Journal of Computer Science and Technology

, Volume 25, Issue 6, pp 1130–1142 | Cite as

A Cloud-Based Trust Model for Evaluating Quality of Web Services

  • Shou-Xin WangEmail author
  • Li Zhang
  • Shuai Wang
  • Xiang Qiu
Regular Paper


Because trust is regarded as an essential secured relationship within a distributed network environment, selecting services over the Internet from the viewpoint of trust has been a major trend. Current research about trust model and evaluation in the context of Web services does not rationally and accurately reflect some essential characteristics of trust such as subjective uncertainty and dynamism. In this paper, we analyze some important characteristics of trust, and some key factors that affect the trust relation in the Web service environment. Accordingly, we propose a trust model based on Cloud Model theory to describe the subjective uncertainty of trust factors. A time-related backward cloud generation algorithm is given to express the dynamism of trust. Furthermore, according to the trust model and algorithm, a formalized calculation approach is provided to evaluate the trust degree of services requestors in providers. Our experiment shows that the evaluation of trust degree can effectively support trust-decisions and provide a helpful exploitation for selecting services based on the viewpoint of trust.


Web service trust trust evaluation Cloud Model 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [1]
    Curbera F et al. Unraveling the Web Services Web: An introduction to SOAP, WSDL, and UDDI. IEEE Internet Computing, 2002, 6(2): 86–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. [2]
    Menasce D A. QoS issues in Web Services. IEEE Internet Computing, 2002, 6(6): 72–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. [3]
    Bouch A, Kuchinsky A, Bhatti N. Quality is in the eye of the beholder: Meeting users' requirements for Internet quality of service. In Proc. the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, The Hague, The Netherlands, Apr. 1–6, 2000, pp.297–304.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    Majithia S, Ali A S, Rana O F, Walker D W. Reputation-based semantic service discovery. In Proc. the 13th IEEE International Workshops on Enabling Technologies: Infrastructure for Collaborative Enterprises (WET ICE 2004), Modena, Italy, Jun. 14–16, 2004, pp.297–302.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    Xu Z, Martin P, Powley W, Zulkemine F. Reputation-enhanced QoS-based Web Services discovery. In Proc. IEEE International Conference on Web Services, Salt Lake City, USA, July 9–13, 2007, pp.249–256.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    Wishart R, Robinson R, Indulska J. SuperstringRep: Reputation-enhanced service discovery. In Proc. the 28th Australasian Conf. Computer Science, Newcastle, Australia, Jan./Feb., 2005, Vol.38, pp.49–57.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    Zeng L, Benatallah B et al. QoS-aware middleware for Web Services composition. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 2004, 30(5): 311–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. [8]
    Tan Y H, Thoen W. Toward a generic model of trust for electronic commerce. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 2000, 5(2): 61–74.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    Elosfson G. Developing trust with intelligent agents: An exploratory study. In Proc. 1st International Workshop on Trust, Jul. 15–20, 1998, pp.125–139.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    Miquel Montaner, Beatriz Lopez, Josep Lluis et al. Opinion-based filtering through trust. In Proc. the 6th International Workshop on Cooperative Information Agents, Madrid, Spain, Sept. 18–20, 2002, pp.164–178.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    Maximilien E M, Singh M P. Reputation and endorsement for Web services. ACM SIGecom Exchanges, 2002, 3(1): 24–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. [12]
    Maximilien E M, Singh M P. Conceptual model of Web services reputation. ACM SIGMOD, Special Section on Semantic Web and Data Management, 2002, 31(4): 36–41.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    Kalepu S, Krishnaswamy S, Loke S W. Verity: A QoS metric for selection Web Services and providers. In IEEE Proc. the 4th Conference on Web Information Systems Engineering Workshops, Helsinki, Finland, Dec. 10–12, 2003, pp.131–139.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    McKnight D H, Chervany N L. The Meanings of Trust. Technical Report 94–04, Carlson School of Management, University of Minnesota, 1996.Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    Chang E, Thomson P, Dillon T, Hussain F. The fuzzy and dynamic nature of trust. In Proc. the 2nd Int. Conf. Trust, Privacy and Security, Copenhagen, Demark, Aug. 22–26, 2005, pp.161–174.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    Tang W, Hu J B, Chen Z. Research on a fuzzy logic-based subjective trust management model. Computer Research and Development, 2005, 42(10): 1654–1659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. [17]
    Abdul-Rahman A, Hailes S. Supporting trust in virtual communities. In Proc. the Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Maui, Hawaii, Jan. 4–7, 2000, p.6007.Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    van der Heijden H, Verhagen T, Creemers M. Understanding online purchase intentions: Contributions from technology and trust perspectives. European Journal of Information Systems, 2003, 12(1): 41–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. [19]
    Josang A. The right type of trust for distributed systems. In Proc. Workshop on New Security Paradigms, Lake Arrowhead, USA, Sept. 17–20, 1996, pp.119–131.Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    Greg Elosfson. Developing trust with intelligent agents: An exploratory study. In Proc. the 1st International Workshop on Trust, 1998, pp.125–139.Google Scholar
  21. [21]
    Montaner M, Lopez B, Lluis J et al. Opinion-based filtering through trust. In Proc. the 6th International Workshop on Cooperative Information Agents, Madrid, Spain, Sept. 18–20, 2002, pp.164–178.Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    Koutrouli E, Tsalgatidou A. Reputation-based trust systems for P2P applications: Design issues and comparison framework. In Proc. TrustBus 2006, Krakow, Poland, Sept. 4–8, 2006, pp.152–161.Google Scholar
  23. [23]
    Chang E, Dillon T S, Hussain F K. Trust and reputation relationships in service-oriented environments. In Proc. the 3th International Conference on Information Technology and Applications, Keynote, Sydney, Australia, Jul. 4–7, 2005, pp.4–14.Google Scholar
  24. [24]
    Wang Y, Vassileva J. Trust and reputation model in peer-to-peer networks. In Proc. the 3rd International Conference on Peer-to-Peer Computing, Linköping, Sweden, Sept. 1–3, 2003, pp. 150–157.Google Scholar
  25. [25]
    Manchala D W. E-commerce trust metrics and models. IEEE Internet Computing, 2000, 4(2): 36–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. [26]
    Marsh S. Formalising trust as a computational concept [Ph.D. Dissertation]. Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, University of Stirling, 1994.Google Scholar
  27. [27]
    Mowbray A H, Blanchard R H, Williams C A. Insurance. 4th ed, New York: MC Graw Hill, 1995.Google Scholar
  28. [28]
    Williams C A, Heins R M. Risk Management and Insurance. New York: MC Graw Hill, 1985.Google Scholar
  29. [29]
    Josang A, Ismail R, Boyd C. A survey of trust and reputation systems for online service provision. Decision Support Systems, 2007, 43(2): 618–644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. [30]
    Zadeh L A. Fuzzy sets. Information and Control, 1996, 8: 338–353.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  31. [31]
    Zadeh L A. Fuzzy sets as a basis for a theory of possibility. Fuzzy Sets and System, 1978, 1: 3–28.zbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  32. [32]
    Li D Y, Du Y. Artificial Intelligence with Uncertainty. Chapman & Hall/CRC Taylor & Francis Group. 2008.Google Scholar
  33. [33]
    Meng X, Zhang G, Kang J, Li H, Li D. A new subjective trust model based on cloud model. In Proc. IEEE International Conference on Networking, Sensing and Control, Sanya, China, April 5–9, 2008, pp.1125–1130.Google Scholar
  34. [34]
    Wang S, Zhang L, Ma N, Wang S. An evaluation approach of subjective trust based on cloud model. Journal of Software Engineering & Applications, 2008, 1: 44–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. [35]
    Li D Y, Liu C Y. The universality of normal cloud model. Engineering Science, 2004, 6(8): 28–34.Google Scholar
  36. [36]
    Loewenstein G, Prelec D. Anomalies in intertemporal choice: Evidence and an interpretation. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1992, 107(2): 573–597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. [37]
    Moser O, Rosenberg F, Dustdar S. Non-intrusive monitoring and service adaptation for WS-BPEL. In Proc. the 17th International Conference on World Wide Web, Beijing, China, April 21–25, 2008, pp.815–824.Google Scholar
  38. [38]
    Jurca R, Faltings B. Towards incentive-compatible reputation management. In Proc. Int. Workshop Trust, Reputation and Security: Theories and Practice, Bologna, Italy, Jul. 15, 2002, pp.138–147.Google Scholar
  39. [39]
    Schillo M, Funk P, Rovatsos M. Using trust for detecting deceptive agents in artificial societies. Applied Artificial Intelligence, Special Issue on Trust, Deception, and Fraud in Agent Societies, 2000, pp.825–848.Google Scholar
  40. [40]
    Huynh T D. Trust and reputation in open multi-agent systems [Ph.D. Dissertation]. Southampton: Electronics and Computer Science, University of Southampton, 2006.Google Scholar
  41. [41]
    Viljanen L. Towards an ontology of trust. LNCS 3592. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 2005, pp.175–184.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Shou-Xin Wang
    • 1
    Email author
  • Li Zhang
    • 1
  • Shuai Wang
    • 1
  • Xiang Qiu
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Software Engineering, School of Computer Science & EngineeringBeihang UniversityBeijingChina

Personalised recommendations