A new QoS ontology and its QoS-based ranking algorithm for Web services

Tran, Vuong Xuan; Tsuji, Hitomi; Masuda, Ryosuke

doi:10.1016/j.simpat.2009.06.010

Cited by 166 publications

(104 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

104

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The other subcharacteristics have also some arguably good coverage with the exception of maturity which is only covered in 2% and partially covered in 11% of quality models (see Table 8). The partial coverage of maturity comes from the consistency quality attribute [21], [27], [31], [36], [37]. Security is explicitly defined by 74% of quality models.…”

Section: Which Quality Factors Are the Most Addressed In The Quality mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Regarding its subcharacteristics, all of them have been explicitly defined with similar percentages, which shows a clear consolidation on its decomposition. The main difference appears in confidentiality (predominance of Y+ over Y) because most quality models present an encryption-related quality attribute [18], [21], [27], [31] which is a concept that clearly falls into it (see Table 9). Maintainability is only explicitly defined in 17% of the quality models, and partially supported in 19%.…”

Section: Which Quality Factors Are the Most Addressed In The Quality mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Quality models for web services: A systematic mapping

Oriol

Marco

Franch

2014

Information and Software Technology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Context: Quality of Service (QoS) is a major issue in various web service related activities. Quality models have been proposed as the engineering artefact to provide a common framework of understanding for QoS, by defining the quality factors that apply to web service usage. Objective: The goal of this study is to evaluate the current state of the art of the proposed quality models for web services, specifically: (1) which are these proposals and how are they related; (2) what are their structural characteristics; (3) what quality factors are the most and least addressed; and (4) what are their most consolidated definitions. Method: We have conducted a systematic mapping by defining a robust protocol that combines automatic and manual searches from different sources. We used a rigorous method to elicitate the keywords from the research questions and a selection criteria to retrieve the final papers to evaluate. We have adopted the ISO/IEC 25010 standard to articulate our analysis. Results: We have evaluated 47 different quality models from 65 papers that fulfilled the selection criteria. By analyzing in depth these quality models, we have: 1) distributed the proposals along the time dimension and identified their relationships; 2) analysed their size (visualizing the number of nodes and levels) and definition coverage (as indicator of quality of the proposals); 3) quantified the coverage of the different ISO/IEC 25010 quality factors by the proposals; 4) identified the quality factors that appeared in at least 30% of the surveyed proposals and provided the most consolidated definitions for them. Conclusions: We believe that this panoramic view on the anatomy of the quality models for web services may be a good reference for prospective researchers and practitioners in the field and especially may help avoiding the definition of new proposals that do not align with current research.

show abstract

Section: Which Quality Factors Are the Most Addressed In The Quality mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Which Quality Factors Are the Most Addressed In The Quality mentioning

confidence: 99%

Quality models for web services: A systematic mapping

Oriol

Marco

Franch

2014

Information and Software Technology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Reliability [15] of a WS is measured in terms of MTBF(mean time between failure), recoverability, performance and availability.…”

Section: [53]mentioning

confidence: 99%

“… is the weight associated with respective parameter.  Is the ability of WS from failover and disaster [15]  Security: Security is the measure of how much it is secure to use a WS regarding different security threats [16]. Different security mechanisms used by Web Services are ranked Initially by mediator agent [16].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

QOS Aware Formalized Model for Semantic Web Service Selection

Sachan¹,

Dixit²,

Kumar³

2014

IJWesT

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Reliability [15] of a WS is measured in terms of MTBF(mean time between failure), recoverability, performance and availability. Security: Security is the measure of how much it is secure to use a WS regarding different security threats [16].…”

Section: Reliabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%