Advertisement

Message Protocols for Provisioning and Usage of Computing Services

  • Nikolay Borissov
  • Simon Caton
  • Omer Rana
  • Aharon Levine
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5745)

Abstract

The commercial availability of computational resources enable consumers to scale their applications on-demand. However, it is necessary for both consumers and providers of computational resources to express their technical and economic preferences using common language protocols. Ultimately, this requires clear, flexible and pragmatic communication protocols and policies for the expression of bids and resulting generation of service level agreements (SLAs). Further standardization efforts in such description languages will foster the specification of common interfaces and matching rules for establishing SLAs. Grid middleware are not compatible with market-orientated resource provisioning. We aim to reduce this gap by defining extensions to a standardized specification such as JSDL. Furthermore, we present a methodology for matchmaking consumer bids and provider offers and map the additional economic attributes into a SLA. We demonstrate the usage of the message protocols in an application scenario.

Keywords

Message protocols Expressing Economic Preferences SLA 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Karänke, P., Kirn, S.: Service level agreements: An evaluation from a business application perspective. In: Proceedings of eChallenges (2007)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Borissov, N., Wirström, N.: Q-Strategy: A bidding strategy for market-based allocation of Grid services. In: OTM Conferences, vol. (1), pp. 744–761 (2008)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Stoesser, J., Neumann, D.: A model of preference elicitation for distributed market-based resource allocation. In: 17th European Conference on Information Systems, ECIS 2009 (2009)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Nimis, J., et al.: D2.2a: Final specification and design documentation of the sorma components – revised version. Technical report (2009), http://www.im.uni-karlsruhe.de/sorma/fileadmin/SORMA_Deliverables/D2.2a_final.pdf
  5. 5.
    Chevaleyre, Y., Dunne, P., Endriss, U., Lang, J., Lemaître, M., Maudet, N., Padget, J., Phelps, S., Rodriguez-Aguilar, J., Sousa, P.: Issues in multiagent resource allocation (2005)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Becker, M., Borissov, N., Deora, V., Rana, O., Neumann, D.: Using k-Pricing for Penalty Calculation in Grid Market, p. 97 (2008)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wilkes, J.: Utility functions, prices, and negotiation. Technical report, HP Laboratories (2008)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Anjomshoaa, et al.: Job Submission Description Language (JSDL) Specification, Version 1.0 (2005)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Laure, E., Fisher, S., Frohner, A., Grandi, C., Kunszt, P., Krenek, A., Mulmo, O., Pacini, F., Prelz, F., White, J., et al.: Programming the Grid with gLite. Computational Methods in Science and Technology 12(1), 33–45 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Feller, M., Foster, I., Martin, S.: GT4 GRAM: A functionality and performance study. In: TeraGrid Conference (2007)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    DMTF: Common Information Model (CIM) v2.19.1. Distributed Management Task Force, DMTF (2008)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Paurobally, S., Tamma, V., Wooldridge, M.: A framework for web service negotiation. ACM Transactions on Autonomous and Adaptive Systems 2(4) (2007)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Paschke, A., Dietrich, J., Kuhla, K.: A logic based sla management framework. In: Semantic Web and Policy Workshop (SWPW) at ISWC 2005 (2005)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Andrieux, A., et al.: Web services agreement specification, WS-Agreement (2007)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Tamma, V., Phelps, S., Dickinson, I., Wooldridge, M.: Ontologies for supporting negotiation in e-commerce. Engineering applications of artificial intelligence 18(2), 223–236 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kopecky, J., Vitvar, T., Bournez, C., Farrell, J.: Sawsdl: Semantic annotations for wsdl and xml schema. IEEE Internet Computing 11(6), 60–67 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Satterthwaite, M., Williams, S.: Bilateral trade with the sealed bid k-double auction: Existence and efficiency. Journal of Economic Theory 48(1), 107–133 (1989)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Oldham, N., Verma, K., Sheth, A., Hakimpour, F.: Semantic ws-agreement partner selection. In: 15th international conference on World Wide Web (2006)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mascardi, V., Cordì, V., Rosso, P.: A comparison of upper ontologies. In: Agenti e industria: Applicazioni tecnologiche degli agenti software, WOA 2007, pp. 24–25 (2007)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nikolay Borissov
    • 1
  • Simon Caton
    • 2
  • Omer Rana
    • 2
  • Aharon Levine
    • 3
  1. 1.Institute für Informationswirtschaft und Management (IISM)Universität KarlsruheGermany
  2. 2.School of Computer ScienceCardiff UniversityUK
  3. 3.Correlation SystemsIsrael

Personalised recommendations