Service Oriented Computing and Applications

, Volume 13, Issue 4, pp 341–355 | Cite as

A context-aware recommendation-based system for service composition in smart environments

  • Soufiane FaieqEmail author
  • Agnès Front
  • Rajaa Saidi
  • Hamid El Ghazi
  • Moulay Driss Rahmani
Original Research Paper


The strong integration of technology in the physical world caused the emergence of smart environments. These environments are supposed to improve the quality of life of their users by providing them with customized services when needed and adapting to their changing needs. The dynamics of the users, the huge number of available services and the strong collaboration between the stakeholders, make traditional service-oriented approaches incapable of providing relevant services to the users in these environments. To deal with these issues, we propose a recommendation-based system for service composition targeting smart environments. The proposed system is able to capture the situation of the users through the analysis of their context information, which in turn allows the system to capture their requirements and select the appropriate service models to satisfy their needs. Then, based on the invocation log, the system implements two recommendation policies. First, it selects the best services in terms of QoS that satisfy the captured requirements. Second, the system recommends new tasks to be integrated in existing service models. The conducted experiments show the efficiency and effectiveness of the recommendation policies proposed. To illustrate the workings of the proposed system, we present a case study called SMARTROAD pertaining to the transport domain and road security.


Smart environment Service composition Service recommendation Context awareness Quality of service prediction Service model 



This project was financially supported by CAMPUS FRANCE (PHC TOUBKAL 2017 (French-Morocco bilateral program) Grant Number: 36804YH).


  1. 1.
    Kondepudi SN, Ramanarayanan V, Jain A, Singh GN, Nitin Agarwal NK, Kumar R, Singh R, Bergmark P, Hashitani T, Gemma P et al (2014) Smart sustainable cities analysis of definitions. The ITU-T focus group for smart sustainable citiesGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    DESA United Nations (2015) World urbanization prospects: the 2014 revision. United Nations Department of Economics and Social Affairs, Population Division, New York, NY, USAGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Schaffers H, Komninos N, Pallot M, Trousse B, Nilsson M, Oliveira A (2011) Smart cities and the future internet: towards cooperation frameworks for open innovation. In: The future internet. Springer, Berlin, pp 431–446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bieberstein N, Bose S, Walker L, Lynch A (2005) Impact of service-oriented architecture on enterprise systems, organizational structures, and individuals. IBM Syst J 44(4):691–708CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Baresi L, Di Nitto E, Ghezzi C, Guinea S (2007) A framework for the deployment of adaptable web service compositions. Serv Oriented Comput Appl 1(1):75–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hashem IAT, Chang V, Anuar NB, Ibrar Yaqoob KA, Gani A, Ahmed E, Chiroma H (2016) The role of big data in smart city. Int J Inf Manag 36(5):748–758CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Zheng Z, Zhang Y, Lyu MR (2014) Investigating qos of real-world web services. IEEE Trans Serv Comput 7(1):32–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jin X, Chun S, Jung J, Lee K-H (2017) A fast and scalable approach for iot service selection based on a physical service model. Inf Syst Front 19(6):1357–1372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sheng QZ, Qiao X, Vasilakos AV, Szabo C, Bourne S, Xiaofei X (2014) Web services composition: a decade’s overview. Inf Sci 280:218–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Casati F, Shan M-C (2001) Dynamic and adaptive composition of e-services. Inf Syst 26(3):143–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fang J, Hu S, Han Y (2004) A service interoperability assessment model for service composition. In: IEEE international conference on services computing, 2004 (SCC 2004). Proceedings. 2004, pp 153–158Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Konstan JA, Riedl J (2012) Recommender systems: from algorithms to user experience. User Model User Adapt Interact 22(1):101–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Schafer JB, Frankowski D, Herlocker J, Sen S (2007) Collaborative filtering recommender systems. In: The adaptive web. Springer, pp 291–324Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Resnick P, Iacovou N, Suchak M, Bergstrom P, Riedl J (1994) Grouplens: an open architecture for collaborative filtering of netnews. In: Proceedings of the 1994 ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work. CSCW ’94. ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp 175–186Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Candillier L, Meyer F, Boullé M (2007) Comparing state-of-the-art collaborative filtering systems. In: Petra P (ed) Machine learning and data mining in pattern recognition. Springer, Berlin, pp 548–562CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Koren Y, Bell R, Volinsky C (2009) Matrix factorization techniques for recommender systems. Computer 42(8):30–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lee M, Choi P, Woo Y (2002) A hybrid recommender system combining collaborative filtering with neural network. In: International conference on adaptive hypermedia and adaptive web-based systems. Springer, pp 531–534Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bobadilla J, Ortega F, Hernando A, Alcalá J (2011) Improving collaborative filtering recommender system results and performance using genetic algorithms. Knowl Based Syst 24(8):1310–1316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Aggarwal CC, Wolf JL, Wu K-L, Yu PS (1999) Horting hatches an egg: a new graph-theoretic approach to collaborative filtering. In: Proceedings of the fifth ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining, KDD ’99. ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp 201–212Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Son J, Kim SB (2017) Content-based filtering for recommendation systems using multiattribute networks. Expert Syst Appl 89:404–412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Burke R (2002) Hybrid recommender systems: survey and experiments. User Model User Adapt Interact 12(4):331–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Abowd GD, Dey AK, Brown PJ, Davies N, Smith M, Steggles P (1999) Towards a better understanding of context and context-awareness. In: International symposium on handheld and ubiquitous computing. Springer, pp 304–307Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Pinheiro MK, Souveyet C (2018) Supporting context on software applications: a survey on context engineering. Modélisation et utilisation du contexte 2(1):1–29.
  24. 24.
    World Health Organization et al (2018) Global status report on road safety 2018. World Health Organization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    National Committee for the Prevention of Traffic Accidents (Morocco). Provisional assessment of road accidents for 2017, 2016Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Chang J, Yao W, Li X (2017) The design of a context-aware service system in intelligent transportation system. Int J Distrib Sens Netw 13(10):1550147717738165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ait-Cheik-Bihi W, Nait-Sidi-Moh A, Bakhouya M, Gaber J, Wack M (2012) Transportml platform for collaborative location-based services. Serv Oriented Comput Appl 6(4):363–378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Dijkstra EW (1982) On the role of scientific thought. In: Selected writings on computing: a personal perspective. Springer, Berlin, pp 60–66. ISBN 0-387-90652-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    OMG (2014) Meta object facility meta object facility (MOF) core specification. Adopted Specification, OMG document formal/14-04-03.
  30. 30.
    Faieq S, Saidi R, Elghazi H, Rahmani MD (2017) A conceptual architecture for a cloud-based context-aware service composition. In: Advances in ubiquitous networking 2. Springer, Singapore, pp 235–246Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Gu Q, Lago P (2009) Exploring service-oriented system engineering challenges: a systematic literature review. Serv Orient Comput Appl 3(3):171–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Chengyuan Y, Huang L (2016) A web service qos prediction approach based on time- and location-aware collaborative filtering. Serv Oriented Comput Appl 10(2):135–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Sedhain S, Menon AK, Sanner S, Xie L (2015) Autorec: autoencoders meet collaborative filtering. In: Proceedings of the 24th international conference on world wide web, WWW ’15 Companion. ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp 111–112Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Stone VM (2008) The auto-associative neural network—a network architecture worth considering. In: 2008 world automation congress, pp 1–4Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Han J, Pei J, Yin Y (2000) Mining frequent patterns without candidate generation. In: Proceedings of the 2000 ACM SIGMOD international conference on management of data, SIGMOD’00. ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp 1–12Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Garg K, Kumar D (2013) Comparing the performance of frequent pattern mining algorithms. Int J Comput Appl 69(25):21–28 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    WSDREAM team (2011) Ws-dream: A package of open source-code and datasets to benchmark QoS prediction approaches of web servicesGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Zheng Z, Ma H, Lyu MR, King I (2011) Qos-aware web service recommendation by collaborative filtering. IEEE Trans Serv Comput 4(2):140–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Wu J, Chen L, Feng Y, Zheng Z, Zhou MC, Wu Z (2013) Predicting quality of service for selection by neighborhood-based collaborative filtering. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Syst 43(2):428–439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Sun H, Zheng Z, Chen J, Lyu MR (2013) Personalized web service recommendation via normal recovery collaborative filtering. IEEE Trans Serv Comput 6(4):573–579CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Zheng Z, Ma H, Lyu MR, King I (2013) Collaborative web service qos prediction via neighborhood integrated matrix factorization. IEEE Trans Serv Comput 6(3):289–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Zhang Y, Zheng Z, Lyu MR (2011) Exploring latent features for memory-based qos prediction in cloud computing. In: 2011 IEEE 30th international symposium on reliable distributed systems, pp 1–10Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Yu D, Liu Y, Xu Y, Yin Y (2014) Personalized QoS prediction for web services using latent factor models. In: 2014 IEEE international conference on services computing, pp 107–114Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Chen X, Liu X, Huang Z, Sun H (2010) Regionknn: a scalable hybrid collaborative filtering algorithm for personalized web service recommendation. In: 2010 IEEE international conference on web services, pp 9–16Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Tang M, Jiang Y, Liu J, Liu X (2012) Location-aware collaborative filtering for QoS-based service recommendation. In: 2012 IEEE 19th international conference on web services, pp 202–209Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Lo W, Yin J, Deng S, Li Y, Wu Z (2012) Collaborative web service GOS prediction with location-based regularization. In: 2012 IEEE 19th international conference on web services, pp 464–471Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Chen X, Zheng Z, Yu Q, Lyu MR (2014) Web service recommendation via exploiting location and qos information. IEEE Trans Parallel Distrib Syst 25(7):1913–1924CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    He P, Zhu J, Zheng Z, Xu J, Lyu MR (2014) Location-based hierarchical matrix factorization for web service recommendation. In: 2014 IEEE international conference on web services, pp 297–304Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Salakhutdinov R, Mnih A (2007) Probabilistic matrix factorization. In: Proceedings of the 20th international conference on neural information processing systems, NIPS’07. Curran Associates Inc, USA, pp 1257–1264Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Lee Daniel D, Seung, H. Sebastian (2000) Algorithms for non-negative matrix factorization. In: Proceedings of the 13th international conference on neural information processing systems, NIPS’00. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA, pp 535–541Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Rao J, Su X (2005) A survey of automated web service composition methods. In: Semantic web services and web process composition. Springer, Berlin, pp 43–54Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Wu D, Parsia B, Sirin E, Hendler J, Nau D (2003) Automating DAML-S web services composition using shop 2. In: Proceedings of the second international conference on semantic web conference, LNCS-ISWC’03. Springer, Berlin, pp 195–210Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Slaimi F, Hassine AB, Tagina M (2014) Ontology based vertical web service composition. Int J Know Based Intell Eng Syst 18(1):1–12Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Furno A, Zimeo E (2014) Context-aware composition of semantic web services. Mobile Netw Appl 19(2):235–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Chowdhury SR, Daniel F, Casati F (2011) Efficient, interactive recommendation of mashup composition knowledge. In: Service-oriented computing. Springer, Berlin, pp 374–388Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Budiselić I (2014) Component recommendation for development of composite consumer applications. PhD thesis, Fakultet elektrotehnike i računarstva, Sveučilište u ZagrebuGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Greenshpan O, Milo T, Polyzotis N (2009) Autocompletion for mashups. Proc VLDB Endow 2(1):538–549CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Zhang S, Yao L, Sun A, Tay Y (2017) Deep learning based recommender system: a survey and new perspectives. arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.07435

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Univ. Grenoble Alpes, CNRSGrenoble INP (Institute of Engineering Univ. Grenoble Alpes), LIGGrenobleFrance
  2. 2.LRIT Associated Unit to CNRST (URAC 29), Faculty of SciencesMohammed V University in RabatRabatMorocco
  3. 3.SI2M LaboratoryNational Institute of Statistics and Applied EconomicsRabatMorocco
  4. 4.National Institute of Posts and TelecommunicationsRabatMorocco

Personalised recommendations