|
Web Service Challenge 2009 Results
- Result Document (PDF) -
Performance Results
- 1. Place: Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China
Effective Pruning Algorithm for QoS-Aware Service Composition
Zhenqiu Huang, Wei Jiang, Songlin Hu, and ZhiYong Liu
- 2. Place: Tsinghua University, Beijing, China
A QoS-Driven Approach for Semantic Service Composition
Yixin Yan, Bin Xu, Zhifeng Gu, and Sen Luo
- 3. Place: Slovak University of Technology in Bratislava, Slovakia
Semantic Web Service Composition Framework Based on Parallel Processing
Peter Bartalos and Maria Bielikova
- 4. Place: University of Groningen, Netherlands
Optimal QoS-Aware Web Service Composition
Marco Aiello, Elie el Khoury, Alexander Lazovik, and Patrick Ratelband
Architecture Results
- 1. Place: Slovak University of Technology in Bratislava, Slovakia
Semantic Web Service Composition Framework Based on Parallel Processing
Peter Bartalos and Maria Bielikova
- 2. Place: University of Groningen, Netherlands
Optimal QoS-Aware Web Service Composition
Marco Aiello, Elie el Khoury, Alexander Lazovik, and Patrick Ratelband
- 3. Place: Sungkyunkwan University, Seoul, South Korea and General Motors
WSPR*: Web-Service Planner Augmented with A* Algorithm
Seog-Chan Oh, Ju-Yeon Lee, Seon-Hwa Cheong, Soo-Min Lim, Min-Woo Kim, Sang-Seok Lee,
and Jin-Bum Park
- 3. Place: University of California, Irvine, USA
Business Process Composition with QoS Optimization
Jing Zhang, Mark Panahi, Weiran Nie, Yichin Chang, and Kwei-Jay Lin
Performance Scoreboard
|
1. Place |
2. Place |
3. Place |
4. Place |
| Result |
Points |
Result |
Points |
Result |
Points |
Result |
Points |
| Challenge Set 1 |
Lowest Response Time |
500 |
+6 |
500 |
+6 |
780 |
|
880 |
|
| Highest Throughput |
15000 |
+6 |
15000 |
+6 |
15000 |
+6 |
15000 |
+6 |
| Composition Time (ms) |
< 300 |
+6 |
< 300 |
+6 |
< 300 |
+6 |
531 |
|
| Challenge Set 2 |
Lowest Response Time |
1690 |
+6 |
1690 |
+6 |
2100 |
|
2110 |
|
| Highest Throughput |
6000 |
+6 |
6000 |
+6 |
6000 |
+6 |
6000 |
+6 |
| Composition Time (ms) |
< 300 |
+6 |
< 300 |
+6 |
< 300 |
+6 |
2219 |
|
| Challenge Set 3 |
Lowest Response Time |
760 |
+6 |
760 |
+6 |
760 |
+6 |
950 |
|
| Highest Throughput |
4000 |
+6 |
4000 |
+6 |
4000 |
+6 |
4000 |
+6 |
| Composition Time (ms) |
< 300 |
+6 |
< 300 |
+6 |
< 300 |
+6 |
21438 |
|
| Challenge Set 4 |
Lowest Response Time |
1470 |
+6 |
1470 |
+6 |
2070 |
|
|
|
| Highest Throughput |
4000 |
+6 |
2000 |
|
4000 |
+6 |
|
|
| Composition Time (ms) |
< 300 |
+6 |
< 300 |
+6 |
< 300 |
+6 |
|
|
| Challenge Set 5 |
Lowest Response Time |
4070 |
+6 |
4070 |
+6 |
4500 |
|
|
|
| Highest Throughput |
4000 |
+6 |
4000 |
+6 |
4000 |
+6 |
|
|
| Composition Time (ms) |
< 300 |
+6 |
938 |
+2 |
< 300 |
+6 |
|
|
| Sum |
90 Points |
80 Points |
66 Points |
18 Points |
 |
