Advertisement

Object Interoperability

  • Antonio Vallecillo
  • José M. Troya
  • Juan Hernández
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1743)

Abstract

This report summarizes the presentations, discussions and outcomes of the ECOOP’99 Workshop on Object Interoperability, held in Lisbon on Monday, June 14, 1999. Divided into four main sessions, the workshop covered some of the most important issues related to object interoperability at different levels (such as protocols, semantics, or mediated architectures). Two are the main goals of this report. First, it tries to provide a snapshot of some of the current research being carried out within the object-oriented community in these areas. And second, it summarizes some of the open questions and issues related to object interoperability, in order to set the basis for further research activities.

Keywords

Description Logic Semantic Level Semantic Interoperability Semantic Match Object Request Broker 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    W.M.P. van der Aalst and K. van Hee. Workflow management: modellen, methoden en systemen. Academic Service, 1997.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    R. Back, A. Mikhajlova, and J. von Wright. Reasoning about interactive systems. In Proceedings of the World Congress on Formal Methods (FM’99), LNCS. Springer-Verlag, 1999. Previous version appeared as Technical Report No. 200, TUCS. http://www.tucs.abo.fi/publications/techreports/TR200.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    V.R. Benjamins, E. Plaza, E. Motta, D. Fensel, R. Studer, B. Wielinga, G. Schreiber, and Z. Zdrahal. An intelligent brokering service for knowledge-component reuse on the World-Wide-Web. In Proceedings of the 11th Banff Knowledge Acquisition for Knowledge-Based System Workshop (KAW’98), pages 18–23, Banff, Canada, April 1998.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    D. Brill. The LOOM reference manual. Technical report, University of Southern California, 1993.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    C. Canal, E. Pimentel, and J.M. Troya. Specification and refinement of dynamic software architectures. In Patrick Donohoe, editor, Software Architecture (Proc. of WICSA’99), pages 107–125. Kluwer Academic Publishers, February 1999.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    Rational Software Corp. UML Semantics. Rational Software Corp., 1997.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    D. Fensel, V.R. Benjamins, S. Decker, M. Gaspari, R. Groenboon, W. Grosso, E. Motta, E. Plaza, G. Schreiber, R. Studer, and B. Wielinga. The unified problem-solving method description language UPML. In IBROW-3 Esprit Project 27169. Project Deliverable 1.1, 1998.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    T. Finin, Y. Labrou, and J. Mayfield. KQML as an agent communication language. In Jeff Bradshaw, editor, Software Agents, Cambridge, 1997. MIT Press.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    L. Fuentes and J.M. Troya. A java framework for web-based multimedia and collaborative applications. IEEE Internet Computing, 3(2):52–61, March/April 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. [10]
    D. Harel. Statecharts: A visual formalism for complex systems. Science of Computer Programming, 8:231–274, 1987.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. [11]
    G.J. Holzmann. The model checker Spin. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 23(5), May 1997.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    N.R. Jennings, K. Sycara, and M. Wooldridge. A roadmap of agent research and development. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 1(1):7–38, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. [13]
    G. Kristen. Object Orientation: The KISS Method: From Information Architecture to Information System. Addison-Wesley, 1994.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    A. Mikhajlova. Ensuring Correctness of Object and Component Systems. PhD thesis, Åbo Akademi University, October 1999.Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    A. Mikhajlova and E. Sekerinski. Class refinement and interface refinement in object-oriented programs. InProceedings of 4th International Formal Methods Europe Symposium (FME’97), number 1313 in LNCS, pages 82–101. Springer-Verlag, 1997.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    E. Motta, D. Fensel, M. Gaspari, and R. Benjamin. Specification of knowledge components for reuse. In Proceedings of SEKE’99, 1999.Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    R. van Rein. Protocol-safe workflow support for Santa Claus. In Vallecillo et al. [23], pages 3–11.Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    R. van Rein and M. Fokkinga. Protocol assuring universal language. In Formal Methods for Open Object-Based Distributed Systems, pages 241–258. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1999.Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    B. Selic, G. Geullekson, and P.T. Ward. Real-time Object-Oriented Modeling. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1994.Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    T. Senivongse. An approach to making CORBA support equivalence relationships. In Proceedings of the 3rd Intl. Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference (EDOC’99), Germany, 1999.Google Scholar
  21. [21]
    Y. Shoham. Agent-oriented programming. Artificial Intelligence, 60(1):51–52, 1993.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  22. [22]
    J.M. Troya and A. Vallecillo. Software development from reusable components and controllers. In Proc. of ASOO’98, pages 47–58, Argentina, 1998.Google Scholar
  23. [23]
    A. Vallecillo, J. Hernández, and J.M. Troya, editors. Object Interoperability. Universidad de Málaga, Dept. Lenguajes y Ciencias de la Computación, 1999.Google Scholar
  24. [24]
    M. Wooldridge and N.R. Jennings. Intelligent agents: Theory and practice. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 10(2):115–152, 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Antonio Vallecillo
    • 1
  • José M. Troya
    • 1
  • Juan Hernández
    • 2
  1. 1.Universidad de MálagaSpain
  2. 2.Universidad de ExtremaduraSpain

Personalised recommendations