Advertisement

Information Systems Frontiers

, Volume 9, Issue 1, pp 119–134 | Cite as

A theoretical investigation of the emerging standards for web services

  • Karthikeyan UmapathyEmail author
  • Sandeep Purao
Article

Abstract

Currently, standards for web services are being developed via three different initiatives (W3C, Semantic web services and ebXML). To the best of our knowledge, no theoretical perspectives underlie these standardization efforts. Without the benefit of a strong theoretical basis, the results, within and across these initiatives, have remained piecemeal. We suggest ‘Language–Action Theories’ as a plausible perspective that can effectively define, assess and refine web services standards. In this paper, we first investigate the existing initiatives to identify commonalities that point to theories of ‘Language–Action’ as an appropriate theoretical basis for web services standards. Next, we adapt work from these theories to develop a comprehensive reference framework for understanding web services standards. Finally, we use this reference framework to assess the three initiatives, and analyze the findings to provide insights for future development and refinement of web services standards.

Keywords

Service-Oriented Computing Web services Web services standards W3C web services Semantic web services ebXML Standards stacks Layered models Language–Action Perspective Reference framework 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aakhus, M. (2004). Felicity conditions and genre: Linking act and conversation in LAP style conversation analysis. Paper presented at the International Working Conference on the Language–Action Perspective on Communication Modelling.Google Scholar
  2. Ankolekar, A., Burstein, M., & Hobbs, J. R. (2001). DAML-S: Semantic Markup For Web Services. International Semantic Web Workshop.Google Scholar
  3. Auramaki, E., Lehtinen, E., & Lyytinen, K. (1988). A speech-act-based office modeling approach. ACM Transactions on Information Systems (TOIS), 6(2), 126–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univeristy Press.Google Scholar
  5. Brodie, M. L., Mylopoulos, J., & Schmidt, J. W. (1984). On conceptual modelling: Perspectives from artificial intelligence, databases, and programming languages. Berlin Heidelberg New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  6. Cecez-Kecmanovic, D., & Janson, M. (1999). Communicative action theory: An approach to understanding the application of information systems. Paper presented at the Australasian Conference on Information Systems. Wellington, New Zealand.Google Scholar
  7. Curbera, F., Khalaf, R., Mukhi, N., Tai, S., & Weerawarana, S. (2003). The next step in Web services. Communications of the ACM, 46(10), 29–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. De Michelis, G., & Grasso, M. (1994). Situating conversations within the language/action perspective: The milan conversation model. Paper presented at the Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work.Google Scholar
  9. Dietz, J. L. G. (1994). Business modeling for business redesign. Paper presented at the Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS). Hawaii: Maui.Google Scholar
  10. Dietz, J. L. G. (2001). Coherent, consistent and comprehensive modeling of communication, information, action and organzation. Information modeling in the new milennium (pp. 9–33). Hershey, PA: Idea Group.Google Scholar
  11. Dietz, J. L. G. (2002). The atoms, molecules and matter of organizations. Paper presented at the International Working Conference on the Language–Action Perspective on Communication Modelling (LAP).Google Scholar
  12. Dietz, J. L. G. (2004). Towards a LAP-based information paradigm. Paper presented at the International Working Conference on the Language–Action Perspective on Communication Modelling (LAP). New Brunswick, NJ, USA: Rutgers University, June 2–3.Google Scholar
  13. ebBPSS (2001). Business process specification schema. Retrieved March 08, 2005, from http://www.ebxml.org/specs/ebBPSS_print.pdf, 11 May.
  14. ebMS (2002, 1 April 2002). ebXML Message Service Specification. OASIS. Retrieved March 6, 2005, from http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/ebxml-msg/documents/ebMS_v2_0.pdf.
  15. eBPOver (2001, 11 May 2001). Business process and business information analysis overview. Retrieved March 08, 2005, from http://ebxml.org/specs/bpOVER_print.pdf.
  16. ebRIM (2002, April 2002). OASIS/ebXML registry information model. Retrieved March 7, 2005, from http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/regrep/documents/2.0/specs/ebrim.pdf.
  17. ebRS (2002, April 2002). OASIS/ebXML Registry Services Specification. Retrieved March 7, 2005, from http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/regrep/documents/2.0/specs/ebrs.pdf.
  18. ebXML (2005). About ebXML. Retrieved February 2005, 2005, from http://www.ebxml.org/geninfo.htm.
  19. ebXML Glossary (2001). ebXML glossary. Retrieved October 31, 2005, from http://www.ebxml.org/specs/ebGLOSS_print.pdf.
  20. ebXML–CPPA (2002, September 23, 2002). Collaboration – protocol profile and agreement specification. Retrieved March 07, 2005, from http://www.ebxml.org/specs/ebcpp-2.0.pdf.
  21. ebXML–Req (2001). ebXML requirements specification. Retrieved February 19, 2005, from http://www.ebxml.org/specs/ebREQ.pdf.
  22. ebXML–TA (2001, 16 February 2001). ebXML technical architecture specification v1.0.4. Retrieved February 19, 2005, from http://ebxml.org/specs/ebTA.pdf.
  23. Fan, X., Umapathy, K., Yen, J., & Purao, S. (2004, 2004/01//). An agent-based approach for interleaved composition and execution of web services. Paper presented at the International Conference on Conceptual Modeling (ER). Shanghai, China.Google Scholar
  24. Flores, F., & Ludlow, J. (1980). Doing and speaking in the office. In G. Fick & R. H. Sprague (Eds.), Decision support systems: Issues and challenges (vol. 11, pp. 95–118). New York: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  25. FTP (1985). File Transfer Protocol (FTP). Retrieved June 7, 2005, from http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc959/.
  26. Goldkuhl, G. (1996). Generic business frameworks and action modelling. Paper presented at the International Working Conference on the Language–Action Perspective on Communication Modelling (LAP).Google Scholar
  27. Goldkuhl, G. (1998). The six phases of business processes – Business communication and the exchange of value. Paper presented at the International Telecommunications Society (ITS) Conference – Beyond Convergence: Communication into the Next Millennium. Stockholm, Sweden.Google Scholar
  28. Goldkuhl, G., & Agerfalk, P. J. (2000). Actability: A way to understand information systems pragmatics. Paper presented at the International Workshop on organisational semiotics. Staffordshire University.Google Scholar
  29. Goldkuhl, G., & Lyytinen, K. (1982). A language action view of information systems. International conference on information systems.Google Scholar
  30. Goldkuhl, G., & Lyytinen, K. (1984). Information system specification as rule reconstruction. In T. A. Bemelmans (Ed.), Beyond productivity – Information systems for organizational effectiveness (pp. 79–95). New York: North-Holland: Proceedings of IFIP WG 8.2.Google Scholar
  31. Goldkuhl, G., & Melin, U. (2001). Relationship management vs business transactions: Business interaction as design of business interaction. Paper presented at the International Purchasing and Supply Education and Research Association (IPSERA).Google Scholar
  32. Goldkuhl, G., & Röstlinger, A. (1999). Expanding the scope – From language action to generic practice. Paper presented at the international working conference on the Language–Action Perspective on Communication Modelling (LAP). Copenhagen, September 12–13.Google Scholar
  33. Gosain, S. (2003). Realizing the vision for web services: Strategies for dealing with imperfect standards. Paper presented at the MIS quartely special issue workshop on: Standard making – A critical research frontier for information systems.Google Scholar
  34. Gottschalk, K., Graham, S., Kreger, H., & Snells, J. (2002). Introduction to Web services architecture. IBM Systems Journal, 41(2), 170–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action: Reason and the rationalization of society (T. McCarthy, Trans. vol. 1). Boston: Beacon.Google Scholar
  36. Hirschheim, R., Klein, H., & Lyytinen, K. (1995). Information systems development and data modeling, conceptual and philosophical foundations. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Holmström, J., & Truex, D. (2001). What does it mean to be an informed IS researcher? Some criteria for the selection and use of social theories in IS research. Information Systems Research Seminar in Scandinavia (IRIS), 313–326.Google Scholar
  38. HTTP (1999). Hypertext transfer protocol – HTTP/1.1. Retrieved June 7, 2005, from http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616.html.
  39. Ibbotson, J. (2001). ebXML trading-partners specification. Paper presented at the XML Europe, Internationales Congress Centrum (ICC). Berlin, Germany.Google Scholar
  40. Jertila, A., & Schoop, M. (2005). The language–action perspective and the semantic Web – A language–action approach to electronic contracts. Paper presented at the International Working Conference on the Language–Action Perspective on Communication Modelling (LAP), Kiruna, Sweden.Google Scholar
  41. Kimbrough, S. O., & Yang, Y. (2004). Action at the tables: Sketching a tabular representation for utterances under the language–action perspective. Paper presented at the International Working Conference on the Language–Action Perspective on Communication Modelling (LAP).Google Scholar
  42. Klein, H. K., & Huynh, M. Q. (2004). The critical social theory of jürgen habermas and its implications for IS research. In J. Mingers & L. Willcocks (Eds.), Social theory and philosophy for information systems (pp. 157–237). West Sussex, England: Wiley.Google Scholar
  43. Kreger, H. (2001). Web Services Conceptual Architecture (WSCA 1.0). Retrieved June 6, 2005, from http://www-306.ibm.com/software/solutions/webservices/pdf/WSCA.pdf, May.
  44. Kreger, H. (2003). Fulfilling the Web services promise. Communications of the ACM, 46(6), 29–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Lemniotes, T., Papadopoulos, G. A., & Arbab, F. (2004). Coordinating Web services using channel based communication. Paper presented at the Computer Software and Applications Conference (COMPSAC).Google Scholar
  46. Lind, M., & Goldkuhl, G. (1997). Reconstruction of different business processes – A theory and method driven analysis. Paper presented at the International Working Conference on the Language–Action Perspective on Communication Modelling (LAP). Eindhoven University of Technology.Google Scholar
  47. Lind, M., & Goldkuhl, G. (2001). Generic layered patterns for business modelling. International Working Conference on the Language–Action Perspective on Communication Modelling (LAP).Google Scholar
  48. Ljungberg, J., & Holm, P. (1997). Speech acts on trial. In L. Mathiassen (Ed.), Computers and design in context (pp. 317–348). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  49. Lyytinen, K. (2004). The struggle with the language in the IT – Why is LAP not in the Mainstream? Paper presented at the International Working Conference on the Language–Action Perspective on Communication Modelling (LAP). New Brunswick, NJ.Google Scholar
  50. Lyytinen, K., Lehitnen, E., & Auramäki, E. (1987). SAMPO: A speech-act based office modelling approach. ACM SIGOIS Bulletin, 8(4), 11–23.Google Scholar
  51. Manes, A. T. (2003). Web services: A Manager’s guide. Reading, MA: Addison–Wesley.Google Scholar
  52. Medina-Mora, R., Winograd, T., Flores, R., & Flores, F. (1992). The action workflow approach to workflow management technology. Paper presented at the ACM conference on Computer-supported cooperative work. Toronto, Ontario, Canada.Google Scholar
  53. Moore, S. A. (2000). On conversation policies and the need for exceptions. In F. Dignum & M. Greaves (Eds.), Issues in Agent Communication. (vol. 1916, pp. 144–159). Berlin Heidelberg New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Moore, S. A. (2001). A foundation for flexible automated electronic communication. Information Systems Research, 12(1), 34–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Mukhi, N. K., Plebani, P., SilvaLepe, I., & Mikalsen, T. (2004). Supporting policy-driven behaviors in web services: experiences and issues. Paper presented at the International Conference on Service Oriented Computing (ICSOC). New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
  56. Navathe, S., Elmasri, R., & Larson, J. (1986). Integrating user views in database design. IEEE Computer, 19(1), 50–62.Google Scholar
  57. OASIS (2005). Organization for the Advancement of Structured Information Standards (OASIS). Retrieved June 6, 2005, from http://www.oasis-open.org/home/index.php.
  58. OSI (1994). ISO 7498: Open system interconnection model. ACM SIGCOMM.Google Scholar
  59. OWL (2004). OWL Web Ontology Language Overview. Retrieved February 27, 2005, 10 February.Google Scholar
  60. Paolucci, M., & Sycara, K. (2004). Semantic Web services: Current status and future directions. Paper presented at the IEEE International Conference on Web Services (ICWS).Google Scholar
  61. Paolucci, M., Sycara, K., Nishimura, T., & Srinivasan, N. (2003). Toward semantic web services. Paper presented at the Workshop on E-Services and the Semantic Web (ESSW). Budapest, Hungary.Google Scholar
  62. Papazoglou, M. P., & Georgakopoulos, D. (2003). Service oriented computing. Communications of the ACM, 46(10), 24–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Rawlins, M. C. (2002). ebXML – A critical analysis. Rawlins EC consulting, April 25.Google Scholar
  64. Reijswoud, V. v., & Lind, M. (1998). Comparing two business modelling approaches in the language action perspective. Paper presented at the International Working Conference on the Language–Action Perspective on Communication Modelling (LAP).Google Scholar
  65. Reijswoud, V. v., Mulder, H. B. F., & Dietz, J. L. G. (1999). Communicative action-based business process and information systems modelling with DEMO. Information Systems Journal, 9(2), 117–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Schoop, M. (2001). An introduction to the language–action perspective. ACM SIGGROUP Bulletin, 22(2), 3–8.Google Scholar
  67. Schoop, M. (2002). Business communication in electronic commerce. Paper presented at the International Working Conference on the Language–Action Perspective on Communication Modelling (LAP).Google Scholar
  68. Schoop, M. (2003). A language–action approach to electronic negotiations. International Working Conference on the Language–Action Perspective on Communication Modelling (LAP).Google Scholar
  69. Searle, J. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  70. Sleeper, B., & Robins, B. (2001). Defining Web services. The stencil group.Google Scholar
  71. SOAP (2003). Simple Object Access Protocol (SOAP) Version 1.2. Retrieved February 19, 2005, from http://www.w3.org/TR/soap12-part1/, 24 June.
  72. SWS Arch (2005). Semantic Web services architecture. Retrieved June 7, 2005, from http://www.daml.org/services/swsa/note/swsa-note_v5.html, April.
  73. SWS Glossary (2005). Semantic Web services glossary. Retrieved October 31, 2005, from http://www.daml.org/services/swsf/1.0/overview/#sec-glossary, May 9.
  74. SWSL (2005). Semantic Web Services Language (SWSL). Retrieved February 27, 2005, from http://www.daml.org/services/swsl/index.html.
  75. Turner, M., Budgen, D., & Brereton, P. (2003). Turning software into a service. IEEE Computer Society, 36(10), 38–44.Google Scholar
  76. UDDI (2005, January 19, 2004). Universal Description Discovery and Integration (UDDI). Retrieved February 19, 2005, from http://uddi.org/pubs/uddi-v3.0.2-20041019.htm.
  77. Umapathy, K., Purao, S., & Sugumaran, V. (2003). Facilitating conversations among web services as speech-act based discourses. Paper presented at the Workshop on information technologies and systems. Seattle, WA, USA.Google Scholar
  78. Verharen, E., Dignum, F., & Weigand, H. (1996). A language/action perspective on cooperative information agents. Proceedings of the First International Workhshop on Communication Modeling.Google Scholar
  79. Weigand, H., Heuvel, W.-J. v. d., & Dignum, F. (1998). Modelling electronic commerce transaction – A layered approach. Paper presented at the International Working Conference on the Language–Action Perspective on Communication Modelling (LAP).Google Scholar
  80. Winograd, T., & Flores, F. (1986). Understanding computers and cognition: A new foundation for design. Boston, USA: Addison–Wesley.Google Scholar
  81. WS Activity (2005). Web services activity statement. Retrieved February 19, 2005, from http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/Activity, January 28.
  82. WS Arch (2005). Web services architecture. Retrieved February 17, 2005, from http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/NOTE-ws-arch-20040211/, 11 February.
  83. WS-Addressing (2005). Web Services Addressing (WS-Addressing). Retrieved April 12, 2005, from http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/.
  84. WS–BPEL (2005). Web Services Business Process Execution Language (WS–BPEL). Retrieved February 19, 2005, from http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbrev=wsbpel.
  85. WS–CDL (2004, 17 December 2004). Web Services Choreography Description Language (WS–CDL). Retrieved April 11, 2005, from http://www.w3.org/TR/ws-cdl-10/.
  86. WS–CF (2004). Web Services Coordination Framework Specification (WS–CF). Retrieved May 12, 2005, from http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/10889/WSCF-Working-12-22.pdf, 22 December.
  87. WSCI (2002). Web Service Choreography Interface (WSCI). Retrieved June 6, 2005, from http://www.w3.org/TR/wsci/, 8 August.
  88. WSDL (2001). Web Service Description Lanaguage (WSDL). Retrieved February 19, Year, from http://www.w3.org/TR/wsdl, 15 March.
  89. WSDM (2005). Web Services Distributed Management (WSDM). Retrieved April 12, 2005, from http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbrev=wsdm, March 9.
  90. WS Glossary (2004). Web services glossary. Retrieved October 31, 2005, from http://www.w3.org/TR/ws-gloss/, 11 February.
  91. WS-Reliability (2004). Web Services Reliability (WS–Reliability). Retrieved May 12, 2005, from http://docs.oasis-open.org/wsrm/2004/06/WS-Reliability-CD1.086.pdf, 24 August.
  92. WS-Security (2004). Web Services Security: SOAP Message Security (WS–Security). Retrieved April 13, 2005, from http://docs.oasis-open.org/wss/2004/01/oasis-200401-wss-soap-message-security-1.0.pdf, 01, March.
  93. WS SWSIG (2002). Semantic web services interest group. Retrieved June 6, 2005, from http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/swsig/.
  94. WS–TXM (2003). Web Services Transaction Management (WS–TXM). Retrieved May 12, 2005, from http://developers.sun.com/techtopics/webservices/wscaf/wstxm.pdf, July 28.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of Information Sciences and TechnologyPenn State UniversityUniversity ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations