Software & Systems Modeling

, Volume 4, Issue 2, pp 141–156 | Cite as

Web services-based tool-integration in the ETI platform

  • Tiziana Margaria
Special section on model-based tool integration


In this paper we present dETI, the next generation of the Electronic Tool Integration (ETI) platform, an open platform for the interactive experimentation with and coordination of heterogeneous software tools via the internet. Our redesign, which is based on the experience gained while running the ETI platform since 1997, focusses on the tool integration process, which clearly marked the bottleneck for the wide acceptance of the ETI platform on the side of an important group of users: the tool providers. The new integration approach makes use of standard Web Services technology, which perfectly fits in the overall ETI architecture.

Our approach realizes a clear separation of concerns, which overcomes all the previously observed obstacles by (i) decoupling the integration tasks of the tool providers and the ETI team, (ii) pulling the ETI team out of the upgrading and maintenance loop and (iii) handing the upgrading and access control over to the tool providers.

This guarantees the scalability in the number of tools available within ETI, and addresses the flexibility concerns of the tool providers.


Distributed coordination ETI Tool-experimentation platform Tool-integration Web services  


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Altheide F, Dörfel S, Dörr H, Kanzleiter J (2003) An Architecture for a Sustainable Tool Integration. In: Proc. TIS 2003, Workshop on Tool-Integration in System Development, joint with ESEC/FME 2003, Helsinki (FIN), September 1–2, pp 29–32Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baader F, Calvanese D, McGuinness D, Nardi D, Patel-Schneider P (eds) (2003) The Description Logic Handbook: Theory, Implementation and Applications. Cambridge University Press, JanuaryGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Becker S, Westfechtel B (2003) UML-based Definition of Integration Models for Incremental Development Processes in Chemical Engineering. In: Proc. Int. Conf. on Integrated Design and Process Technology (IDPT-2003), Austin, TX, DecemberGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bergstra JA, Klint P (1996) The ToolBus Coordination Architecture. In: Proc. int. Conf. on Coordination Models and Languages, LNCS, vol 1061. Springer Verlag, pp 75–88Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Braun V, Margaria T, Weise C (1997) Integrating Tools in the ETI Platform. [33], pp 31–48Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cimatti A, Clarke E, Giunchiglia F, Roveri M (2000) NUSMV: a new symbolic model checker. Int. J Softw Tools Technol Transfer 2(4):410–425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Corradini F, Mariani L, Merelli E (2003) An Agent-based Layered Middleware as Tool Integration. In: Proc. TIS 2003, Workshop on Tool-Integration in System Development, joint with ESEC/FME 2003, Helsinki (FIN), pp 17–21, September 1–2Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Curbera F, Goland Y, Klein J, Leymann F, Roller D, Thatte S, Weerawarana S. Business Process Execution Language for Web Services. http:/!/ (also under ftp:/!/ Scholar
  9. 9.
    DAML+OIL. The Joint United States/European Union ad hoc Agent Markup Language Committee, DAML+OIL. http:/!/ Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dong JS, Sun J, Wang H (2002) Semantic Web for Extending and Linking Formalisms. In: Proc. of Formal Methods Europe (FME’02 – FLoC), Copenhagen, Denmark, LNCS. Springer-Verlag, pp 587–606, JulyGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Freude R, Königs A (2003) Tool Integration with consistency Relations and their Visualisation. In: Proc. TIS 2003, Workshop on Tool-Integration in System Development, joint with ESEC/FME 2003. Helsinki (FIN), pp 6–10, September 1–2Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Garavel H, Lang F, Mateescu R (2002) An overview of CADP 2001. EASST Newsletter (European Association of Software Science and Technology), Vol. 4, pp 13–24, August. http:/!/ (see also INRIA Technical Report TR-254, December 2001), http:/!/ Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hatcliff J, Dwyer M (2001) Using the Bandera Tool Set to Model-check Properties of Concurrent Java Software. In: Proc. of CONCUR 2001 (invited tutorial paper), JuneGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Henzinger TA, Ho P-H, Wong-Toi H (1997) HyTech: A Model Checker for Hybrid Systems. Int. Journal on Software Tools for Technology Transfer 1–2:110–122Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Holzmann A (1997) Der METAFrame Interpreter: Entwicklung und Implementierung eines dynamischen Modulkonzepts. Master Thesis, Univ. of PassauGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Holzmann GJ (1997) The model checker Spin. IEEE Trans. on Software Engineering 23(5):279–295, MayCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Holzmann GJ (2003) The Spin Model Checker. Primer and Reference Manual. Addison Wesley, OctoberGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    JavaBeans: The only Component Architecture for Java Technology. http:/!/ Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kindler E (2003) On the Semantics of EPC: A framework for resolving the vicious circle. In: Proc. EPK 2003 – Geschäftsprozessmanagement mit Ereignisgesteuerten Prozessketten – 2. GI-Workshop, Bamberg, pp 7–18, OctoberGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Klint P, Olivier P (1996) The TOOLBUS Coordination Architecture: A Demonstration. In: Proc. 5th Int. Conf. on Algebraic Methodology and Software Technology (AMAST’96), LNCS, vol 1101. Springer Verlag, pp 575–578Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Little M, Webber J (2003) Introducing BPEL4WS 1.0: building on WS-Transaction and WS-Coordination. Web Services Journal, August. http:/!/ Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lutz M (2001) Programming Python. O’ReillyGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mandell DJ, McIlraith SA (2003) Adapting BPEL4WS for the Semantic Web: The Bottom-Up Approach to Web Service Interoperation. In: Proc. ISWC2003, 2nd Intern. Semantic Web Conference, October 2003, Sundial Resort, Sanibel Island, FL (USA), LNCS vol 2870. Springer Verlag, pp 227–241Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Margaria T (2002) The Electronic Tool Integration Platform as a supplier and user of Graph Transformation Tools – Experience and Perspectives. In: Int. Workshop on Graph Based Tools (GraBaTs’02), Barcelona (E), October 7–8, Invited talk. ENTCS, vol 72, no 2Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Margaria T (2003) Peopleware in Practice: Human Experiences in Tool Integration in ETI and Lessons Learned for QPQ. In: Proc. 1st QPQ Workshop, satellite to CADE-19, Miami, JulyGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Margaria T, Braun V, Kreileder J (1997) Interacting with ETI: A User Session. [33], pp 49–63Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Margaria T, Steffen B (2004) Lightweight Coarse-grained Coordination: A Scalable System-Level Approach. Int. J Softw Tools Technol Transfer (Special Section on Formal Methods in Industrial Critical Systems, ed. Jaco van de Pol) 5(2–3):107–123Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Margaria T, Wuebben W (2003) Tool Integration in the ETI Platform – Review and Perspectives. In: Proc. TIS 2003, Workshop on Tool-Integration in System Development, joint with ESEC/FME 2003, Helsinki (FIN), pp 39–44, September 1–2Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Mutz M, Huhn M, Goltz U, Krömke C (2003) Model Based System Development in Automotive. SAE 2003, Detroit, MI (USA), MarchGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Schopfer G, Yang A, Marquardt W (2003) Tool-Integration in Chemical Process Modelling. In: Proc. TIS 2003, Workshop on Tool-Integration in System Development, joint with ESEC/FME 2003, Helsinki (FIN), pp 79–83, September 1–2Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Sifakis J, Tripakis S, Yovine S (2003) Building models of real-time systems from application software. In: Proceedings of the IEEE, Special issue on modeling and design of embedded 91(1):100–111, JanuaryGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Steffen B, Margaria T, Braun V (1997) The Electronic Tool Integration platform: concepts and design, [33], pp 9–30Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    (1997) Int. J Softw Tools Technol Transfer Special section on the Electronic Tool Integration Platform 1 Verlag, NovemberGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    SUN Microsystems. Java Remote Method Invocation http:/!/ Scholar
  35. 35.
    SUN Microsystems. Java WebService Developer Pack http:/!/ Scholar
  36. 36.
    Thai T (1999) Learning DCOM, O’ReillyGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    The Object Management Group. Common Object Request Broker Architecture http:/!/www.omg.orgGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    UppAal. http:/!/ Scholar
  39. 39.
    W3C. OWL Web Ontology Language Guide Scholar
  40. 40.
    W3C. SOAP http:/!/ Scholar
  41. 41.
    W3C. Extensible Markup Language (XML) http:/!/ Scholar
  42. 42.
    W3C. XML Encryption Syntax and Processing http:/!/ Scholar
  43. 43.
    W3C. XML-Signature Syntax and Processing http:/!/ Scholar
  44. 44.
    W3C. WSDL http:/!/ Scholar
  45. 45.
    Wall L, Christiansen T, Orwant J (2000) Programming Perl, 3rd Edition. O’ReillyGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Web Service Choreography Interface (WSCI) 1.0 (2002) W3C Note, 8 August. http:/!/ Scholar
  47. 47.
    Yovine S (1997) Kronos: A verification tool for real-time systems. International Journal of Software Tools for Technology Transfer 1(1/2):123–133. Springer-Verlag, OctoberGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Chair of Service Engineering for Distributed SystemsUniversität GöttingenGermany

Personalised recommendations