Pattern-Based Specification and Validation of Web Services Interaction Properties

  • Zheng Li
  • Jun Han
  • Yan Jin
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3826)


There have been significant efforts in providing semantic descriptions for Web services, including the approach as exemplified by OWL-S. Part of the semantic description in OWL-S is about the interaction process of the service concerned, and adopts a procedural programming style. We argue that this style of description for service interactions is not natural to publishing service behavior properties from the viewpoint of facilitating third-party service composition and analysis. In this paper, we introduce a declarative approach that better supports the specification and use of service interaction properties in the service description and composition process. This approach uses patterns to describe the interaction behavior of a service as a set of constraints. As such, it supports the incremental description of a service’s interaction behavior from the service developer’s perspective, and the easy understanding and analysis of the interaction properties from the service user’s perspective. We also introduce a framework and tool support for monitoring and checking the conformance of the service’s run-time interactions against its specified interaction properties, to test whether the service is used properly and whether the service fulfils its behavioral obligations.


  1. 1.
    Workflow Patterns (2005),
  2. 2.
    Alistair Barros, M.D.: Arthur ter Hofstede: Service Interaction Patterns. In: Proc. 3rd International Conference on Business Process Management, Eindhoven, The Netherlands, pp. 302–318 (2005)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Andrews, T., Curbera, F., Dholakia, H., Goland, Y., Klein, J., Leymann, F., Liu, K., Roller, D., Smith, D., Thatte, S., Trickovic, I., Weerawarana, S.: Business Process Execution Language for Web Services version 1.1 (2003),
  4. 4.
    Ashri, R., Denker, G., Marvin, D., Surridge, M., Payne, T.R.: Semantic Web Service Interaction Protocols: An Ontological Approach. In: Proc. Third International Semantic Web Conference, Hiroshima, Japan, vol. 3298, pp. 304–319 (2004)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Baresi, L., Ghezzi, C., Guinea, S.: Smart Monitors for Composed Services. In: Proc. International Conference on Service-Oriented Computing, New York City, NY, USA, pp. 193–202 (2004)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Benatallah, B., Casati, F., Skogsrud, H., Toumani, F.: Abstracting and Enforcing Web Service Protocols. International Journal of Cooperative Information Systems 13(4), 413–440 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Benatallah, B., Casati, F., Toumani, F., Hamadi, R.: Conceptual Modeling of Web Service Conversations. In: Proc. Advanced Information Systems Engineering (CAiSE), Klagenfurt/Velden, Austria, vol. 2681, pp. 449–467 (2003)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Berardi, D., Calvanese, D., Giacomo, G.D., Lenzerini, M., Mecella, M.: Automatic Composition of e-Services that Export their Behavior. In: Proc. International Conference on Service-Oriented Computing, Trento, Italy, pp. 43–58 (2003)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dwyer, M.B., Avrunin, G.S., Corbett, J.C.: Patterns in Property Specifications for Finite-state Verification. In: Proc. International Conference on Software Engineering, Los Angeles, CA, USA, pp. 411–420 (1999)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gottesdiener, E.: Procedural versus declarative. Application Development Trends Magazine (1997)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Guillaume, D., Plante, R.: Declarative Metadata Processing with XML and Java. In: Proc. Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, vol. 238 (2001)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Han, J.: Interaction Compatibility: An Essential Ingredient for Service Composition. In: Proc. International Workshop on Grid and Cooperative Computing, Shanghai, China, pp. 59–66 (2003)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jin, Y., Han, J.: Consistency and Interoperability Checking for Component Interaction Rules. In: Proc. Twelfth Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference, Taipei, Taiwan (2005)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jin, Y., Han, J.: Runtime Validation of Behavioural Contracts for Component Software. In: Proc. Fifth International Conference On Quality Software, Melbourne, Australia, pp. 177–184 (2005)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jin, Y., Han, J.: Specifying Interaction Constraints of Software Components for Better Understandability and Interoperability. In: Proc. International Conference on COTS-Based Software Systems, Orlando, Florida, USA, vol. 3412, pp. 54–64 (2005)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kavantzas, N., Burdett, D., Ritzinger, G.: Web Services Choreography Description Language Version 1.0 (2004),
  17. 17.
    Keller, A., Ludwig, H.: Defining and Monitoring Service-Level Agreements for Dynamic e-Business. In: Proc. Conference on Systems Administration, Philadelphia, PA, USA, pp. 189–204 (2002)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lara, R., Lausen, H., Arroyo, S., Bruijn, J.d., Fensel, D.: Semantic web services: description requirements and current technologies. In: Proc. International Workshop on Electronic Commerce, Agents, and Semantic Web Services, In conjunction with the Fifth International Conference on Electronic Commerce (ICEC), Pittsburgh, PA, USA (2003)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sriharee, N., Senivongse, T.: Discovering Web Services Using Behavioural Constraints and Ontology. In: Proc. International Conference on Distributed Applications and Interoperable Systems, Paris, France, vol. 2893, pp. 248–259 (2003)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Toivonen, S., Helin, H.: Representing Interaction Protocols in DAML. In: Proc. International Symposium on Agent Mediated Knowledge Management, Stanford, CA, USA, vol. 2926, pp. 310–321 (2003)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Zheng Li
    • 1
  • Jun Han
    • 1
  • Yan Jin
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of ICTSwinburne University of TechnologyMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations