Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
S-CUBE LP: Analysis Operations on SLAs: Detecting and Explaining Conflicting SLAs
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×

Introducing the official SlideShare app

Stunning, full-screen experience for iPhone and Android

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

S-CUBE LP: Analysis Operations on SLAs: Detecting and Explaining Conflicting SLAs

362
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
362
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
27
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. S-Cube Learning Package Service Level Agreements: Analysis Operations on SLAs:Detecting and Explaining Conflicting SLAs ISA Group, University of Seville (Spain)C. Müller, O. Martín-Díaz, A. Ruiz-Cortés, M. Resinas www.s-cube-network.eu
  • 2. Learning Package Categorization S-Cube Quality Definition, Negotiation and Assurance Quality Management and Prediction Analysis Operations on SLAs: Detecting and Explaining Conflicting SLAs © ISA Group
  • 3. Learning Package Overview Problem Description Problem Approach Solution Approach Solution Validation Discussion Conclusions © ISA Group
  • 4. Problem Description:A Logistic Scenario Package Tracking Provider
  • 5. Problem Description: A Logistic ScenarioTemplate-Offer based mechanism to create SLAs. An example of two van companies offering different QoS Package Tracking Provider
  • 6. Problem Description: Temporal-Aware SLAs in the ScenarioTemporal-Aware SLAs are createdwhen temporal-aware documents are used.In the example two providers sendagreement offers with different QoS indifferent time periods.
  • 7. Problem Description: Detecting Conflicting SLAs Within documents At any SLA lifecycle phase. Is my Offer (for instance, at edition time) Conflict free? Is my Template Conflict free? Is the sent Offer compliant with the Template? Is the received Offer compliant with my Between documents Template? At any SLA lifecycle phase in which documents compliace[Answer for Questions: must be assured. YES or NOT] (for instance, at negotiation time)
  • 8. Problem Description: Explaining Conflicting SLAs Within documents At any SLA lifecycle phase. Why is conflicting (for instance, at edition time) my Offer? Why is conflicting my Template? Why Is the sent Offer non-compliant with the Template? Why is the received Offer non-compliant Between documents with my Template? At any SLA lifecycle phase in which documents compliace[Answer for Questions: must be assured. Conflicts Explanations] (for instance, at negotiation time)
  • 9. Problem Description:WS-Agreement as Case StudyWS-Agreement - Definition: “An XML language and a protocol for… • Advertising the capabilities of service providers in templates” • Creating agreements based on creational offers and templates” • …” I want an agreement… … * Service Features: … … * Guarantees: …
  • 10. Problem Description:WS-Agreement as Case StudyWS-Agreement Template vs. Offers Differences
  • 11. Problem Description:WS-Agreement as Case StudyWS-Agreement Template vs. Offers Differences Use case An optional Qualifying Condition (QC) may be included to enable/disable guarantees. Methaphor
  • 12. Learning Package Overview Problem Description Problem Approach Solution Approach Solution Validation Discussion Conclusions © ISA Group
  • 13. Problem Approach:Temporal-Aware WS-Agreement docs.Temporal-Aware Scenario Mon-Sat (Weekly) From Jan 01/2013 to Dec 31/2013 Sunday (Weekly) From Jan 01/2013 to Dec 31/2013
  • 14. Problem Approach:Temporal-Aware WS-Agreement docs.Temporal-Aware Scenario Mon-Sat (Weekly) From Jan 01/2013 to Dec 31/2013 Sunday (Weekly) From Jan 01/2013 to Dec 31/2013 Mon-Fri (Weekly) From Jan 01/2013 to Dec 31/2013
  • 15. Problem Approach:Temporal-Aware WS-Agreement docs.Temporal-Aware Scenario Mon-Sat (Weekly) From Jan 01/2013 to Dec 31/2013 Sunday (Weekly) From Jan 01/2013 to Dec 31/2013 Mon-Fri (Weekly) From Jan 01/2013 to Dec 31/2013 Mon-Fri (Weekly) From Jan 01/2013 to Dec 31/2013 Sat-Sund (Weekly) From Jan 01/2013 to Dec 31/2013
  • 16. Problem Approach:Kind of Conflicts to Detect & Explain Within documents Inconsistencies: Contradiction between terms, parts of terms, or creation constraints, and all of these amongst themselves; constitute an inconsistency of the WS–Agreement document. This means that it is impossible to find a satisfactory assignment to the variables that appear in those terms or creation constraints. The consequence is that the whole document is unusable because it will never be fulfilled regardless of the way the service is provided. Term inconsistencies can be originated by any combination of service description terms, guarantee terms and creation constraints, including such elements with themselves
  • 17. Problem Approach:Kind of Conflicts to Detect & Explain Within documents Inconsistencies: (Sample 1/2) The messenger company impose a cost formula depending on the package weight. But the guarantee term involving the cost is inconsistent with such formula.
  • 18. Problem Approach:Kind of Conflicts to Detect & Explain Within documents Inconsistencies: (Sample 2/2) The messenger company assure a wrong DeliveryTime by mistake.
  • 19. Problem Approach:Kind of Conflicts to Detect & Explain Within documents Dead Terms: This conflict is caused when the condition of a conditional term can never be satisfied in a WS–Agreement document. In other words, a dead term is a guarantee term whose qualifying condition has a contradiction with itself or one or more terms and/or creation constraints of the WS–Agreement document. Consequently, this kind of conflict makes the term dead because its service level objective (SLO) can never be applied since its precondition never holds.
  • 20. Problem Approach:Kind of Conflicts to Detect & Explain Within documents Dead Terms: (Sample 1/1) The messenger company wanted to assure a maximum delivery time for the express “and” premium delivery types. But there was a wrong multiple value assignment in the QC, by a mistake while mapping the natural language condition to a WS-Agreement condition. The right condition would be: DeliveryType = Premum OR DeliveryType = Express
  • 21. Problem Approach:Kind of Conflicts to Detect & Explain Within documents Ludicrous Terms: This conflict is caused when a conditional term makes the document inconsistent if its condition holds, which contradicts usual expectations. In other words, a ludicrous term is a guarantee term with the following characteristics: 1. It is not inconsistent 2. Its qualifying condition holds 3. Its SLO does not hold because of a contradiction within itself, with the qualifying condition or with other terms or creation constraints of the WS–Agreement document. Consequently, the ludicrous term is one that when the qualifying condition holds, the SLO and, hence, the guarantee term, does not hold.
  • 22. Problem Approach:Kind of Conflicts to Detect & Explain Within documents Ludicrous Terms: (Sample 1/1) The messenger company wanted to assure a maximum cost for deleveries of 1 kg packages and the delivery types express “and” premium. In this case the QC is correctly defined but when its fulfills the SLO cannot be satisfied due to the cost formula depending on weight.
  • 23. Problem Approach:Kind of Conflicts to Detect & Explain Within Temporal-Aware documents Inconsistencies, dead and ludicrous terms conflicts applies but only if the involved terms or creation constraints are defined in overlapped time periods The sample does not include any conflict because working and home period definitions are nor overlapped (see slide 15)
  • 24. Problem Approach:Kind of Conflicts to Detect & Explain Within Temporal-Aware documents Current sample includes a inconsistency conflict between locating accuracy guarantees because working and Christmas period definitions overlaps as can be seen below
  • 25. Problem Approach:Kind of Conflicts to Detect & Explain Between documents WS-Agreement Compliance definition – The same agreement responder and template id in both documents – Offer service terms must be compliant with template creation constraints – There must be a compliance between the terms of both documents
  • 26. Problem Approach:Kind of Conflicts to Detect & Explain Between documents WS-Agreement Compliance definition In current sample, assuming the same agreement responder and template id, The offer service terms are compliant with template because Cost has a right value assignment considering the template cost creation constraint. But guarantee terms of both documents are not compliant. Then documents are not compliant.
  • 27. Problem Approach:Kind of Conflicts to Detect & Explain Between Temporal-Aware documentsPrevious compliancedefinition applies but only ifthe involved terms or creationconstraints are defined inoverlapped time periodsThe sample does not includeany conflict because workingand home period definitionsare not overlapped(see slide 15)
  • 28. Problem Approach:Kind of Conflicts to Detect & Explain Between Temporal-Aware documentsCurrent sample includes anon-compliance betweendelivery time guarantees atworking period.
  • 29. Problem Approach:Kind of Conflicts to Detect & Explain Between Temporal-Aware documentsCurrent sample includes anon-compliance betweenservice term 1 and thetemplate creation constraints.This situation me beintentional by a try to pay lessfor the delivery service fromthe client who defined theagreement offer.
  • 30. Learning Package Overview Problem Description Problem Approach Solution Approach Solution Validation Discussion Conclusions © ISA Group
  • 31. Problem Approach:Automating Analysis of SLAs There are several approaches that can be used to detect and explain conflicts within documents and between documents automatically. For instance, one may think of creating ad-hoc algorithms to detect the different types of conflicts. Or one may think of using an ? Analyser existing paradigm that provides generic algorithms to detect them such as: – Description Logics – Constraints Satisfaction Problems
  • 32. Problem Approach:Automating Analysis of SLAs In this presentation we focus on the use of constraint satisfaction problems (CSPs) as the paradigm to tackle this problem automatically. The reasons are: – The most significant part of an SLA is Constraint a set of constraints that are set on some properties or descriptions of the service and, therefore, CSPs can be ? Satisfaction Problems used to describe this problem in a very natural way. – There are a plethora of CSP solvers with efficient algorithms that can be used to detect conflicts automatically. – This approach has been used successfully in many related work.
  • 33. Background:Constraint Satisfaction Problems CSPs allow modelling and solving expressive problem models based on constraints and they have been an object of research in Artificial Intelligence over the last few decades. A CSP is a three–tuple of the form (V , D, C) where V ≠ ∅ is a finite set of variables, D ≠ ∅ is a finite set of domains (one for each variable) and C is a set of constraints defined on V. b The solution of the CSP is the value assignments to the set of variables V that satisfy all of the constraints C a © S-Cube
  • 34. Background:Constraint Satisfaction Problems For instance, given the CSP: ({a, b}, { [0, 1], [0, 1] }, { a = b }) A solution is whatever valid assignment of all elements in V that satisfies C. b 1 1,1 a, b: integer [0,1] a=b 0,0 0 1 a Operation solve( V, D, C) is the operation of CSP solvers that returns the solutions of a CSP and many heuristics and techniques have been developed to obtain these solutions in an efficient manner. © S-Cube
  • 35. Background:Constraint Satisfaction Problems Operation explain (V, D, C) involves providing an explanation when such solution is not possible. This explanation is a minimal set of constraints c ∈ C that makes it impossible to find a valid assignment of all elements in V that satisfies c, i.e., that makes solve(V , D, c) = ∅ For instance: – In the CSP: ({a, b, c}, {[0..2], [0..2], [0..2]}, {a + b < −1, c = 2}) – The explantion c = {(a+b<−1),(a∈[0..2],b∈[0..2])} © S-Cube
  • 36. Problem Approach:Automating Analysis of SLAs: Mapping The next step is to map the SLA and SLA template into the equivalent CSP in terms of variables, domains and constraints and, then we can the operations implemented in CSP solvers to Mapping analyse SLAs. to CSP Equivalent CSP = CSP ({ }{ }{ }) CSP variables Solver CSP variable domains CSP constraints
  • 37. Problem Approach:Automating Analysis of SLAs: Mapping Variables used in service terms and Equivalent CSP = service properties are ({ mapped into CSP variables and their domains into CSP Weight, CSP variable domains …, variables Cost { { [1..∞], CSP …, variable domains [1..∞],Restrictions { {expressed inservice terms, DeliveryTime < 4,guarantee terms Λand creation CSPconstraints are Weight < 2000, constraintsmapped into CSP Λconstraints Cost = Weight…x, ({
  • 38. Problem Approach: Automating Analysis.Conflicts Within SLAs On the basis of the two operations of CSPs (solve and explain) and the mapping described before, we can provide a precise semantics to the different types of conflicts that may appear within SLAs: – Inconsistencies – Dead terms – Ludicrous terms The types of conflicts in a WS–Agreement document without term compositors ∆ whose mapped CSP is map(∆) = (V , D, C) can be defined as follows:
  • 39. Problem Approach: Automating Analysis.Conflicts Within SLAs: Inconsistencies Inconsistent terms: A SLA ∆ has inconsistent terms, i.e., it has contradictions between its terms or creation constraints, if the mapped CSP has no solutions: Furthermore, the inconsistent terms are explained by the result of tracing back the set of constraints returned by:
  • 40. Problem Approach: Automating Analysis.Conflicts Within SLAs: Dead Terms A guarantee term is a dead term if its qualifying condition can never be true provided that the other terms of the agreement are fulfilled. Therefore, to detect that a term is dead, we just have to check whether its qualifying condition contradicts the remaining terms of the agreement. This can be expressed in terms of a CSP as follows: let GTi be a guarantee term whose qualifying condition is QCGTi , GTi is a dead term if: Similarly, a dead term is explained by tracing back the result of:
  • 41. Problem Approach: Automating Analysis.Conflicts Within SLAs: Ludicrous Terms A guarantee term is a ludicrous term if when its qualifying condition is true, its service level objective is always false. Consequently, to detect that a term is ludicrous, we have to check whether its qualifying condition and service level objective contradict each other taking into account the other terms of the agreement. Let GTi be a guarantee term whose qualifying condition is QCGTi and service level objective is SLOGTi , GTi is a ludicrous term if: As in the previous cases, a ludicrous term is explained by the result of tracing back the result of
  • 42. Problem Approach: Automating Analysis.Conflicts Between SLAs Similarly, the types of conflicts between a WS–Agreement document ∆d whose mapped CSP is map(∆d) = (Vd , Dd, Cd) and a WS-Agreement template ∆t whose mapped CSP is map(∆t) = (Vt , Dt, Ct) can be defined as follows: A WS-Agreement offer (∆d) is compliant with a WS- Agreement template (∆t) if the offer does not contradict the constraints established in the template, which can be expressed by joining both mapped CSPs a establishing a relationship between their constraints: compliant (∆d , ∆t ) = not solve (Vd  Vt, Dd  Dt, Ct  Cd) Again, it is explained by tracing back the result of: compliant (∆d , ∆t ) = explain (Vd  Vt, Dd  Dt, Ct  Cd)
  • 43. Problem Approach: Automating Analysis.Conflicts for Temporal-Aware SLAs To check conflicts within a temporal-aware document: – We need to discover the overlappings between local validity periods, since valid terms may be contradictory. – Once they are obtained, we check the consistency of terms which are valid at the same temporal intervals. – In the end, if there are positive results covering the global validity period completely, the document is temporal-aware consistent. The checking of conflicts between temporal-aware documents is similar. Since projection operator is absent in current state-of-art of CSP solving, we have developed several algorithms for the discovery of overlappings and the computation of the covering.
  • 44. Learning Package Overview Problem Description Problem Approach Solution Approach Solution Validation Discussion Conclusions © ISA Group
  • 45. Problem Approach:Validation – ADA Framework A Framework to Analyse SLAs (ADA)
  • 46. Problem Approach:Validation – ADA Framework WS-Agreement Conflict Explaining Black-Box document Agreement result Documents Analyser (ADA)
  • 47. Problem Approach:Validation – ADA Conception
  • 48. Problem Approach:Validation – ADA Conception 15 % Temporal Consistency Compliance Optimality etc Covering 2005 Best True/False True/False True/False IJCIS, Document ICSOC’05
  • 49. Problem Approach:Validation – ADA Conception 25 % Temporal Consistency Compliance Optimality etc Covering 2005 Best True/False True/False True/False IJCIS, Document ICSOC’05 2007 Extending Extending WS-Ag WS-Ag ICSOC’07
  • 50. Problem Approach:Validation – ADA Conception 35 25 % Temporal Consistency Compliance Optimality etc Covering 2005 Best True/False True/False True/False IJCIS, Document ICSOC’05 2007 Extending Extending WS-Ag WS-Ag ICSOC’07 2008 WS-Ag Explaining ICSOC’08
  • 51. Problem Approach:Validation – ADA Conception 45 % Temporal Consistency Compliance Optimality etc Covering 2005 Best True/False True/False True/False IJCIS, Document ICSOC’05 2007 Extending Extending WS-Ag WS-Ag ICSOC’07 2008 WS-Ag Explaining ICSOC’08 2009 WS-Ag Explaining ICSOC’09
  • 52. Problem Approach:Validation – ADA an industry-ready FW
  • 53. Problem Approach:Validation – Using ADA (option 1: API) External FrameWorks … Tools WSAG4J Cremona
  • 54. Problem Approach:Validation – Using ADA (option 2: ESB) External FrameWorks Tools FAST … Agreement Doc. Analyser (ADA) service engine
  • 55. Problem Approach:Validation – Using ADA as a Service External ADA online FrameWorks … Tools Editor
  • 56. Problem Approach:Validation – Using ADA as a ServiceOn-line editor (ADA front end) at www.isa.us.es/ada
  • 57. Problem Approach:Validation – Using ADA as a Service
  • 58. Problem Approach:Validation – Using ADA as a Service
  • 59. Problem Approach:Validation – Using ADA as a Service
  • 60. Problem Approach:Validation – Using ADA as a Service
  • 61. Problem Approach:Validation – Using ADA as a Service
  • 62. Problem Approach:Validation – Using ADA as a Service
  • 63. Problem Approach:Validation – Using ADA as a Service
  • 64. Problem Approach:Validation – Using ADA as a Service
  • 65. Problem Approach:Validation – Using ADA as a Service
  • 66. Problem Approach:Validation – Using ADA as a Service
  • 67. Problem Approach:Validation – Using ADA as a Service
  • 68. Problem Approach:Validation in progress  Andalusia local goverment (FAST) • ADA-ServiceEngine  SALMonADA (UPC-US) [S-Cube] • Validating our proposal at monitoring  WSAG4J-ADA integration (Fraunhofer)  SLA@SOI-ADA integration (Dortmund)
  • 69. Background:Related Work in Detecting Conflicts Research work in Detecting Conflicts: Martín-Díaz, Ruiz-Cortés, Durán, Benavides, and Toro. Automating the Procurement of Web Services. In Proceedings of the 1st international conference on Service-Oriented Computing (ICSOC’03). Springer-Verlag, Trento, Italy, 91-103. Ruiz-Cortés, Martín-Díaz, Durán, and Toro. Improving the Automating Procurement of Web Services using Constraint Programming. International Journal on Cooperative Information Systems 14(4): 439-467, December 2005. Martín-Díaz, Ruiz-Cortés, Durán, and Müller. An Approach to Temporal-Aware Procurement of Web Services. In Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on Service-Oriented Computing (ICSOC’05). Springer- Verlag, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 170-184. Müller, Martín-Díaz, Ruiz-Cortés, Resinas, and Fernández. Improving Temporal-Awareness of WS-Agreement. In Proceedings of the 5th international conference on Service-Oriented Computing (ICSOC’07). Springer- Verlag, Viena, Austria, 193-206. Müller, Resinas, and Ruiz-Cortés. Conflict Taxonomy and Explanation Mechanisms for WS-Agreement Documents. To be submitted to ACM Transactions on the Web. Supported by Müller, Oriol, Rodríguez, Franch, Marco, Resinas, and Ruiz-Cortés. SALMonADA: A Self–Explanatory S-Cube WS–Agreement–compliant monitoring platforfm. Submitted to ICSOC’11 tool demonstration track. Andrieux et al. Web Services Agreement Specification (WS-Agreement). (v. gfd.107). OGF – Grid Resource Allocation Agreement Protocol Working group. © ISA Group
  • 70. Background:Related Work in Explaining Conflicts Research Work in Explaining Conflicts: Müller, Ruiz-Cortés, and Resinas. An Initial Approach to Explaining SLA Inconsistencies. In Proceedings of the 6th international conference on Service-Oriented Computing (ICSOC’08). Springer-Verlag, Sidney, Australia, 394-406. Müller, Resinas, and Ruiz-Cortés. Explaining the Non-Compliance between Templates and Agreement Offers in WS-Agreement. In Proceedings of the 7th international conference on Service-Oriented Computing (ICSOC’09). Springer-Verlag, Stockholm, Sweden, 237-252. Müller, Durán, Resinas, Ruiz-Cortés, and Martín-Díaz. Experiences from Building a WS-Agreement Document Analyser Tool. In Tech Report ISA-10-TR-03, ISA Research Group at http://www.isa.us.es. Müller, Resinas, and Ruiz-Cortés. Conflict Taxonomy and Explanation Mechanisms for WS-Agreement Documents. To be submitted to ACM Transactions on the Web. Supported by Müller, Oriol, Rodríguez, Franch, Marco, Resinas, and Ruiz-Cortés. SALMonADA: A Self–Explanatory S-Cube WS–Agreement–compliant monitoring platforfm. Submitted to ICSOC’11 tool demonstration track. Andrieux et al. Web Services Agreement Specification (WS-Agreement). (v. gfd.107). OGF – Grid Resource Allocation Agreement Protocol Working group. © ISA Group
  • 71. Learning Package Overview Problem Description Problem Approach Solution Approach Solution Validation Discussion Conclusions © ISA Group
  • 72. Discussion:Some Important Earlier Work We were not the first ones to have similar ideas on detecting conflicting SLAs. Important earlier work includes: Sahai, Machiraju, Sayal, van Moorsel, and Casati. Automated SLA Monitoring for Web Services. In Proceedings of the 13th IFIP/IEEE International Workshop on Distributed Systems: Operations and Management (DSOM 2002). Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 28-41. Zeng, Lingenfelder, Lei, and Chang. Event-Driven Quality of Service Prediction. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Service-Oriented Computing (ICSOC 08), Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 147-161. Aiello, Frankova, and Malfatti. What’s in an Agreement? An Analysis and an Extension of WS-Agreement. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Service-Oriented Computing (ICSOC 05), Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 424-426. Braga, Chalub, and Sztajnberg. A Formal Semantics for a Quality of Service Contract Language. In Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, 7 (April) 2009, 103–120. Chen, Li, and Wei. Aop based trustable sla compliance monitoring for web services. In Quality Software, 2007. QSIC ’07. Seventh International Conference on, 225–230 . Lamparter et al. Preference-based Selection of Highly Configurable Web Services. In 15th Intl. World Wide Web Conference. 2006, ACM Press, Edinburgh, Scotland. Montali et al. Declarative specification and verification of service choreographies. ACM Transaction on the Web, 2010. Schäfer, Dolog, and Nejdl. An environment for flexible advanced compensations of web service transactions. ACM Transaction on the Web, 2008. Skene, Lamanna, and Emmerich. Precise Service Level Agreements. In 26th Intl. Conf. on Software Engineering. IEEE Computer Society Press, 2004 179–188.
  • 73. Discussion:Main Advances Over Earlier Work Taxonomy of conflicts in agreement documents. Automated process to explain conflicts. Advance temporality-aware documents. © ISA Group
  • 74. Discussion: Disadvantages Our approach also has some disadvantages: – CSP solving has a high computational cost - But we achieve results for reasonable agreement documents in a reasonable time. (as can be seen at www.isa.us.es/ada/console) – A range of treatability study must be performed conscientiously. © ISA Group
  • 75. Learning Package Overview Problem Description Problem Approach Solution Approach Solution Validation Discussion Conclusions © ISA Group
  • 76. Conclusions: 1.This work introduces some of most important analysis operations of SLA, being WS-Agreement our case of study: the (1) detection and (2) explanation of conflicts in a WS-Agreement document, together with the (3) compliance between a pair of WS-Agreement documents. 2.Besides of well-known consistency, this work identifies two new types of conflicts in WS-Agreement documents, namely dead terms and ludicrous terms. 3.We have also approached the consistency and compliance of temporal-aware documents. 4.The key of our proposal to (automatically) detect and explain these types of conflicts lies in interpreting these analysis operations as Constraint Satisfaction Problems (CSP). 5.We have developed an opensource and easy-to-use tooling support that can be extended with additional analysis operations for agreement documents. © ISA Group
  • 77. Acknowledgements The research leading to these results has received funding from: The European Community’s Seventh Framework Programme [FP7/2007-2013] under grant agreement 215483 (S-Cube). The Spanish Government under the CICYT project SETI (TIN2009–07366). The Andalusian Government under the projects THEOS (TIC–5906) and ISABEL (P07–TIC–2533). © ISA Group