriented architecture WSDL BPEL UML Model-driven prediction 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
  2. 2.
    Alonso G., Casati F., Kuno H., Machiraju V. (2004) Web Services. Springer-Verlag, New YorkMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bordbar, B., Staikopoulos, A.: Automated generation of metamodels for web service languages. In: Proceedings of the Second European Workshop on Model Driven Architecture (MDA), Canterbury, UK, 7–8 September 2004Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Box, D., Curbera, F., Hondo, M., Kale, C., Langworthy, D., Nadalin, A., Nagaratnam, N., Nottingham, M., von Riegen, C., Shewchuk, J.: Web services policy framework (WS-Policy). (2003)
  5. 5.
    Cardoso J., Sheth A.P., Miller J.A., Arnold J., Kochut K. (2004) Quality of service for workflows and web service processes. J. Web Semant. 1(3): 281–308Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Catania, N., Kumar, P., Murray, B., Pourhedari, H., Vambenepe, W. Wurster, K.: Web Services Management Framework, Version 2.0, Hewlett-Packard. (2003)
  7. 7.
    Chappell D. (2004) Enterprise Service Bus. O’Reilly, SebastopolGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Clemens, P.L.: Fault Tree Analysis, Tutorial, 4th edn. (1993)
  9. 9.
    D’Ambrogio, A.: A model transformation framework for the automated building of performance models from UML models. In: Proceedings of the ACM Fifth International Workshop on Software and Performance (WOSP’05), Palma de Mallorca, Spain, 11–15 July 2005Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    D’Ambrogio, A.: A Model-driven WSDL extension for describing the QoS of web services. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Web Services (ICWS’06), Chicago, USA, 18–22 September 2006Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    D’Ambrogio, A., Bocciarelli, P.: A model-driven approach to describe and predict the performance of composite services. In: Proceedings of the ACM Sixth International Workshop on Software and Performance (WOSP’07), Buenos Aires, Argentina, 5–8 February 2007Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Eclipse BPEL project.
  13. 13.
    Gardner, T.: UML modelling of automated business processes with a mapping to BPEL. In: First European Workshop on Object Orientation and Web Services (in conjunction with ECOOP’03), Darmstad, Germany. (2003)
  14. 14.
    IBM: IBM, BPEL—Business Process Execution Language for Web Services, version 1.1 (2003)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    ISO: International Organization for Standardization, CD15935 Information Technology: Open Distributed Processing—Reference Model—Quality of Service. ISO document ISO/IEC JTC1/SC7N1996 (1998)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Immonen A., Niemela E. (2008) Survey of reliability and availability prediction methods from the viewpoint of software architecture. Softw Syst Model 7(1): 49–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Laplace, S., Dalmau, M., Roose, P.: Kalinahia: considering quality of service to design and execute distributed multimedia applications. In: NOMS 2008, pp 951–954Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Leangsuksun, C., Song, H., Shen, L.: Reliability modeling using UML. In: Proceeding of the 2003 International Conference on Software Engineering Research and Practice. LasVegas (2003)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ludwig, H.: Web services QoS: external SLAs and internal policies—or: How do we deliver what we promise? In: Proceedings of the 4th IEEE International Conference on Web Information Systems Engineering, WISE 2003 Workshops, Roma (Italy), 13 December 2003Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ludwig, H., Keller, A., Dan, A., King, R., Franck, R.: Web Service Level Agreement (WSLA) Language Specification, Version 1.0, IBM Corporation. (2003)
  21. 21.
    Lyu M.R. (1995) Handbook of Software Reliability Engineering. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Martin, D., Burstein, M., Lassila, O., Paolucci, M., Payne, T., McIlraith, S.: Describing Web Services using OWL-S and WSDL. (2004)
  23. 23.
    Menasce, D.A.: QoS issues in web services. IEEE Internet Computing, pp 72–75, Nov./Dec. (2002)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Menasce D.A., Almeida V.A.F. (2001) Capacity Planning for Web Services: Metrics, Models and Methods. Prentice-Hall, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    OMGmda: Object Management Group, MDA Guide, version 1.0.1 (2003)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    OMGmof: Object Management Group, Meta Object Facility (MOF) Specification, version 1.4 (2002)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    OMGqos: Object Management Group, UML Profile for Modeling Quality of Service and Fault Tolerance Characteristics and Mechanisms, Adopted Specification (2005)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    OMGspt: Object Management Group, UML Profile for Schedulability, Performance and Time Specification, v. 1.1 (2005)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    OMGuml: Object Management Group, Unified Modeling Language (UML): Superstructure, version 2.0 (2005)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    OMGxmi: Object Management Group, XML Metadata Interchange (XMI) Specification, version 2.0 (2003)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Oracle BPEL Process Manager—Tutoria 7: Invoking BPEL Processes through SOAP and Java.
  32. 32.
    O’Sullivan, J., Edmond, D., ter Hofstede A.H.M.: Service description: a survery of the general nature of services. Technical Report FIT-TR-2003-02, Queensland University of Technology. (2003)
  33. 33.
    Papazoglou M.P., Georgakopoulos D. (2003) Service-oriented computing. Commun. ACM 46(10): 25–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Peltz C. (2003) Web services orchestration and choreography. IEEE Comput 36: 46–52Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Roberts, N.H., Vesely, W.E., Haasl, D.E., Goldberg, E.: Fault Tree Handbook, Systems and Reliability Research Office of U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Jan 1981Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Reussner R.H., Schmidt H.W., Poernomo I.H. (2003) Reliability prediction for component-based software architectures. J. Syst. Softw. 66(3): 241–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Singh, H., et al.:A Bayesian approach to reliability prediction and assessment of component based systems. In: Proceedings of 12th International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering (ISSRE 01), Hong Kong (2001)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Smith R.M., Trivedi Kishor S., Ramesh A.V. (1988) Performability analysis: measures, an algorithm, and a case study. IEEE Trans. Comput. 37(4): 406–417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39. ArgoUML User Manual v0.22. (2006)
  40. 40.
    Tosic, V., Pagurek, B., Patel, K.: WSOL a language for the formal specification of classes of service for web services. In: Proceedings of the 2003 International Conference on Web Services, pp. 375–381, Las Vegas, USA (2003)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Tsai, W.T., Zhang, D., Chen, Y., Huang, H., Paul, R., Liao, N.: A software reliability model for web services. In: Proceedings of the 8th IASTED International Conference on Software Engineering and Applications, pp. 144–149, Cambridge, MA, November 2004Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    W3C: WWW Consortium, XSL Transformations (XSLT), W3C Recommendation. (2001)
  43. 43.
    W3C: WWW Consortium, Web Services Description Language (WSDL) Version 2.0, W3C Working Draft. (2006)
  44. 44.
    Weerawarana S., Curbera F., Leymann F., Storey T., Ferguson D. (2005) Web Services Platform Architecture: SOAP, WSDL, WS-Policy, WS-Addressing, WS-BPEL, WS-Reliable Messaging, and More. Prentice-Hall, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Wohed P., van der Aalst, M.P.W., Dumas, M., ter Hofstede, A.H.M.: Analysis of web services composition languages, the case of BPEL4WS. In: Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Conceptual Modelling (ER), pp. 200–215, Chicago, IL, USA (2003)Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Zeng, L., Benatallah, B., Ngu, A.H., Dumas, M., Kalagnanam, J.: QoS-aware middleware for web services composition. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 30(5). May 2004Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Zhang, J., Zhang, L.J.: Criteria analysis and validation of the reliability of web services-oriented systems. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Web Services (ICWS’05), pp. 621–628, Orlando, Florida, July 2005Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer Science, Systems and ProductionUniversity of Roma “Tor Vergata”RomeItaly

Personalised recommendations