Multi-criteria Web Services Selection: Balancing the Quality of Design and Quality of Service
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Web service composition allows developers to create applications via reusing available services that are interoperable to each other. The process of selecting relevant Web services for a composite service satisfying the developer requirements is commonly acknowledged to be hard and challenging, especially with the exponentially increasing number of available Web services on the Internet. The majority of existing approaches on Web Services Selection are merely based on the Quality of Service (QoS) as a basic criterion to guide the selection process. However, existing approaches tend to ignore the service design quality, which plays a crucial role in discovering, understanding, and reusing service functionalities. Indeed, poorly designed Web service interfaces result in service anti-patterns, which are symptoms of bad design and implementation practices. The existence of anti-pattern instances in Web service interfaces typically complicates their reuse in real-world service-based systems and may lead to several maintenance and evolution problems. To address this issue, we introduce a new approach based on the Multi-Objective and Optimization on the basis of Ratio Analysis method (MOORA) as a multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) method to select Web services based on a combination of their (1) QoS attributes and (2) QoS design. The proposed approach aims to help developers to maintain the soundness and quality of their service composite development processes. We conduct a quantitative and qualitative empirical study to evaluate our approach on a Quality of Web Service dataset. We compare our MOORA-based approach against four commonly used MCDM methods as well as a recent state-of-the-art Web service selection approach. The obtained results show that our approach outperforms state-of-the-art approaches by significantly improving the service selection quality of top- k selected services while providing the best trade-off between both service design quality and desired QoS values. Furthermore, we conducted a qualitative evaluation with developers. The obtained results provide evidence that our approach generates a good trade-off for what developers need regarding both QoS and quality of design. Our selection approach was evaluated as “relevant” from developers point of view, in improving the service selection task with an average score of 3.93, compared to an average of 2.62 for the traditional QoS-based approach.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle