Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

An automatic subdigraph renovation plan for failure recovery of composite semantic Web services

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Frontiers of Computer Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A Web service-based system never fulfills a user’s goal unless a failure recovery approach exists. It is inevitable that several Web services may either perish or fail before or during transactions. The completion of a composite process relies on the smooth execution of all constituent Web services. A mediator acts as an intermediary between providers and consumers to monitor the execution of these services. If a service fails, the mediator has to recover the whole composite process or else jeopardize achieving the intended goals. The atomic replacement of a perished Web service usually does not apply because the process of locating a matched Web service is unreliable. Even the system cannot depend on the replacement of the dead service with a composite service. In this paper, we propose an automatic renovation plan for failure recovery of composite semantic services based on an approach of subdigraph replacement. A replacement subdigraph is posed in lieu of an original subdigraph, which includes the failed service. The replacement is done in two separate phases, offline and online, to make the recovery faster. The offline phase foresees all possible subdigraphs, pre-calculates them, and ranks several possible replacements. The online phase compensates the unwanted effects and executes the replacement subdigraph in lieu of the original subdigraph. We have evaluated our approach during an experiment and have found that we could recover more than half of the simulated failures. These achievements show a significant improvement compared to current approaches.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Mockford K. Web services architecture. BT Technology Journal, 2004, 22(1): 19–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. McIlraith S A, Son T C, Zeng H. Semantic Web services. Intelligent Systems, IEEE, 2001, 16(2): 46–53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Sycara K, Paolucci M, Ankolekar A, Srinivasan N. Automated discovery, interaction and composition of semantic Web services. Web Semantics: Science, Services and Agents on the World Wide Web, 2003, 1(1): 27–46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Tartanoglu F, Issarny V, Romanovsky A, Levy N. Dependability in the Web services architecture. In: Architecting Dependable Systems, 90–109. Springer, 2003

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  5. Lee P A, Anderson T. Fault tolerance principles and practice, Volume 3 of Dependable Computing and Fault-Tolerant Systems. Springer Verlag, 1990

    Google Scholar 

  6. Sirin E, Adviser-Hendler J. Combining description logic reasoning with AI planning for composition of Web services. PhD Thesis, 2006

    Google Scholar 

  7. Saboohi H, Kareem S A. World-altering semantic Web services discovery and composition techniques-a survey. In: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Semantic Web and Web Services (SWWS). 2011, 91–95

    Google Scholar 

  8. Gaudel M C. Toward undoing in composite Web services. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2005, 3549: 59–68

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Martin D, Burstein M, Hobbs J, Lassila O, McDermott D, McIlraith S, Narayanan S, Paolucci M, Parsia B, Payne T, Sirin E, Sirinvasan N, Sycara K. Owl-s: semantic markup for Web services. W3C Member Submission 22, 2004

  10. Roman D, Keller U, Lausen H, Bruijnd J, Lara R, Stollberg M, Polleres A, Feier C, Bussler C, Fensel D. Web service modeling ontology. Applied Ontology, 2005, 1(1): 77–106

    Google Scholar 

  11. Yu T, Lin K J. Adaptive algorithms for finding replacement services in autonomic distributed business processes. In: Proceedings of the 7th International Symposium on Autonomous Decentralized Systems (ISADS). 2005, 427–434

    Google Scholar 

  12. Chafle G, Dasgupta K, Kumar A, Mittal S, Srivastava B. Adaptation in Web service composition and execution. In: Proceedings of the 2006 International Conference on Web Services (ICWS). 2006, 549–557

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  13. Canfora G, Di Penta M, Esposito R, Villani M L. QoS-aware replanning of composite Web services. In: Proceedings of the 2005 International Conference on Web Services (ICWS). 2005, 121–129

    Google Scholar 

  14. Canfora G, Di Penta M, Esposito R, Villani M L. A framework for QoS-aware binding and re-binding of composite Web services. Journal of Systems and Software, 2008, 81(10): 1754–1769

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Dai Y, Yang L, Zhang B. QoS-driven self-healing Web service composition based on performance prediction. Journal of Computer Science and Technology, 2009, 24(2): 250–261

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Lin K J, Zhang J, Zhai Y, Xu B. The design and implementation of service process reconfiguration with end-to-end QoS constraints in SOA. Service Oriented Computing and Applications, 2010, 4(3): 157–168

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Moller T, Schuldt H. Osiris next: flexible semantic failure handling for composite Web service execution. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Semantic Computing (ICSC). 2010, 212–217

    Google Scholar 

  18. Saboohi H, Amini A, Abolhassani H. Failure recovery of composite semantic Web services using subgraph replacement. In: Proceedings of the 2008 International Conference on Computer and Communication Engineering (ICCCE). 2008, 489–493

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  19. Saboohi H, Kareem S A. Failure recovery of world-altering composite semantic services-a two phase approach. In: Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Information Integration and Web-based Applications & Services. 2012, 299–302

    Google Scholar 

  20. Wiesner K, Vaculn R, Kollingbaum M, Sycara K. Recovery mechanisms for semantic Web services. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2008, 5053: 100–105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Vaculn R, Wiesner K, Sycara K. Éxception handling and recovery of semantic Web services. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Networking and Services. 2008, 217–222

    Google Scholar 

  22. Liu A, Li Q, Huang L, Xiao M. Facts: A framework for fault-tolerant composition of transactional Web services. IEEE Transactions on Services Computing, 2010, 3(1): 46–59

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Rafael Angarita Y C, Rukoz M. Faceta: backward and forward recovery for execution of transactional composite ws. In: Proceedings of the 2012 International Workshop on Resource Discovery (RED). 2012, 89–103

    Google Scholar 

  24. Massimo Paolucci T R PT. K, Sycara K P. Semantic matching of Web services capabilities. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2002, 2342: 333–347

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Saboohi H, Kareem S A. Requirements of a recovery solution for failure of composite Web services. International Journal of Web & Semantic Technology, 2012, 3(4): 15–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Van Riemsdijk M B, Wirsing M. Using goals for flexible service orchestration. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2007, 4504: 31–48

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Yu Q, Bouguettaya A. Framework for Web service query algebra and optimization. ACM Transactions on the Web (TWEB), 2008, 2(1): 6

    Google Scholar 

  28. Martin D, Burstein M, Mcdermott D, Mcilraith S, Paolucci M, Sycara K, Mcguinness D L, Sirin E, Srinivasan N. Bringing semantics to Web services with Owl-s. World Wide Web, 2007, 10(3): 243–277

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Martin D, Burstein M, Hobbs J, Lassila O, McDermott D, McIlraith S, Narayanan S, Paolucci M, Parsia B, Payne T, others. Owl-s semantic markup for Web services, pre-release 1.2. World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), 2006

    Google Scholar 

  30. Bang-Jensen J, Gutin G Z. Digraphs: theory, algorithms and applications. Springer, 2009

    Book  Google Scholar 

  31. Hashemian S V, Mavaddat F. A graph-based approach to Web services composition. In: Proceedings of the 2005 Symposium on Applications and the Internet. 2005, 183–189

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  32. Bondy J, Murty U. Graph theory (Graduate texts in mathematics). volume 244. New York: Springer, 2008

    Google Scholar 

  33. Zeng L, Benatallah B, Dumas M, Kalagnanam J, Sheng Q Z. Quality driven Web services composition. In: Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on World Wide Web. 2003, 411–421

    Google Scholar 

  34. Zeng L, Benatallah B, Ngu A H, Dumas M, Kalagnanam J, Chang H. QoS-aware middleware for Web services composition. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 2004, 30(5): 311–327

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Cardoso J, Sheth A, Miller J, Arnold J, Kochut K. Quality of service for workflows and Web service processes. Web Semantics: Science, Services and Agents on the World Wide Web, 2004, 1(3): 281–308

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Jaeger M, Rojec-Goldmann G, Muhl G. QoS aggregation in Web service compositions. In: Proceedings of the 2005 IEEE International Conference on e-Technology, e-Commerce and e-Service. 2005, 181–185

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  37. Mehrotra S, Rastogi R, Silberschatz A, Korth H F. A transaction model for multidatabase systems. In: Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems. 1992, 56–63

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  38. Bhiri S, Gaaloul W, Godart C, Perrin O, Zaremba M, Derguech W. Ensuring customised transactional reliability of composite services. Journal of Database Management (JDM), 2011, 22(2): 64–92

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Feng X, Wang H, Wu Q, Zhou B. An adaptive algorithm for failure recovery during dynamic service composition. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2007, 4815: 41–48

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Feng X, Wu Q, Wang H, Ren Y, Guo C. Zebrax: A model for service composition with multiple QoS constraints. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2007, 4459: 614–626

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Ganjisaffar Y, Abolhassani H, Neshati M, Jamali M. A similarity measure for Owl-s annotated Web services. In: Proceedings of the 2006 IEEE/WIC/ACM International Conference on Web Intelligence. 2006, 621–624

    Google Scholar 

  42. Chok Y Y. Team-oriented model for composite Web services failure recovery. Technical report, School of Computer Science and Software Engineering, The University of Western Australia, 2005

    Google Scholar 

  43. Ganjisaffar Y, Saboohi H. Semantic Web services’ test collection SWSTC. http://www.semwebcentral.org/projects/sws-tc/, 2006

    Google Scholar 

  44. Owl-s service retrieval test collection. http://www.semwebcentral.org/projects/owls-tc/, 2010

  45. Liliana Cabral N L, Kopecký J. Building the wsmolite test collection on the seals platform. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Evaluation of Semantic Technologies (IWEST). 2012, 37–48

    Google Scholar 

  46. Küster U, König-Ries B. Towards standard test collections for the empirical evaluation of semantic Web service approaches. International Journal of Semantic Computing, 2008, 2(03): 381–402

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Saboohi H, Kareem S A. A resemblance study of test collections for world-altering semantic Web services. In: Proceedings of the 2011 International Multi Conference of Engineers and Computer Scientists. 2011, 716–720

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Artificial Intelligence, Faculty of Computer Science and Information Technology, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, 50603, Malaysia

    Hadi Saboohi & Sameem Abdul Kareem

Authors
  1. Hadi Saboohi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sameem Abdul Kareem
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hadi Saboohi.

Additional information

Hadi Saboohi received a BS and a MS in Software Engineering from Iran in 2001 and 2005 respectively, and a PhD in Computer Science from University of Malaya in 2013. He has been serving as a reviewer for several international conferences and journals. His main research interests include Web intelligence, semantic Web services, and data mining.

Sameem Abdul Kareem received a BS in Mathematics (Hons) from University of Malaya, in 1986, a MS in Computing from the University of Wales, Cardiff, UK, in 1992, and a PhD in Computer Science from the University of Malaya, Malaysia, in 2002. She is currently an Associate Professor of the Department of Artificial Intelligence, Faculty of Computer Science and Information Technology, University Of Malaya. Her research interests include medical informatics, machine learning, data mining, and intelligent techniques. She has published over 100 articles in journals and conference proceedings.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Saboohi, H., Abdul Kareem, S. An automatic subdigraph renovation plan for failure recovery of composite semantic Web services. Front. Comput. Sci. 7, 894–913 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11704-013-2248-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11704-013-2248-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation