A Multi-criteria Service Ranking Approach Based on Non-Functional Properties Rules Evaluation

  • Ioan Toma
  • Dumitru Roman
  • Dieter Fensel
  • Brahmanada Sapkota
  • Juan Miguel Gomez
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4749)


Service oriented architectures (SOAs) are quickly becoming the de-facto solutions for providing end-to-end enterprise connectivity. However realizing the vision of SOA requires, among others, solutions for one fundamental challenge, namely service ranking. Once a set of services that fulfill the requested functionality is discovered, an ordered list of services needs to be created according to users preferences. These preferences are often expressed in terms of multiple non-functional properties (NFPs). This paper proposes a multi-criteria ranking approach for semantic web services. We start by briefly introducing ontological models for NFPs. These models are used to specify rules which describe NFP aspects of services and goals/requests. The ranking mechanism evaluates these NFPs rules using a reasoning engine and produces a ranked list of services according to users preferences.


User Preference Service Description Logical Rule Ranking Process Reasoning Engine 
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.


  1. 1.
    Anicic, D., Brodie, M., de Bruijn, J., Fensel, D., Haselwanter, T., Hepp, M., Heymans, S., Hoffmann, J., Kerrigan, M., Kopecky, J., Krummenacher, R., Lausen, H., Mocan, A., Scicluna, J., Toma, I., Zaremba, M.: A semantically enabled service oriented architecture. In: WImBI 2006. WICI International Workshop on Web Intelligence (WI) meets Brain Informatics, Beijing, China (December 2006)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cardoso, J., Sheth, A.P.: Introduction to semantic web services and web process composition. In: Cardoso, J., Sheth, A.P. (eds.) SWSWPC 2004. LNCS, vol. 3387, pp. 1–13. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chung, L.: Non-Functional Requirements for Information Systems Design. In: Andersen, R., Solvberg, A., Bubenko Jr., J.A. (eds.) CAiSE 1991. LNCS, vol. 498, pp. 5–30. Springer, Heidelberg (1991)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    de Bruijn, J., Lausen, H., Krummenacher, R., Polleres, A., Predoiu, L., Kifer, M., Fensel, D., Toma, I., Steinmetz, N., Kerrigan, M.: The Web Service Modeling Language WSML. Technical report, WSML, WSML Final Draft D16.1v0.3 (2007),
  5. 5.
    O’Sullivan, J., Edmond, D., ter Hofstede, A.H.M.: Formal description of non-functional service properties. Technical report, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane (2005), Available from
  6. 6.
    Paolucci, M., Kawamura, T., Payne, T., Sycara, K.: Semantic matching of web services capabilities. In: Horrocks, I., Hendler, J. (eds.) ISWC 2002. LNCS, vol. 2342, pp. 333–347. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Roman, D., Lausen, H., Keller, U. (eds.): Web service modeling ontology (WSMO). Working Draft D2v1.4, WSMO (2007), Available from
  8. 8.
    Toma, I., Foxvog, D.: Non-functional properties in Web services. Working draft, Digital Enterprise Research Insitute (DERI) (August 2006), Available from
  9. 9.
    Verma, K., Sivashanmugam, K., Sheth, A., Patil, A.: Meteor-s wsdi: A scalable p2p infrastructure of registries for semantic publication and discovery of web services. Journal of Information Technology and Management (2004)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ioan Toma
    • 1
  • Dumitru Roman
    • 1
  • Dieter Fensel
    • 1
  • Brahmanada Sapkota
    • 2
  • Juan Miguel Gomez
    • 3
  1. 1.DERI Innsbruck, University of InnsbruckAustria
  2. 2.DERI Galway, National University of Ireland, GalwayIreland
  3. 3.Carlos III University, MadridSpain

Personalised recommendations