Skip to main content
Log in

Accountability monitoring and reasoning in service-oriented architectures

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Service Oriented Computing and Applications Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Service-oriented architecture (SOA) provides a powerful paradigm to compose service processes using individual atomic services. When running a service process, SOA needs an efficient and effective mechanism to detect service delivery failures and to identify the individual service(s) that causes the problem. In this research, we study the model of accountability to detect, diagnose, and defuse the real cause of a problem when service errors (such as incorrect result or SLA violation) occur in a service process. Our approach leverages Bayesian networks to identify the most likely problematic services in a process and selectively inspect those services. An evidence channel selection algorithm is designed to specify which services in a service network should be monitored to achieve the best cost-efficiency. We model the channels selection as the classic facilities location problem. We also adopt a continuous knowledge learning process to manage the dynamic nature of SOA. The performance study shows that our proposed accountability mechanism is effective on identifying the root cause of problems and can achieve significant cost savings: with 50% of services’ outputs monitored as evidence, the comprehensive diagnosis correctness can reach 80% after only 20% of services are inspected.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bichler M, Lin KJ (2006) Service-oriented computing. IEEE Computer 39(3):99–101

    Google Scholar 

  2. Huhns MN, Singh MP (2005) Service-oriented computing: Key concepts and principles. IEEE Internet Computing

  3. Curbera F, Goland Y, Klein J, Leymann F, Roller D, Thatte S, Weerawarana S (2003) Business process execution language for web services, version 1.1. http://www-106.ibm.com/ developerworks/webservices/library/ws-bpel

  4. Ross-Talbot S, Fletcher T (2006) Web services choreography description language: Prime. http://www.w3.org/TR/ ws-cdl-10-primer/

  5. Neumann PG (2006) Risks relating to system compositions. Commun of ACM 49(7)

  6. Yu T, Lin KJ (2005) Service selection algorithms for composing complex services with end-to-end QoS constraints. Proc. 3rd International Conference on Service Oriented Computing (ICSOC2005), The Netherlands Amsterdam

  7. Yu T, Lin KJ (2005) Adaptive algorithms for finding replacement services in autonomic distributed business processes. The 7th International Symposium on Autonomous Decentralized Systems, Chengdu, Jiuzhaigou, China

  8. Lin KJ, Hsu JY, Zhang Y, Yu T (2006) A distributed reputation broker framework for web service applications. J E-Commerce Res 7(3):164–177

    Google Scholar 

  9. Lin KJ, Lu H, Yu T, Tai CE (2005) A reputation and trust management broker framework for web applications. IEEE Conference on e-Technology, e-Commerce and e-Service (EEE’05), 262–269

  10. Horsch K (1996) Results-based accountability systems: Opportunities and challenges. The Evaluation Exchange II(1) http://www.gse.harvard.edu/hfrp/eval/issue3/theory1.html

  11. Acharya M, Kulkarni A, Kuppili R, Mani R, More N, Narayanan S, Patel P, Schuelke KW, Subramanian SN (2005) SOA in the real world experiences. Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Service-Oriented Computing 437–449

  12. Ponnekanti SR, Fox A (2002) SWORD: A developer toolkit for web service composition. 11th World Wide Web Conference, Honolulu, Hawaii

  13. Yu T, Lin KJ (2005) A broker-based framework for QoS-aware web service composition. In: IEEE International Conference on e-Technology, e-Commerce and e-Service (EEE-05), Hong Kong, China

  14. Cormen TH, Leiserson CE, Rivest RL, Stein C (2001) The set-covering problem. Introduction to algorithms, second edition, MIT Press, McGraw-Hill, pp 1033–1038

  15. Zhang Y, Lin KJ, Klefstad R (2006) DIRECT: arobust distributed broker framework for trust and reputation management. IEEE Conference on e-Technology, e-Commerce and e-Service (EEE’06)

  16. Pearl J (1988) Probabilistic reasoning in intelligent systems. Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo

  17. Heckerman D, Breese JS, Rommelse K (1995) Decision-theoretic troubleshooting. Commu ACM 38(3):49–57

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Lerner U, Parr R, Koller D, Biswas G (2000) Bayesian fault detection and diagnosis in dynamic systems. AAAI/IAAI, pp 531–537

  19. Korb KB, Nicholson AE (2004) Bayesian artificial intelligence. Chapman & Hall/CRC, London UK

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  20. Jensen FV (2001) Bayesian networks and decision graphs. Springer, Heidelberg

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  21. Nilsson NJ (1998) Artificial intelligence: a new synthesis. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, San Francisco

  22. DSL (2006) SMILE (structural modeling, inference, and learning engine). Decision Systems Laboratory(DSL), School of Information Sciences, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, http://genie.sis.pitt.edu/

  23. Jensen FV, Liang J (1994) drHugin: a system for value of information in bayesian networks. Proceedings of the 1994 Conference on Information Processing and Management of Uncertainty in Knowledge-Based Systems, pp 178–183

  24. Jensen FV, Liang J (1992) A system for hypothesis driven myopic data request. Technical Report R-92-2021, Department of Mathematics and computer Science, Aalborg University, Aalborg

  25. Arya V, Garg N, Khandekar R, Munagala K, Pandit V (2001) Local search heuristic for k-median and facility location problems. ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, pp 21–29

  26. Charikar M, Guha S, Tardos E, Shmoys DB (1999) A constant-factor approximation algorithm for the k-median problem (extended abstract). ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, pp 1–10

  27. Ide JS, Cozman FG (2002) Generating random bayesian networks. Proceedings on 16th Brazilian Symposium on Artificial Intelligence (SBIA 2002), Advances in Artificial Intelligence, Springer, Berlin, pp 366–375

  28. Wang G, Wang C, Chen A, Wang H, Fung C, Uczekaj S, Chen YL, Guthmiller W, Lee J (2005) Service level management using QoS monitoring, diagnostics, and adaptation for networked enterprise systems. EDOC Enterprise Computing Conference, 2005 Ninth IEEE International, pp 239–248

  29. Ardissono L, Console L, Goy A, Petrone G, Picardi C, Segnan M (2005) Enhancing web services with diagnostic capabilities. Third IEEE European Conference on Web Services (ECOWS 2005)

  30. Lee G (2006) CAPRI: a common architecture for autonomous, distributed diagnosis of internet faults using probabilistic relational models. In: the First Workshop on Hot Topics in Autonomic Computing (HotAC I) in conjunction with the 3rd IEEE International Conference on Autonomic Computing (ICAC-06)

  31. Krishnan R, Peters J, Padman R, Kaplan D (2005) On data reliability assessment in accounting information systems. Inform Systems Res 16:307–326

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kwei-Jay Lin.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Zhang, Y., Lin, KJ. & Hsu, J.Y.J. Accountability monitoring and reasoning in service-oriented architectures. SOCA 1, 35–50 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11761-007-0001-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11761-007-0001-4

Keywords

Navigation