Advertisement

Towards Dynamic Composition of E-Government Services

A Policy-based Approach
  • Ivo J. G. dos Santos
  • Edmundo R. M. Madeira
  • Volker Tschammer
Part of the IFIP International Federation for Information Processing book series (IFIPAICT, volume 189)

Abstract

The use of Information and Communication Technologies in governmental process and services, often known as e-Government, has gained momentum over the last decade. The demands for the on-line delivery of each time more complex and citizen-centric services and also the need for enabling citizen participation in governmental processes and decisions have created a series of technological challenges. If, on one hand, Service Oriented Architecture (SOA) appears as a natural and direct solution for problems like heterogeneity, on the other, issues like how to deal with the dynamism of the processes, the autonomy of the different entities involved and the privacy of data being exchanged still must be treated. We present in this article the first steps towards an effective solution to dynamically compose e-government services. These compositions are mediated through policies which provide different levels of autonomy and privacy in the involved interactions. Semantics are used to help building up the compositions, which are made effective through techniques like Orchestration, Choreography or a combination of both.

Key words

e-Government Collaboration Web Services Dynamic Composition Autonomy and Privacy Policies 

References

  1. 1.
    G. Marchionini, H. Samet, and L. Brandt. Digital government. Communications of the ACM, 46(1):25–27, January 2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    K. Lenk and R. Traunmüller. Electronic government: Where are we heading? In EGOV 2002-LNCS, vol. 2456, pp 1–9, Springer-Verlag, 2002.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    M.P. Papazoglou and D. Georgakopoulos. Service-oriented Computing. Communications of the ACM, 46(10):25–28, October 2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    IBM. New to SOA and Web services. http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/webservices/newto/, July 2005Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    World Wide Web Consortium (W3C). Web Services Description Language (WSDL) Version 2.0, W3C Working Draft, http://www.w3.org/TR/wsdl20/, 2004.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    F. Curbera, R. Khalaf, N. Mukhi, S. Tai, and S. Weerawarana. The next step in Web Services. Communications of the ACM, 46(10):29–34, October 2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    C. Peltz. Web Services Orchestration and Choreography. IEEE Computer, 36(10):46–52,2003.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    BEA Systems, IBM, Microsoft, SAP AG, and Siebel Systems. Business Process Execution Language for Web Services (BPEL4WS)-Version 1.1. http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/library/specification/ws-bpel/, 2003.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    World Wide Web Consortium (W3C). Web Services Choreography Description Language Version 1.0 (WS-CDL). http://www.w3.org/TR/ws-cdl-10/, Working Draft, 17 Dec 2004.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    T. Berners-Lee, J. Hendler, and O. Lassila. The Semantic Web. Scientific American, 284(5):34–43, 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    J. Barthès and C. Moulin. TERREGOV Technological State of the Art-vl, version 2, http://www.terregov.eupm.net, December 2004.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    D. L. McGuinness and F. van Harmelen. OWL Web Ontology Language Overview. http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-features/, W3C Candidate Recommendation, August 2003.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    World Wide Web Consortium (W3C). Resource Description Framework Primer. http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-primer/, W3C Recommendation, February 2004.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    The OWL Services Coalition. OWL-S: Semantic Markup for Web Services. White paper. http://www.daml.org/services, July 2004.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    TERREGOV Project Web Site, http://www.terregov.eupm.net, in May 2005.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    eMayor Project Web Site, http://www.emayor.org, in May 2005.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    eGOIA-Electronic Government Innovation and Access, Technical Report n. 01, http://www.egoia.sp.gov.br/pub/Annual-Technical-Report-eGOIA-2004-Deliveredpdf, 2004Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    PRISMA Project Web Site, http://www.prisma-eu.net, in May 2005.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    K. Schulz and M. Orlowska. Architectural issues for cross-organizational b2b interactions. In ICDCSW’ 01: Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems, page 79, USA, IEEE Computer Society, 2001.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    I.J.G. Santos and E.R.M. Madeira. Vm-Flow: Using web services orchestration and choreography to implement a policy-based virtual marketplace. In Proceedings of the World Computer Congress 2004-4th IFIP Conference on e-Commerce, e-Business, and e-Government, vol. 9, pp. 265–285, Toulouse, France, Kluwer Academic Publishers, August 2004.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    R. Dijkman and M. Dumas. Service-oriented design: A multi-viewpoint approach. International Journal of Cooperative Information Systems (IJCIS), 13(4):337–368, 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    W.M.P. van der Aalst. The application of Petri nets to workflow management. The Journal of Circuits, Systems and Computers, 8(1):21–66, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    I.J.G. Santos and E.R.M. Madeira. Cogplat: Using composition to enable collaborative e-government services. In EU-LAT Workshop on e-Government and e-Democracy, Vol. 8 of e-Government and e-Democracy: Progress and Challenges, pp. 17–27, Santiago, Chile, May 2004.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    R. Milner. Communicating and Mobile Systems: The pi-Calculus. Cambridge University Press, 1999.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Federation for Information Processing 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ivo J. G. dos Santos
    • 1
  • Edmundo R. M. Madeira
    • 1
  • Volker Tschammer
    • 2
  1. 1.Institute of ComputingUniversity of CampinasCampinas, SPBrazil
  2. 2.Fraunhofer FOKUSBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations