Managing and Delivering Trustworthy Context-Dependent Services
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Service-oriented architecture (SOA) is emerging as the future of distributed computing and enterprise application development. The two key issues in service-oriented applications should be that every provided service meets the expected trust level set by the service requester, and the provided service satisfies its contract in the context of service provision. In order to enforce these issues, it is necessary to specify in the service its trustworthiness properties, and the relationship between its contracts and the contexts in which it is to be provided. However, current approaches have failed to specify them. The FrSeC architecture proposed in this paper aims to remedy this situation. The architecture supports the specification, publication, discovery, selection, and composition of services, where a service with its functional and nonfunctional aspects is bound to a context-driven contract. A family of Service Provision Specification Languages (SPSL) is introduced to specify the architectural elements. The semantic domain behind SPSL is an abstract architecture description formalism based on set theory and logic. This paper provides an overview of FrSeC framework and gives SPSL descriptions for Service Registry, and Service Requester in FrSeC.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".