Software Quality Journal

, Volume 17, Issue 1, pp 65–98 | Cite as

A comprehensive quality model for service-oriented systems

  • Ivan J. Jureta
  • Caroline Herssens
  • Stéphane Faulkner


In a service-oriented system, a quality (or Quality of Service) model is used (i) by service requesters to specify the expected quality levels of service delivery; (ii) by service providers to advertise quality levels that their services achieve; and (iii) by service composers when selecting among alternative services those that are to participate in a service composition. Expressive quality models are needed to let requesters specify quality expectations, providers advertise service qualities, and composers finely compare alternative services. Having observed many similarities between various quality models proposed in the literature, we review these and integrate them into a single quality model, called QVDP. We highlight the need for integration of priority and dependency information within any quality model for services and propose precise submodels for doing so. Our intention is for the proposed model to serve as a reference point for further developments in quality models for service-oriented systems. To this aim, we extend the part of the UML metamodel specialized for Quality of Service with QVDP concepts unavailable in UML.


Service-oriented computing Quality model Preferences Priorities UML 



We are grateful to Emmanuel Mathot of the European Space Agency, who provided precise information about the GPOD project and assisted our efforts in describing quality information of services related to the GPOD project. The first author acknowledges funding from the Belgian ICM/CIM Doctoral Fellowship Program.


  1. Basili, V. R., & Rombach, H. D. (1988). The TAME project: Towards improvement-oriented software environments. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 14(6), 758–773.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Battle, S., Bernstein, A., Boley, H., Grosof, B., Gruninger, M., Hull, R., et al. (2005). Semantic web services framework (swsf).Google Scholar
  3. Berners-Lee, T., Hendler, J., & Lassila, O. (2001, May). The semantic web. Scientific American.Google Scholar
  4. Boehm, B. W., Brown, J. R., Kaspar, H., Lipow, M., Macleod, G. J., & Merrit, M. J. (1978). Characteristics of software quality. North-Holland.Google Scholar
  5. Brafman, R. I., Domshlak, C., & Shimony, S. E. (2006). On graphical modeling of preference and importance. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 25, 389–424.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. Brahnmath, G., Raje, R. R., Olson, A., Auguston, M., Bryant, B. R., & Burt, C. C. (2002). A quality of service catalogue for software components. In Proceedings of the Southeastern Software Engineering Conference.Google Scholar
  7. Castro, J., Kolp, M., & Mylopoulos, J. (2002). Towards requirements-driven information systems engineering: the Tropos project. Information Systems, 27(6).Google Scholar
  8. Christensen, E., Curbera, F., Meredith, G., & Weerawarana, S. (2001). Web services description language (wsdl 1.1).Google Scholar
  9. International Business Machines (IBM) Corporation. (2005). Service-oriented architecture. IBM Systems Journal, 44(4).Google Scholar
  10. D’Ambrogio, A. (2006). A model-driven wsdl extension for describing the qos of web services. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Web Services (ICWS’06).Google Scholar
  11. Deming, W. E. (1982). Quality, productivity, and competitive position. Massachusets Institute of Technology, Center for Advanced Engineering Study.Google Scholar
  12. Feigenbaum, A. V. (1951). Quality control: Principles, practice, and administration. McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  13. Frolund, S., & Koistinen, J. (1998). Qml: A language for quality of service specification. Technical report. Palo Alto, CA: HP Laboratories.Google Scholar
  14. Gravin, D. A. (1988). Managing quality: The strategic and competitive edge. Free Press.Google Scholar
  15. Gruber, T. R. (1993). A translation approach to portable ontology specifications. Knowledge Acquisition, 5(2), 199–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Herssens, C., Jureta, I. J., & Faulkner, S. (2008a). Capturing and using QoS relationships to improve service selection. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering (CAiSE’08).Google Scholar
  17. Herssens, C., Jureta, I. J., & Faulkner, S. (2008b). Dealing with quality tradeoffs during service selection. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Autonomic Computing (ICAC’08).Google Scholar
  18. Horrocks, I. (2002). DAML+OIL: A description logic for the semantic web. IEEE Data Engineering Bulletin, 25(1), 4–9.Google Scholar
  19. Horrocks, I., Patel-Schneider, P. F., Boley, H., Tabet, S., Grosof, B., & Dean, M. (2003). Swrl: A semantic web rule language combining owl and ruleml.Google Scholar
  20. IEEE. (1989). Software engineering standards. IEEE.Google Scholar
  21. International Organization for Standardization. (1986). ISO 8402 Quality management and quality assurance—Vocabulary. International Organization for Standardization.Google Scholar
  22. International Organization for Standardization. (1998). Cd15935 information technology: Open distributed processing—reference model—quality of service.Google Scholar
  23. Ishikawa, K. (1985). What is total quality control? The Japanese way. Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  24. Juran, J. M. (1951). Quality control handbook. McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  25. Jureta, I. J., Faulkner, S., Achbany, Y., & Saerens, M. (2007a). Dynamic task allocation wihin an open service-oriented mas architecture. In Proceedings of the 6th International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agents Systems (AAMAS’07).Google Scholar
  26. Jureta, I. J., Faulkner, S., Achbany, Y., & Saerens, M. (2007b). Dynamic web service composition within a service-oriented architecture. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Web Services (ICWS’07).Google Scholar
  27. Jureta, I. J., Faulkner, S., & Thiran, P. (2007c). Dynamic requirements specification for adaptable and open service-oriented systems. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Service-Oriented Computing (ICSOC’07).Google Scholar
  28. Jureta, I. J., Mylopoulos, J., & Faulkner, S. (2008). Revisiting the core ontology and problem in requirements engineering. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Requirements Engineering (RE’08).Google Scholar
  29. Keller, A., & Ludwig, H. (2003). The wsla framework: Specifying and monitoring service level agreements for web services. Journal of Network Systems Management, 11(1).Google Scholar
  30. Kephart, J. O., & Chess, D. M. (2003). The vision of autonomic computing. IEEE Computer, 36(1), 41–50.Google Scholar
  31. Loyall, J. P., Schantz, R. E., Zinky, J. A., & Bakken, D. E. (1998) Specifying and measuring quality of service in distributed object systems. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Object-Oriented Real-Time Distributed Computing.Google Scholar
  32. Maximilien, E. M., & Singh, M. P. (2004). Toward autonomic services trust and selection. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Service-Oriented Computing (ICSOC’04).Google Scholar
  33. McIlraith, S. A., & Martin, D. L. (2003). Bringing semantics to web services. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 18(1), 90–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. McIlraith, S. A., Son, T. C., & Zeng, H. (2001). Semantic web services. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 16(2), 46–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Object Management Group. (1997). The corba trading services.Google Scholar
  36. Object Management Group. (2005, May). Uml profile for modeling qos and fault tolerance characteristics and mechanisms specification, v1.0.Google Scholar
  37. Osterweil, L. (1996). Strategic directions in software quality. ACM Computing Surveys, 28(4), 738–750.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Papazoglou, M. P., & Georgakopoulos, D. (2003). Service-oriented computing. Communications of the ACM, 46(10), 24–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Ran, S., (2003). A model for web services discovery with QoS. ACM SIGecom Exchanges, 4(1), 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Reeves, C. A., & Bednar, D. A. (1994). Defining quality: Alternatives and implications. The Academy of Management Review, Special Issue: Total Quality, 19(3), 419–445.Google Scholar
  41. Shadbolt, N., Berners-Lee, T., & Wendy, H. (2006). The semantic web revisited. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 21(3), 96–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Skene, J., Lamanna, D. D., & Emmerich, W. (2004). Precise service level agreements. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE’04).Google Scholar
  43. Staab, S., & Studer, R. (Eds.). (2004). Handbook on ontologies. international handbooks on information systems. Springer.Google Scholar
  44. Staehli, R., Eliassen, F., Aagedal, J. O., & Blair, G. (2003). Quality of service semantics for component-based systems. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Reflective and Adaptive Middleware Systems.Google Scholar
  45. Tennenhouse, D. (2000). Proactive computing. Communications of the ACM, 43(5), 43–50.Google Scholar
  46. Tosic, V., Esfandiari, B., Pagurek, B., & Patel, K. (2002). On requirements for ontologies in management of web services. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Web Services, e-Business, and the Semantic Web (WES’02).Google Scholar
  47. Zeng, L., Benatallah, B., Dumas, M., Kalagnanam, J. & Sheng, Q. Z. (2003). Quality driven web services composition. In Proceedings of the International World Wide Web Conference (WWW’03).Google Scholar
  48. Zeng, L., Lei, H., & Chang, H. (2007). Monitoring the QoS of web services. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Service Oriented Computing (ICSOC’07).Google Scholar
  49. Zhou, C., Chia, L.-T., & Lee, B.-S. (2004). Daml-qos ontology for web services. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Web Services (ICWS’04).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ivan J. Jureta
    • 1
  • Caroline Herssens
    • 2
  • Stéphane Faulkner
    • 1
  1. 1.Information Management Research Unit (IMRU)University of NamurNamurBelgium
  2. 2.Information Systems Research UnitUniversité de LouvainLouvain-La-NeuveBelgium

Personalised recommendations