Towards a Language for a Satisfaction-Based Selection of Grid Services

  • Sergio Andreozzi
  • Paolo Ciancarini
  • Danilo Montesi
  • Rocco Moretti
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3911)


Grid systems enable the sharing of a large number of geographically-dispersed resources among different communities of users. They require a mapping functionality for the association of users requests expressed in terms of requirements and preferences to actual resources. This functionality should deal with a potentially high number of similar resources and with the diversity of the perceived satisfactions of users. We propose XMatch, a query language enabling the expression of the user request in terms of the expected satisfaction over XML-based representation of available resources. This language improves the expressiveness of queries and supports aggregation of an high number of elementary satisfactions.


Grid System Query Language User Request Grid Service Storage Service 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Németh, Z., Sunderam, V.: Characterizing Grids: Attributes, Definitions, and Formalisms. Journal of Grid Computing 1, 9–23 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Andreozzi, S., Ciancarini, P., Montesi, D., Moretti, R.: An approach to the quantitative evaluation of grid services. Journal of Concurrency and Computation: Practice and Experience (to appear, 2005)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Boag, S., Chamberlin, D., Fernández, M., Florescu, D., Robie, J., Simeon, J.: XQuery 1.0: An XML Query Language, W3C Working Draft February 11 (2005)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fenton, N., Pfleeger, S.L.: Software Metrics: a Rigorous and Practical Approach, 2nd edn., Course Technology (1998)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dujmovic, J.: A method for evaluation and selection of complex hardware and software systems. In: Proceedings of the International Conference for the Resource Management and Performance Evaluation of Enterprise Computing Systems (CMG 1996), San Diego, CA, USA, December 1996, vol. 1, pp. 368–378 (1996)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Andreozzi, S., Ciuffoletti, A., Ghiselli, A., Vistoli, C.: Monitoring the Connectivity of a Grid. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Middleware for Grid Computing (MGC 2004), Toronto, Canada, October 2004 (2004)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Prelz, F., et al.: Pratical Approaches to Grid Workload and Resource Management in the EGEE Project. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Computing in High Energy and Nuclear Physics (CHEP 2004), Interlaken, Switzerland (2004)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kießling, W.: Foundations of Preferences in Database Systems. In: Proceedings of the 28th Very Large Database System (VLDB) Conference, Hong Kong, China (2002)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hafenrichter, B., Kießling, K.: Optimization of Relational Preference Queries. In: Proceedings of the 16th Australasian Database (ADB 2005) Conference, Newcastle, Australia (2005)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kießling, K., Köstler, G.: Preference SQL - Design, Implementation, Experiences. In: Proceedings of 28th International Conference on Very Large Databases (VLDB), Hong Kong, China (August 2002)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kießling, W., Hafenrichter, B., Fischer, S., Holland, S.: Preference XPATH: a Query Language for E-Commerce. In: Proceedings of 5th Internationale Tagung Wirtschaftsinformatik, Augsburg, Germany (September 2001)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chomicki, J.: Preference Formulas in Relational Queries. ACM Transaction on Database Systems 28(4), 427–466 (2003)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Solomon, M.: The ClassAd language reference manual. Computer Sciences Department, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI (October 2003)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Litzkow, M.J., Livny, M., Mutka, M.W.: Policy Driven Heterogeneous Resource Co-Allocation with Gangmatching. In: Proceedings of the 12th IEEE International Symposium on High-Performance Distributed Computing (HPDC 2003), Seattle, WA, USA (June 2003)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Litzkow, M., Livny, M., Mutka, M.W.: Condor - a Hunter of Idle Workstations. In: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems (ICDCS 1988), San Jose, CA, USA (June 1988)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Anjomshoaa, A., Brisard, F., Drescher, M., Fellows, D., Ly, A., McGough, S., Pulsipher, D., Savva, A.: Job Submission Description Language (JSDL) Specification, Version 1.0, GGF Working Draft June 15 (2005)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Andreozzi, A., Burke, S., Field, L., Fisher, S., Balazs, K., Mambelli, M., Schopf, J.M., Viljoen, M., Wilson, A.: ‘GLUE Schema 1.2’ GLUE Collaboration, Working Draft, September 24 (2005)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sergio Andreozzi
    • 1
    • 2
  • Paolo Ciancarini
    • 1
  • Danilo Montesi
    • 1
  • Rocco Moretti
    • 1
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of BolognaBolognaItaly
  2. 2.Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare-CNAFBolognaItaly
  3. 3.Dept. of Pure and Applied MathematicsUniversity of PadovaPadovaItaly

Personalised recommendations