Advertisement

Future Directions

  • Nathan GriffithsEmail author
  • Kuo-Ming Chao
  • Simon Miles
  • Sanjay Modgil
  • Nir Oren
  • Michael Luck
  • Kwei-Jay Lin
Chapter
Part of the Advanced Information and Knowledge Processing book series (AI&KP)

Abstract

Given the distributed and dynamic nature of SOC, and the autonomy of the agents involved, it is inevitable that failures will sometimes occur. Such failures might be due to simple errors or bugs, or may be a result of explicit malicious behaviour on behalf of an agent. In this chapter we introduce a number of future directions that will support the management of SOC by defining and constraining interactions (contracts), assessing and reducing the risk of failure (trust and reputation), and defining the responsibilities of the agents involved (accountability).

Keywords

Service Level Agreement Online Auction Autonomic Computing Service Execution Service Invocation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

Acknowledgement

The research described in this section is partly supported by the Tsinghua National Laboratory for Information Science and Technology (TNList), China. The opinions expressed herein are those of the named author only and should not be taken as necessarily representative of the opinion of Tsinghua University.

References

  1. 1.
    A. Abdul-Rahman and S. Hailes. Supporting trust in virtual communities. In Proceedings of the 33rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS 2000), page 6007. IEEE Computer Society, 2000.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    A. Andrieux, K. Czajkowski, A. Dan, K. Keahey, H. Ludwig, J. Pruyne, J. Rofrano, S. Tuecke, and M. Xu. Web services agreement specification (ws-agreement). Technical report, Global Grid Forum, 2004.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    L. Ardissono, L. Console, A. Goy, G. Petrone, C. Picardi, M. Segnan and D. T. Dupre. Enhancing web services with diagnostic capabilities. In Proceedings of the Third European Conference on Web Services (ECOWS ’05), page 182, 2005.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    L. Baresi and S. Guinea. Towards dynamic monitoring of WS-BPEL processes. In Proceedings of International Conference on Service-Oriented Computing (ICSOC 2005), pages 269–282, 2005.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    M. Bichler and K. J. Lin. Service-oriented computing. IEEE Computer, 39(3):99–101, 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    B. Brauer and S. Kline. SOA governance: A key ingredient of the adaptive enterprise. Development technical report, Hewlett Packard, February 2005.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    C. Castelfranchi, R. Conte, and M. Paolucci. Normative reputation and the cost of compliance. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 1(3), 1998.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    R. Conte. Emergent (info)institutions. Journal of Cognitive Systems Research, pages 97–110, 2001.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    C. Dellarocas. Contractual agent societies: Negotiated shared context and social control in open multi-agent systems. In Workshop on Norms and Institutions in Multi-Agent Systems, 4th International Conference on Multi-Agent Systems, 2000.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    F. Duran, V. Torres da Silva, and C. J. P. de Lucena. Using testimonies to enforce the behaviour of agents. In Proceedings of the AAMAS07 Workshop on Coordination, Organization, Institutions and Norms in Agent Systems, 2007.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    A. Garcia-Camino. Ignoring, forcing and expecting concurrent events in electronic institutions. In Proceedings of the AAMAS07 Workshop on Coordination, Organization, Institutions and Norms in Agent Systems, 2007.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    M. Ghijsen, W. Jansweijer, and R. Wielinga. Towards a framework for agent coordination and reorganization, agentcore. In Proceedings of the AAMAS07 Workshop on Coordination, Organization, Institutions and Norms in Agent Systems, 2007.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    N. Griffiths. A fuzzy approach to reasoning with trust, distrust and insufficient trust. In Cooperative Information Agents X, volume 4149 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 360–374. Springer-Verlag, 2006.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    K. Horsch. Results-based accountability systems: Opportunities and challenges. The Evaluation Exchange II(1), 1996. http://www.gse.harvard.edu/hfrp/eval/issue3/theory1.html
  15. 15.
    T. D. Huynh, N. R. Jennings, and N. Shadbolt. Developing an integrated trust and reputation model for open multi-agent systems. In Proceedings of the 7th International Workshop on Trust in Agent Societies, pages 65–74, New York, USA, 2004.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    M. N. Huhns and M. P. Singh. Service-oriented computing: Key concepts and principles. IEEE Internet Computing, 2005.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    IBM: An architectural blueprint for autonomic computing, 2006. http://www-01.ibm.com/software/tivoli/autonomic/
  18. 18.
    D. G. Johnson and J. M. Mulvey. Accountability and computer decision systems. Communications of the ACM, 38(12):58–64, 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    A. Josang, R. Ismail, and C. Boyd. A survey of trust and reputation systems for online service provision. Decision Support Systems 43, 2007.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    R. Jurca and B. Faltings. Collusion-resistant, incentive-compatible feedback payments. In Proceedings of the 8th ACM conference on Electronic commerce, pages 200–209. 2007.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    N. G. Leveson. Safeware: System Safety and Computers. Addison-Wesley, 1995.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    K. J. Lin. Accountable services. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on e-Business Engineering (ICEBE), 2007.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    F. Lopez y Lopez, M. Luck, and M. d’Inverno. A normative framework for agent-based systems. Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, 12(2–3):227–250, 2005.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    H. Ludwig, A. Keller, A. Dan, R. P. King, and R. Franck. Web service level agreement (WSLA), language specification. Technical report, IBM Corporation, January 2003.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    S. Marsh. Optimism and pessimism in trust. In H. Geffner, editor, Proceedings of IV Ibero-American Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IBERAMIA 1994), pages 286–297. Addison-Wesley, 1994.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    G. Morgan, S. Parkin, C. Molina-Jimenez, and J. Skene. Monitoring middleware for service level agreements in heterogeneous environments. In Challenges of Expanding Internet: E-Commerce, E-Business, and E-Government, pages 79–83, Springer, 2005.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    E. Muntaner-Perich, J. Lluis de la Rosa, and M. Esteva. Towards a formalisation of dynamic electronic institutions. In Proceedings of the AAMAS07 Workshop on Coordination, Organization, Institutions and Norms in Agent Systems, 2007.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    H. Nissenbaum. Computing and accountability. Communications of the ACM, 37(1):72–80, 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    L. O’Brien, L. Bass, and P. Merson. Quality attributes and service-oriented architectures. Technical Note CMU/SEI-2005-TN-014, 2005.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    M. Papazoglou. Web Services: Principles and Technology. Prentice Hall, 2007.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    C. P. Pfleeger and S. L. Pfleeger. Security in Computing. Prentice Hall, 2003.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    A. Ross. Directives and Norms. Routledge and Kegan Paul Ltd., 1968.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    J. Sabater and C. Sierra. A reputation model for gregarious societies. In Fourth Workshop on Deception Fraud and Trust in Agent Societies, pages 61–70, 2001.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Sarbanes-oxley act (2002). http://www.sec.gov/about/laws/soa2002.pdf
  35. 35.
    M. Schillo, P. Funk, and M. Rovatsos. Using trust for detecting deceitful agents in artificial societies. Applied Artificial Intelligence, Special Issue on trust, Deception, and Fraud in Agent Societies, 14(8):825–848, 2000.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    W. T. L. Teacy, J. Patel, N. Jennings, and M. Luck. TRAVOS: Trust and reputation in the context of inaccurate information sources. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 12(2):183–198, 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    R. Tuomela and M. Bonnevier-Toumela. Norms and agreements. European Journal of Law, Philosophy and Computer Science, 5:41–46, 1995.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    G. Wang, C. Wang, A. Chen, H. Wang, C. Fung, S. Uczekaj, Y. L. Chen, W. G. Guthmiller and J. Lee. Service level management using QoS monitoring, diagnostics, and adaptation for networked enterprise systems. In Proceedings of the Ninth IEEE International EDOC Enterprise Computing Conference (EDOC ’05), pages 239–250, 2005.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    J.-C. Wang and C.-C. Chiu. Recommending trusted online auction sellers using social network analysis. Expert Systems with Applications 34(3):1666–1679, 2008MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    F. Zambonelli, N. Jennings, and M. Wooldridge. Organisational abstractions for the analysis and design of multi-agent systems. In Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Agent-Oriented Software Engineering, 2000.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Y. Zhang, K. J. Lin, and J. Y. Hsu. Accountability monitoring and reasoning in service-oriented architectures. Journal of Service-Oriented Computing and Applications (SOCA) 1(1), 2007.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nathan Griffiths
    • 1
    Email author
  • Kuo-Ming Chao
    • 2
  • Simon Miles
    • 3
  • Sanjay Modgil
    • 3
  • Nir Oren
    • 3
  • Michael Luck
    • 3
  • Kwei-Jay Lin
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of WarwickCoventryUK
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceCoventry UniversityCoventryUK
  3. 3.Department of Computer ScienceKing’s College LondonLondonUK
  4. 4.Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer ScienceUniversity of CaliforniaIrvineUSA

Personalised recommendations