2011 IEEE International Conference on Services Computing 2011
DOI: 10.1109/scc.2011.50
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Web Service Selection Based on Similarity Evaluation

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
7
0

Year Published

2013
2013
2015
2015

Publication Types

Select...
2
2

Relationship

2
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 4 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 12 publications
0
7
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Type represents the data types and some special properties that are defined by the domain experts within a functional category. In our previous research, we identify the data type into four pairs of fundamental properties: numerical or categorical, singe or range, domain-dependent or domain-independent, negotiable or non-negotiable [9]. Metric represents the data relationships within a functional category which are based on the semantic ontology and set theory.…”
Section: Subject=attrset=andset|orsetmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Type represents the data types and some special properties that are defined by the domain experts within a functional category. In our previous research, we identify the data type into four pairs of fundamental properties: numerical or categorical, singe or range, domain-dependent or domain-independent, negotiable or non-negotiable [9]. Metric represents the data relationships within a functional category which are based on the semantic ontology and set theory.…”
Section: Subject=attrset=andset|orsetmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In our previous research [9], the similarity based service selection method was introduced. In our similarity based selection method, the users could present their QoS requests more accurately and flexibly.…”
Section: Customized Service Selectionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Suppose a user has m QoS constraints in a composite service request as QrMathClass-rel=[]Qr1MathClass-punc,Qr2MathClass-punc,MathClass-punc.MathClass-punc.MathClass-punc.MathClass-punc,Qrm. For each dimension of QoS request, Qrm is presented as QrmMathClass-rel=NameMathClass-punc,TypeMathClass-punc,WillingnessMathClass-punc,V alue . In this study, the fitness function is define as follows: scriptFitnessMathClass-rel={falsenonefalsearrayarrayaxisλTMathClass-open(gMathClass-close)i=1mwifiQri,qgi,ifi=1mfiQri,qgi=0arrayaxisarrayaxisTMathClass-open(gMathClass-close)i=1mwifiQri,qgi,otherwise…”
Section: Service Composition Architecturementioning
confidence: 99%
“…f i is the satisfaction function on the i th dimension which depends on the Willingness of QoS requirement. In our previous work , the Willingness of user's preference is classified into five categories: Top , Bot , Equivalent , Close , and Distant , they represent the tendency of the service consumer's preferences for the particular QoS requirement dimensions. The satisfaction function fi()QriMathClass-punc,qgi is defined as follows: fi()QriMathClass-punc,qgiMathClass-rel={falsenonefalsearrayarrayaxisQriqgiQri,arrayaxisifQri>qgiarrayaxis0,arrayaxisotherwiseMathClass-punc,withWillingness(i)MathClass-rel=Top fi()QriMathClass-punc,qgiMathClass-rel={falsenonefalsearrayarrayaxisqgiQriqgi,arrayaxisifQri…”
Section: Service Composition Architecturementioning
confidence: 99%