Let’s Dance: A Language for Service Behavior Modeling

  • Johannes Maria Zaha
  • Alistair Barros
  • Marlon Dumas
  • Arthur ter Hofstede
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4275)


In Service-Oriented Architectures (SOAs), software systems are decomposed into independent units, namely services, that interact with one another through message exchanges. To promote reuse and evolvability, these interactions are explicitly described right from the early phases of the development lifecycle. Up to now, emphasis has been placed on capturing structural aspects of service interactions. Gradually though, the description of behavioral dependencies between service interactions is gaining increasing attention as a means to push forward the SOA vision. This paper deals with the description of these behavioral dependencies during the analysis and design phases. The paper outlines a set of requirements that a language for modeling service interactions at this level should fulfill, and proposes a language whose design is driven by these requirements.


Business Process Management Elementary Interaction Service Interaction Actor Reference Business Process Modeling Notation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    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, May (2003), Available at:
  2. 2.
    Barros, A., Dumas, M., ter Hofstede, A.H.M.: Service interaction patterns. In: van der Aalst, W.M.P., Benatallah, B., Casati, F., Curbera, F. (eds.) BPM 2005. LNCS, vol. 3649, pp. 302–318. Springer, Heidelberg (2005), Extended version available as Technical Report FIT-TR-2005-02, Faculty of IT, Queensland University of Technology, CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kavantzas, N., Burdett, D., Ritzinger, G., Lafon, Y.: Web Services Choreography Description Language Version 1.0, W3C Candidate Recommendation (November 2005),
  4. 4.
    Benatallah, B., Casati, F., Toumani, F., Hamadi, R.: Conceptual Modelling of Web Service Conversations. In: Eder, J., Missikoff, M. (eds.) CAiSE 2003. LNCS, vol. 2681, pp. 449–467. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Clark, J., Casanave, C., Kanaskie, K., Harvey, B., Clark, J., Smith, N., Yunker, J., Riemer, K. (eds.): ebXML Business Process Specification Schema Version 1.01, UN/CEFACT and OASIS Specification (May 2001),
  6. 6.
    Damm, W., Harel, D.: LSCs: Breathing Life into Message Sequence Charts. Formal Methods in System Design 19(1), 45–80 (2001)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Decker, G., Kirov, M., Zaha, J.M., Dumas, M.: Maestro for Let’s Dance: An Environment for Modeling Service Interactions. In: Demonstration Session of the 4th International Conference on Business Process Management (BPM), Vienna, Austria (September 2006)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Decker, G., Zaha, J.M., Dumas, M.: Execution Semantics for Service Choreographies. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Web Services and Formal Methods (WS-FM), Vienna, Austria, September 2006. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Foster, H., Uchitel, S., Magee, J., Kramer, J.: Tool Support for Model-Based Engineering of Web Service Compositions. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Web Servies (ICWS), Orlando FL, USA, July 2005. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2005)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Green, T.R.G., Petre, M.: Usability Analysis of Visual Programming Environments: A ’Cognitive Dimensions’ Framework. Journal of Visual Languages and Computing 7(2), 131–174 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Halpin, T.: Information Modeling and Relational Databases - From onceptual Analysis to Logical Design. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (2001)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jensen, K.: Coloured Petri Nets. Basic Concepts, Analysis Methods and Practical Use, vol. 1. Springer, Berlin (1997)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Martin, D., Paolucci, M., McIlraith, S.A., Burstein, M., McDermott, D., McGuinness, D.L., Parsia, B., Payne, T.R., Sabou, M., Solanki, M., Srinivasan, N., Sycara, K.P.: Bringing Semantics to Web Services: The OWL-S Approach. In: Cardoso, J., Sheth, A.P. (eds.) SWSWPC 2004. LNCS, vol. 3387, pp. 26–42. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Object Mangement Group (OMG): UML Profile for EDOC (February 2004),
  15. 15.
    Object Management Group (OMG): UML 2.0 Superstructure Specification. OMG Document ptc/04-10-02 (October 2004),
  16. 16.
    Roman, D., Keller, U., Lausen, H., de Bruijn, J., Lara, R., Stollberg, M., Polleres, A., Feier, C., Bussler, C., Fensel, D.: Web Service Modeling Ontology. Applied Ontology 1(1), 77–106 (2005)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    RosettaNet: Partner Interface Protocols,
  18. 18.
    White, S.: Business Process Modeling Notation (BPMN) – Version 1.0 (May 2004),
  19. 19.
    Zaha, J.M., Barros, A., Dumas, M., ter Hofstede, A.: Let’s Dance: A Unified Language for Service Behavior Modeling. Technical Report FIT-2006, Faculty of IT, Queensland University of Technology(2006),
  20. 20.
    Zaha, J.M., Dumas, M., ter Hofstede, A., Barros, A., Decker, G.: Service Interaction Modeling: Bridging Global and Local Views. In: Proceedings of the Tenth IEEE International Conference on Enterprise Distributed Object Computing (EDOC), Hong Kong, China, October 2006. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (2006)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Johannes Maria Zaha
    • 1
  • Alistair Barros
    • 2
  • Marlon Dumas
    • 1
  • Arthur ter Hofstede
    • 1
  1. 1.Queensland University of TechnologyBrisbaneAustralia
  2. 2.SAP Research CentreBrisbaneAustralia

Personalised recommendations