A View-Based Approach to Quality of
Service Modelling
in Service-Oriented Enterprise Systems
Audronė Lupeikienė
Jolanta Mi...
Outline
•
•
•
•
•
•

Research objective
Service Oriented Enterprise Architecture (SoEA) concept
SOA vs SoEA
Quality of Ser...
Research Objective
• To propose a conceptual view-based framework
which describes and relates to each other the
different ...
SOA Service

Source: Phil Bianco, Rick Kotermanski, Paulo Merson, Evaluating a Service-Oriented Architecture; TECHNICAL
RE...
SOA

SOEA

EA

SoEA Concept
A service-oriented architecture (SOA) “is
a framework for integrating business
processes and s...
SoEA Concept
Internal
Consumer

External
Consumer
Intranet/
Extranet

Enterprise Service Bus

Enterprise
Business Service
...
SOA vs. SoEA
SOA

SoEA

Open Internet-wide system. Developed in a
bottom-up manner.

Relatively closed enterprise-wide sys...
SOA vs. SoEA
SOA

SoEA

The structure of messages is standardized
(e.g. by SOAP) but not unified. Interfaces
standardized ...
SOA vs. SoEA
SOA

SoEA

Recommended security and safety
standards.

Mandatory security and safety standards.

Some service...
QoS Concept

•
•

•
•
•

In SOA, includes most of non-functional properties and even characteristics that are
hardly relat...
Elephant Problem

How does the elephant really look?
BSC 2013, Rīga
QoS Problem
What is the QoS indeed?
Domain
perspective
Socio-economic perspective

Presentation
perspective
Designer’s
vie...
QoS Problem
• At present, the technology-oriented attitude (a developer’s
point of view) prevails when considering QoS of ...
Proposed Solution
• View construction: For each point of view to integrate
perspectives.
• Modeling approach: To represent...
Conclusions
• At present, QoS modeling techniques are too much technologyoriented.
• It is necessary to balance technology...
Thank you for your attention!
Questions?

BSC 2013, Rīga
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

'A View-Based Approach to Quality of Service Modelling in Service-Oriented Enterprise Systems by Audrone Lupeikiene, Jolanta Miliauskaite and Albertas Caplinskas, LT

308 views
193 views

Published on

Published in: Technology, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
308
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
6
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Nurodyti visus autorius ir instituta
  • http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/infocenter/ieduasst/v1r1m0/index.jsp?topic=/com.ibm.iea.wsapiw/wsapiw/5.0/IBMandSAP_Intro2SAP_tech/P03_SOA_IBM_ESA_SAP_Khirallah/player.html
    The monolithic IT systems, namely a Customer Relationship Management system (CRM) and an Enterprise Resource Planning system (ERP), are characterized by integrated GUIs, huge functionality and no communication with other systems.
    CRM (Customer Relationship Management) is a business strategy aiming to organize and handle the business actions connected to customer relationship through the entire lifecycle of partnership with customers. CRM requires a customer centered business philosophy and a culture supporting effective marketing, sales, and service processes. CRM facilitates processes of managing customers and their orders from opportunity tracking to quotations & order placement, to sales force management, in the interest of improving customer relationship, driving revenue and enhancing service quality.
    SCM (Supply Chain Management) is a set of software solutions, internal business practices, and tightly managed trading partner relationships that allow an enterprise to serve its customers more efficiently by better organizing and coordinating internal and partner activities. A key benefit of SCM systems is a capability for providing accurate real-time cost monitoring and planning data. The idea of SCM is to integrate forecasting, planning, and execution capabilities with complete supply chain wide visibility across the supply chain.
    ERP (Enterprise Resource Planning) dates back to Material Require Planning systems (MRP) the first systems to use a computer for planning the material and capacity. As the computer resource continued to add more power, the idea came to integrate the material and capacity resource plan with the financial resources of the organization.
  • http://is.uni-paderborn.de/uploads/tx_sibibtex/Model-Based_Evaluation_of_Servie-Oriented_Architectures.pdf
    http://knippel.org/thesis/SOEA_censored.pdf
  • Normalisation means that each EBS should be designed with the intent to avoid functional overlaps and to reduce the redundancies in EBSs, i.e., to avoid similar or duplicate bodies of service logic. Global data types are enterprise-wide defined data types based on the international standards
  • A service inventory is an independently standardized and governed collection of complementary services within a boundary that represents an enterprise or a meaningful segment of an enterprise.
  • http://thecolloquium.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=247:neuroscience&catid=59:science&Itemid=96
    http://mydigitalfootprint.com/footprint-cms/WEB_2.0_AND_MOBILE_WEB_2.0.html
  • Die Closed world assumption (deutsch: Annahme zur Weltabgeschlossenheit) bei der Modellierung von Sachverhalten (Wissensrepräsentation) sagt aus, dass alles, was nicht explizit als wahr bewiesen werden kann, als falsch bezeichnet wird: Alles, was also nicht modelliert ist, existiert im Modell auch nicht und ist nicht beweisbar, also falsch, das heißt nicht ableitbar. In der Prädikatenlogik gilt diese Annahme nicht.
  • 'A View-Based Approach to Quality of Service Modelling in Service-Oriented Enterprise Systems by Audrone Lupeikiene, Jolanta Miliauskaite and Albertas Caplinskas, LT

    1. 1. A View-Based Approach to Quality of Service Modelling in Service-Oriented Enterprise Systems Audronė Lupeikienė Jolanta Miliauskaitė Albertas Čaplinskas Vilnius University Institute of Mathematics and Informatics BSC 2013, Rīga
    2. 2. Outline • • • • • • Research objective Service Oriented Enterprise Architecture (SoEA) concept SOA vs SoEA Quality of Service (QoS) concept Problem Conclusions  The research has been supported by the project „Theoretical and Engineering Aspects of eservice Technology Development end Application in High-performance Computing Platforms“ (No. VP1-3.1-ŠMM-08-K-01-010) funded by the European Social Fund.
    3. 3. Research Objective • To propose a conceptual view-based framework which describes and relates to each other the different viewpoints and perspectives of QoS in web-based Service-Oriented Enterprise System (SoES). BSC 2013, Rīga
    4. 4. SOA Service Source: Phil Bianco, Rick Kotermanski, Paulo Merson, Evaluating a Service-Oriented Architecture; TECHNICAL REPORT CMU/SEI-2007-TR-015 ESC-TR-2007-015, September 2007 BSC 2013, Rīga
    5. 5. SOA SOEA EA SoEA Concept A service-oriented architecture (SOA) “is a framework for integrating business processes and supporting IT infrastructure as secure, standardized components – services – that can be reused and combined to address changing business priorities.”* Enterprise architecture (EA) “an aggregated, holistic view of all systems, people, and internal and external constructs that have relationships within the enterprise.”** * Bieberstein, N., Bose, S., Fiammante, M., Jones, K., Shah, R. (2005): Service-Oriented Architecture (SOA) Compass - BusinessValue, Planning, and Enterprise Roadmap. IBM Press. ** Allega, Ph. EA and SOA: Balancing Project Implementation and Top Down Guidance, 2005, EACommunity.com BSC 2013, Rīga
    6. 6. SoEA Concept Internal Consumer External Consumer Intranet/ Extranet Enterprise Service Bus Enterprise Business Service (EBS) Consumers Infrastructure EBS EBS EBS A EBS B C D EBS Interface ERP CRM Other Internal Systems External Systems EBS Implementation Examples: SAP Enterprise SOA, IBM WebSphere BSC 2013, Rīga
    7. 7. SOA vs. SoEA SOA SoEA Open Internet-wide system. Developed in a bottom-up manner. Relatively closed enterprise-wide system controlled on an enterprise-wide level. Developed in a top-down manner. Enterprise service inventory. Deals with any business services. No ability either to define global data types or normalize business services (i.e., to avoid similar or duplicate bodies of service logic). Deals with normalized* enterprise business services (EBS) aligned with the enterprise business functions and working with global data types. Is not purported either to support a particular business strategy or to implement predefined business processes. Is a set of interacting EBSs coordinated by an enterprise business process. Supports enterprise’s business strategy and objectives. No ability to guide what services are built how they are built and deployed. No control over changes of services. Designed, developed and deployed in compliance with an enterprise-wide standards. All changes are under control. * Normalisation means that each EBS should be designed with the intent to avoid functional overlaps and to reduce the redundancies in EBSs. BSC 2013, Rīga
    8. 8. SOA vs. SoEA SOA SoEA The structure of messages is standardized (e.g. by SOAP) but not unified. Interfaces standardized (by WSDL), but are not clearly defined and not stable. No ability to use global data types in the interfaces. The structures of messages is unified. EBS interfaces are clearly defined, stable, and make use of global data types SLA is negotiated between provider and consumer at the run time. Mostly, mandated at the enterprise-wide level at the design time. Direct pear-to-pear communication between consumer and provider. UDDI for service registration and discovery. Enterprise Service Bus acts as a mediator between consumers and providers. Neither service provides nor consumers control SOA infrastructure and communication networks. Intranet, extranet, and the whole infrastructure, including Enterprise Service Bus, servers and so on are controlled by the enterprise. BSC 2013, Rīga
    9. 9. SOA vs. SoEA SOA SoEA Recommended security and safety standards. Mandatory security and safety standards. Some services are situation-aware but only in rare cases are context-aware because the context usually is ill-defined. All services are context-aware because they run in the well-defined enterprise context. BSC 2013, Rīga
    10. 10. QoS Concept • • • • • In SOA, includes most of non-functional properties and even characteristics that are hardly related to quality such as service requestor’s satisfaction or service cost. Still remains ill-defined and frequently misused concept, but is an important issue because SOA usefulness depends not only on the results of the executed services, but also on the properties related to their execution. In different contexts, refers to different things (software component, web service, middleware, network, etc.). In service engineering literature usually emphasizes the technology-oriented issues; in service science literature mostly emphasizes the quality perceived by users. BSC 2013, Rīga There is no generic quality model proposed to evaluate quality of services.
    11. 11. Elephant Problem How does the elephant really look? BSC 2013, Rīga
    12. 12. QoS Problem What is the QoS indeed? Domain perspective Socio-economic perspective Presentation perspective Designer’s viewpoint QoS Data perspective QoS Transportation perspective Infrastructure perspective Web-service perspective Value-based viewpoint Application perspective BSC 2013, Rīga
    13. 13. QoS Problem • At present, the technology-oriented attitude (a developer’s point of view) prevails when considering QoS of SOA services. Other points of view are mostly ignored. • It is difficult to solve the QoS problem for an open Internetwide SOA system. • It is possible to solve this problem for SoES in which all perspectives, at least partly, are under control of an enterprise. Proposed approach • To adapt the view reconciliation methodology. • Motivation: QoS properties to some extent are akin to software quality requirements. BSC 2013, Rīga
    14. 14. Proposed Solution • View construction: For each point of view to integrate perspectives. • Modeling approach: To represent each view as a set of interacting each with others (in conflict or in synergy) weighted quality goals (qualities). • View balancing: To use weights and kinds of interactions, to balance different views, – i.e. to find such the configuration of qualities that the level of achievement of each quality would be as much as possible acceptable to each point of view under consideration. – to adapt i* techniques in combination with an interactive conflict resolution procedure to balance different views. BSC 2013, Rīga
    15. 15. Conclusions • At present, QoS modeling techniques are too much technologyoriented. • It is necessary to balance technology-oriented viewpoint and the other viewpoints. • View reconciliation methodology should be adapted to model QoS. • i* star methodology (in combination with interactive conflict resolution procedures) should be applied to balance different viewpoints. BSC 2013, Rīga
    16. 16. Thank you for your attention! Questions? BSC 2013, Rīga

    ×