Software & Systems Modeling

, Volume 12, Issue 3, pp 489–515 | Cite as

Design for service compatibility

Behavioural compatibility checking and diagnosis
  • Georg Grossmann
  • Michael Schrefl
  • Markus Stumptner
Special Section Paper


Service composition is a recent field that has seen a flurry of different approaches proposed towards the goal of flexible distributed heterogeneous interoperation of software systems, usually based on the expectation that such systems must be derived from higher-level models rather than be coded at low level. In practice, achieving service interoperability nonetheless continues to require significant modelling approach at multiple abstraction levels, and existing formal approaches typically require the analysis of the global space of joint executions of interacting services. Based on our earlier work on providing locally checkable consistency rules for guaranteeing the behavioural consistency of inheritance hierarchies, a model-driven approach for creating consistent service orchestrations is proposed. Service execution and interaction is represented with a high-level model in terms of extended Petri net notation; formal criteria are provided for service consistency that can be checked in terms of local model properties, and give a multi-step design approach for developing services that are guaranteed to be interoperable. Finally, it is outlined how the presented results can be carried over and applied to modelling processes using the Business Process Modelling Notation (BPMN).


Service compatibility Petri net BPMN Business process modelling Behavior diagrams Consistency rules 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    De Backer M., Snoeck M., Monsieur G., Lemahieu W., Dedene G.: A scenario-based verification technique to assess the compatibility of collaborative business processes. Data Knowl. Eng. 68(6), 531–551 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Benatallah B., Casati F., Toumani F.: Representing, analysing and managing Web service protocols. Data Knowl. Eng. 58(3), 327–357 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bichler, P., Preuner, G., Schrefl, M.: Workflow transparency. In: Proceedings of CAiSE. LNCS, vol. 1250, pp. 423–436. Springer, Berlin (1997)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bonchi, F., Brogi, A., Corfini, S., Gadducci, F.: Compositional specification of web services via behavioural equivalence of nets: a case study. In: Petri Nets, pp. 52–71 (2008)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bordeaux, L., Salaün, G., Berardi, D., Mecella, M.: When are two web services compatible? In: Proceedings of TES, pp. 15–28. Springer, Berlin (2004)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Briol, P.: BPMN 2.0 Distilled. (2010)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bultan T., Fu X.: Specification of realizable service conversations using collaboration diagrams. Int. J. Service-Oriented Comput. Appl. 2(1), 27–39 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cavallaro, L., Di Nitto, E.: An approach to adapt service requests to actual service interfaces. In: Proceedings of SEAMS Workshop, pp. 129–136. ACM (2008)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dijkman R.M., Dumas M., Ouyang C.: Semantics and analysis of business process models in BPMN. Inf. Softw. Technol. 50, 1281–1294 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dijkstra, E.W.: On the role of scientific thought. In: Selected Writings on Computing: A Personal Perspective, pp. 60–66. Springer, Berlin (1982)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dong, W.-L., Yu, H., Zhang, Y.-B.: Testing BPEL-based web service composition using high-level Petri Nets. In: Proceedings of EDOC, pp. 441–444 (2006)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Eshuis, R., Grefen, P.W.P.J., Till, S.: Structured service composition. In: Proceedings of BPM. LNCS, vol. 4102, pp. 97–112. Springer, Berlin (2006)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Foster, H., Uchitel, S., Magee, J., Kramer, J.: Compatibility verification for web service choreography. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Web Services. Proc. ICWS, pp. 738–741. IEEE Press (2004)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Genrich, H.J.: Predicate transition nets. In: Petri Nets: Central Models and their Properties. LNCS, vol. 254, pp. 207–247. Springer, Berlin (1981)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gong, X., Liu, J., Zhang, M., Hu, J.: Formal analysis of services compatibility. In: Proceedings of COMPSAC, pp. 243–248. IEEE Press (2009)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Grossmann, G., Stumptner, M., Schrefl, M.: Model driven orchestration: design for service compatibility. In: Proceedings of MODELS. LNCS, vol. 6395, pp. 17–31. Springer, Berlin (2010)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Guermouche N., Perrin O., Ringeissen C.: Timed specification for web services compatibility analysis. ENTCS 200(3), 155–170 (2008)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Haller, A., Oren, E., Kotinurmi, P.: An ontology for internal and external business processes. In: Proceedings of WWW Conference, pp. 1055–1056. ACM (2006)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hamadi, R., Benatallah, B.: A Petri Net-based model for web service composition. In: Proceedings of ADC, pp. 191–200. ACS (2003)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hinz, S., Schmidt, K., Stahl, C.: Transforming BPEL to Petri Nets. In: Proceedings of BPM. LNCS, vol. 3649, pp. 220–235 (2005)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kappel, G., Schrefl, M.: Object/behavior diagrams. In: Proceedings IEEE ICDE, pp. 530–539. IEEE Press (1991)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kappel, G., Schrefl, M.: Using an object-oriented diagram technique for the design of information systems. In: Proceedings of the International Working Conference on Dynamic Modelling of Information Systems, pp. 121–164. Elsevier (1991)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kiepuszewski, B., ter Hofstede, A.H.M., Bussler, C.: On structured workflow modelling. In: Proceedings of CAiSE. LNCS, vol. 1789, pp. 431–445. Springer, Berlin (2000)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kindler, E., Martens, A., Reisig, W.: Inter-operability of workflow applications: local criteria for global soundness. In: Proceedings of BPM. LNCS, vol. 1806, pp. 235–253 (2000)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lang, P., Obermair, W., Schrefl, M.: Modeling business rules with situation/activation diagrams. In: Proceedings IEEE ICDE, pp. 455–464. IEEE Press (1997)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Leymann, F.: Workflow-based coordination and cooperation in a service world. In: Proceedings of OTM. LNCS, vol. 4275, pp. 2–16 (2006)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Li X., Fan Y., Sheng Q.Z., Maamar Z., Zhu H.: A Petri Net approach to analyzing behavioral compatibility and similarity of web services. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. A 41(3), 510–521 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Liang, Q., Huhns, M.N.: Ontology-based compatibility checking for web service configuration management. In: Proceedings of ICSOC. LNCS, vol. 5364, pp. 407–421. Springer, Berlin (2008)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lohmann N., Massuthe P., Stahl C., Weinberg D.: Analyzing interacting WS-BPEL processes using flexible model generation. Data Knowl. Eng. 64(1), 38–54 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Martens A.: On compatibility of web services. Petri Net Newslett. 65, 12–20 (2003)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Massuthe, P., Wolf, K.: An algorithm for matching nondeterministic services with operating guidelines. In: The Role of Business Processes in Service Oriented Architectures, number 06291 in Dagstuhl Seminar Proceedings. IBFI Dagstuhl (2006)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Moser, S., Martens, A., Häbich, M., Mülle, J.: A hybrid approach for generating compatible WS-BPEL partner processes. In: Proceedings of BPM. LNCS, vol. 4102, pp. 458–464. Springer, Berlin (2006)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    OMG: Business Process Modeling Notation Specification (BPMN) 2.0, January 2011. OMG Document Number: formal/2011-01-03 (2011)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Ouyang C., Verbeek E., van der Aalst Wil M.P., Breutel S., Dumas M., ter Hofstede A.H.M.: Formal semantics and analysis of control flow in WS-BPEL. Sci. Comput. Program. 67(2-3), 162–198 (2007)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Papazoglou M.P., Traverso P., Dustdar S., Leymann F.: Service-oriented computing: state of the art and research challenges. IEEE Comput. 40(11), 38–45 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Papazoglou M.P., van den Heuvel W.-J.: Service oriented architectures: approaches, technologies and research issues. VLDB J. 16(3), 389–415 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Peterson J.L.: Petri Net Theory and the Modeling of Systems. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River (1981)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Schrefl M., Stumptner M.: Behavior-consistent specialization of object life cycles. ACM TOSEM 11(1), 92–148 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Tan W., Fan Y., Zhou M.: A Petri Net-based method for compatibility analysis and composition of web services in business process execution language. IEEE Trans. Autom. Sci. Eng. 6(1), 94–106 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Tan, W., Rao, F., Fan, Y., Zhu, J.: Compatibility analysis and mediation-aided composition for BPEL services. In: Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Database Systems for Advanced Applications (DASFAA’07), pp. 1062–1065. Springer, Berlin (2007)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P., Weske, M.: The P2P approach to interorganizational workflows. In: Proceedings of CAiSE. LNCS, vol. 2068, pp. 140–156. Springer, Berlin, May 2001Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Weidlich, M., Dijkman, R.M., Weske, M.: Deciding behaviour compatibility of complex correspondences between process models. In: Proceedings of BPM. LNCS, vol. 6336, pp. 78–94 (2010)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Wodtke, D., Weikum, G.: A formal foundation for distributed workflow execution based on state charts. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Database Theory. LNCS, vol. 1186, pp. 230–246. Springer, Berlin (1997)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Wombacher, A.: Decentralized consistency checking in cross-organizational workflows. In: Proceedings of CEC/EEE’06, pp. 39–46. IEEE Press (2006)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Wu Z., Deng S., Li Y., Wu J.: Computing compatibility in dynamic service composition. Knowl. Inf. Syst. 19(1), 107–129 (2009)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Zaha J.M., Dumas M., ter Hofstede A.H.M., Barros A.P., Decker G.: Bridging global and local models of service-oriented systems. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. 38(3), 302–318 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Zhou, Z., Bhiri, S., Gaaloul, W., Shu, L., Hauswirth, M.: Behavioral compatibility of web services. In: OTM Workshops. LNCS, vol. 5333, pp. 27–28. Springer, Berlin (2008)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Georg Grossmann
    • 1
  • Michael Schrefl
    • 1
  • Markus Stumptner
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Computer and Information ScienceUniversity of South AustraliaAdelaideAustralia

Personalised recommendations