Flexible SLA Negotiation Using Semantic Annotations

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6275)


Moving towards a global market of services requires flexible infrastructures that will deal with the inevitable semantic heterogeneity that occurs during the negotiation that precedes the trading of a service. In order to reach an agreement, the negotiating parties need to understand the concepts describing the Quality of Service (QoS) terms which are part of the Service Level Agreement (SLA). The use of semantic annotations can increase the level of flexibility and automation, allowing the two parties to use their own terminology as long as it is related to the commonly understood conceptual model. This paper discusses how SLA negotiation will benefit from the use of a lightweight backwards compatible semantic annotation mechanism.


Service Level Agreement (SLA) semantic annotations SLA negotiation ontologies 


  1. 1.
    Mitchell, B., Mckee, P.: SLAs a Key Commercial Tool Innovation and the Knowledge Economy: Issues, Applications. Case Studies (2005)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    GRAAP-WG: Web Services Agreement Specification (WS-Agreement) (March 14, 2007),
  3. 3.
    Ludwig, H., Keller, A., Dan, A., King, R.P., Franck, R.: Web service level agreement (WSLA) language specification,
  4. 4.
    Hung, P., Li, H., Jeng, J.-J.: WS-Negotiation: An Overview of Research Issues. In: Proceedings of the 37th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, HICSS 2004 (2004)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    TrustCom consortium: The TrustCom Project,
  6. 6.
    BREIN consortium: The BREIN Project,
  7. 7.
    Andrieux, A., Czajkowski, K., Dan, A., Keahey, K., Ludwig, H., Pruyne, J.: Web Services Agreement Negotiation Specification (WS-AgreementNegotiation) (2004)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sandholm, T.W.: Distributed rational decision making. Multiagent systems: a modern approach to distributed artificial intelligence, pp. 201–258. MIT Press, Cambridge (1999)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Frankova, G., Malfatti, D., Aiello, M.: Semantics and Extensions of WS-Agreement. Journal of Software 1(1) (July 2006)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Oldham, N., Verma, K., Sheth, A., Hakimpour, F.: Semantic WS-agreement partner selection. In: Proceedings of the 15th international conference on World Wide Web, pp. 697–706. ACM, New York (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    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
  12. 12.
    Kim, E.: OASIS Quality Model for Web Services. Version 2.0 (2005)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    FIPA Iterated Contract Net Interaction Protocol Specification,
  14. 14.
    Munoz, H., Kotsiopoulos, I., Vaquero, L.M., Rodero, L.: Enhancing Service Selection by Semantic QoS. In: Aroyo, L., Traverso, P., Ciravegna, F., Cimiano, P., Heath, T., Hyvönen, E., Mizoguchi, R., Oren, E., Sabou, M., Simperl, E. (eds.) ESWC 2009. LNCS, vol. 5554, pp. 565–577. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Carroll, J.J., Dickinson, I., Dollin, C., Reynolds, D., Seaborne, A., Wilkinson, K.: Jena: implementing the semantic web recommendations, New York, NY, USA, pp. 74–83 (2004)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Evren, S., Bijan, P., Bernardo Cuenca, G., Aditya, K., Yarden, K.: Pellet: A practical OWL-DL reasoner. Web Semant. 5(2), 51–53 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    O’connor, M., Knublauch, H., Tu, S., Grosof, B., Dean, N., Grosso, W., Musen, M.: Supporting rule system interoperability on the semantic web with SWRL, pp. 974–986 (2005)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Telefónica Investigación y Desarrollo S.A, ValladolidSpain
  2. 2.The University of ManchesterUnited Kingdom
  3. 3.MTA SZTAKIBudapestHungary
  4. 4.High Performance Computing Center StuttgartGermany

Personalised recommendations