The Journal of Supercomputing

, Volume 63, Issue 1, pp 24–45 | Cite as

Rule-based validation of SLA choreographies

  • Irfan Ul Haq
  • Adrian Paschke
  • Erich Schikuta
  • Harold Boley


For the Service Economy to prosper, IT-based Service Markets are required to perform certain business actions autonomically and autonomously, e.g., helping companies to establish networks of business relationships. Service Markets, to be practically realized require an enabling infrastructure that supports business-to-business (B2B) relationships among business stakeholders, resulting in value chains.

B2B workflow interoperation across Virtual Organization (VOs) brings about novel business scenarios. In these scenarios, parts of workflows corresponding to different partners can be aggregated in a producer-consumer manner, leading to hierarchical structures of added value. Service Level Agreements (SLAs), which are contracts between service providers and service consumers, guarantee the expected quality of service (QoS) to different stakeholders at various levels along this hierarchy. Automation of service composition in these coalition workflows directly implies the aggregation of their corresponding SLAs. This hierarchical choreography and aggregation poses new challenges regarding SLA description, management, maintenance, validation, trust, and security. In this paper, we focus on design and architecture of an agent-oriented, rule-based validation framework for hierarchical SLA aggregation, enabling cross-VO workflow cooperation. The framework is based on the Rule Responder architecture, the RBSLA project, a formal model of SLA Views, and a distributed trust model.


Service level agreements Rule-based SLA validation Service value chains Value networks Workflow management 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Ludwig A (2008) COSMA—an approach for managing SLAs in composite services. In: Lecture notes in computer science. Springer, Berlin-Heidelberg Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Buyyaa R, Yeo CS, Venugopal S, Broberg J, Brandic I (2010) Cloud computing and emerging IT platforms: vision, hype, and reality for delivering computing as the 5th utility. Future Gener Comput Syst 25:599–616 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Blake MB, Cunnings DJ (2007) Workflow composition of service level agreements. In: International conference on services computing (SCC2007) Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Schulz KA, Orlowska ME (2004) Facilitating cross-organisational workflows with a workflow view approache. Data Knowl Eng 51:109–147 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    SLA@SOI (2009) (12 March 2009)
  6. 6.
    NESSI-Grid (2009) Accessed: 12 March 2009
  7. 7.
    Haq IU, Huqqani AA, Schikuta E (2009) Aggregating hierarchical service level agreements in business value networks. In: Lecture notes in computer science, vol 5701/2009. Springer, Berlin-Heidelberg, pp 176–192 Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chebbi I, Dustdar S, Tata S (2006) The view based approach to dynamic inter-organizational workflow cooperation. Data Knowl Eng 56:139–173 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Liu DR, Shen M (2002) Workflow modeling for virtual processes: an order-preserving process-view approach. Inf Syst 28:505–532 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Haq IU, Huqqani AA, Schikuta E (2009) A conceptual model for aggregation and validation of SLAs in business value networks. In: The 3rd international conference on adaptive business information systems, Leipzig, Germany Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Paschke A, Boley H, Kozlenkov A, Craig B (2007) Rule responder: RuleML-based agents for distributed collaboration on the pragmatic web. In: Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on pragmatic web. Tilburg, The Netherlands Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Paschke A, Bichler M (2006) Knowledge representation concepts for automated SLA management. Int J Decis Support Syst (DSS) (March) Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Paschke A, Harold B, Kozlenkov A, Craig B (2007) Rule responder: a RuleML-based pragmatic agent web for collaborative teams and virtual organizations.
  14. 14.
    Paschke A (2007) Rule-based service level agreements—knowledge representation for automated e-contract, SLA and policy management. Idea Verlag GmbH, Munich Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Boley H (2006) The Rule-ML family of web rule languages. In: 4th Int. workshop on principles and practice of semantic web reasoning, Budva, Montenegro Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mule (2006) Mule Enterprise Service Bus
  17. 17.
    Ball M, Boley H, Hirtle D, Mei J, Spencer B (2005) The OO jDrew reference implementation of RuleML. In: RuleML, Galway Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Roo JD (2010) Open Source Project: Euler Proof Mechanism. Available at, last accessed: Nov 15, 2010
  19. 19.
    Paschke A, Bichler M (2005) SLA representation management and enforcement. In: The 2005 IEEE international conference on e-technology, e-commerce and e-service Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wang M, Kotagiri R, Chen J (2009) Trust-based robust scheduling and runtime adaptation of scientific workflow. Concurr Comput Pract Exp 21(16):1982–1998 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lioy A, Marian M, Moltchanova N, Pala M (2006) PKI past, present and future. Int J Inf Secur 5(1):18–29 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Zhao S, Aggarwal A, Kent RD (2007) PKI-based authentication mechanisms in grid systems. International conference on networking, architecture, and storage Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Haq IU, Alnemr R, Paschke A, Schikuta E, Boley H, Meinel C (2009) Distributed trust management for validating sla choreographies. In: SLAs in Grids workshop, CoreGRID Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ludwig H, et al (2007) Web Service Agreement (WS-Agreement). GFD.107 proposed recommendation. Accessed 12 July 2008 Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    FIPA: (2000) FIPA agent communication language. Accessed Dec 2001
  26. 26.
    Shen M, Liu DR (2004) Discovering role-relevant process-views for disseminating process knowledge. Expert Syst Appl 26:301–310 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Chiu D, Cheung S, Till S, Karalapalem K, Li Q, Kafeza E (2004) Workflow view driven cross-organisational interoperability in a web service environment. Inf Technol Manag 5:221–250 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Li Q, Chiu D, Shan Z, Hung P, Cheung S (2006) Flows and views for scalable scientific process integration. In: First international conference on scalable information systems, Hong Kong Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Chiu D, Li KKQ, Kafeza E (2002) Workflow view based e-contracts in a cross-organisational e-services environment. Distrib Parallel Databases 12:193–216 zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Chen J, Yang Y (2008) Activity completion duration based checkpoint selection for dynamic verification of temporal constraints in grid workflow. Int J High Perform Comput Appl 319–329:22(3) Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Chen J, Yang Y (2008) Temporal dependency based checkpoint selection for dynamic verification of fixed-time constraints in grid workflow systems. In: The proceedingsof 30th international conference on software engineering, ICSE 08, 2008, pp 141–150. doi: 10.1145/1368088.1368108 Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Eder J, Tahamatan A (2008) Temporal consistency of view based interorganizational workflows. In: 2nd International united information systems conference, Austria Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Frankova G (2007) Service level agreements: Web services and security. Springer, Berlin-Heidelberg, pp 556–562 Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Unger T, Leyman F, Mauchart S, Scheibler T (2008) Aggregation of service level agreement in the context of business processes. In: Enterprise distributed object computing conference (EDOC’08), Munich, Germany Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Oldham N, Verma K, Sheth A, Hakimpour F (2006) Semantic WS-Agreement partner selection. In: Proceedings of the 15th international conference on World Wide Web, Edinburgh, Scotland Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Irfan Ul Haq
    • 1
  • Adrian Paschke
    • 2
  • Erich Schikuta
    • 1
  • Harold Boley
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Knowledge and Business EngineeringUniversity of ViennaViennaAustria
  2. 2.Institute of Computer ScienceFreie University BerlinBerlinGermany
  3. 3.Institute of Information TechnologyNational Research CouncilOttawaCanada

Personalised recommendations