2017
DOI: 10.1007/s11761-017-0224-y
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A multi-agent-based framework for cloud service discovery and selection using ontology

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
23
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
5
3

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 23 publications
(23 citation statements)
references
References 31 publications
0
23
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The system was developed using JADE and Apache Jena API [30]. Beside that developing a perfect service of semantic technique which considers the preferences of customer for computing similarity relating grade headed for significance of both clouding service's metaphors.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The system was developed using JADE and Apache Jena API [30]. Beside that developing a perfect service of semantic technique which considers the preferences of customer for computing similarity relating grade headed for significance of both clouding service's metaphors.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Parhi et al [24,25] proposed a multi-agent-based framework for the discovery and selection of cloud services. The work used the domain depended ontology for ensuring a standard vocabulary for specifying cloud service descriptions by the cloud service providers and at the same time indicate the cloud user about their service preferences.…”
Section: B Cloud Based Service Discoverymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Similarly, during the requirement specification, the user may face the problem in understanding the service details. This scenario is termed as uncertainties [23,24,25] and should be addressed properly by adopting the fuzzy logic-based principle named 'linguistic variables' [32,33].…”
Section: I) Elimination Of Incorrect Service Detailsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Similarly, Sahar et al [19] and Abid et al [13] have used specific QoS parameters for their evaluation and missing other parameters. Arezoo et al [10], Saurabh et al [6], Parhi et al [17], and Sahar et al [19] provide selection for one type of [30], Abid et al [13], and Ibrahim et al [2], all are providing selection for all types of services but have different limitations as mentioned in Table 3. Therefore, in view of the evaluation assessment, we infer that the proposed technique is more efficient and reliable in terms of feedback biasness, fixation of parameters and types of services.…”
Section: A Comparison and Performance Evaluationmentioning
confidence: 99%