Temporal Reasoning Of Reactive Web Services

  • Monika Solanki
  • Antonio Cau
  • Hussein Zedan
Part of the Semantic Web and Beyond book series (ADSW, volume 3)


Temporal Logic Temporal Property Service Composition Composite Service Temporal Reasoning 
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.

Suggested Additional Reading

  1. Monika Solanki and Antonio Cau and Hussein Zedan. Introducing Compositionality in Web Service Descriptions. In Proceedings of the 10th International Workshop on Future Trends in Distributed Computing Systems-FTDCS 2004, Suzhou, China, May 26–28 2004. IEEE Computer Society Press.Google Scholar
  2. Antonio Cau. ITL and (Ana)Tempura Home page on the web. Scholar
  3. Z. Manna and A. Pnueli. The Temporal Logic of Reactive and Concurrent Systems: Specification. Springer-Verlag, New York, 1991.Google Scholar
  4. B. Moszkowski. Executing temporal Logic Programs. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 1986.Google Scholar


  1. F. Bry and S. Spranger (2003). Temporal constructs for a web language.Google Scholar
  2. A. Cau, (2005). ITL and (Ana)Tempura Home page on the web. Scholar
  3. Antonio Cau and Hussein Zedan (1997). Refining interval temporal logic specifications. In ARTS, pages 79–94, 1997.Google Scholar
  4. Roberto Chinnic, Hugo Haas, Amy Lewis, Jeans Jacque Moreau, David Orchard, and Sanjiva Weerawarana (2005). Web services description language (WSDL) version 2.0 part 1: Core language w3c working draft 3rd August, 2005. Scholar
  5. W.P. de Roever (1985). The quest for compositionality a survey of assertion based proof systems for concurrent programs. In Neuhold EJ, editor, Proc of the IFIP conference: the role of abstract models in computer science,, Vienna. North Holland, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  6. W. P. de Roever et al (2001). Concurrency Verification: Introduction to Compositional and Noncompositional Methods. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 2001.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. E. W. Dijkstra (1965). Solution of a problem in concurrent programming control. Commun. ACM, 8(9):569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. E. W. Dijkstra (1976). A Discipline of Programming. PrenticeHall.Google Scholar
  9. Jurgen Dinge (2000). Systematic parallel programming. PhD thesis, Carnegie Mellon University.Google Scholar
  10. Frank Leymann, IBM Software Group. Web Services Flow Language (WSFL) Version 1.0, 2001.Google Scholar
  11. Drew McDermott and Dejing Dou (2002). Representing Disjunction and Quantifiers in RDF Embedding Logic in DAML./RDF. In ISWC2002. 1st International Semantic Web Conference, 2002.Google Scholar
  12. E.M. Clarke and 0. Grumberg, and D. A. Peled (1999). Model Checking. The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  13. R. W. Floyd. Assigning meaning to programs (1967). In Symposium in Applied Mathematics, volume 19, pages 19–31. American Mathematical Society, 1967.Google Scholar
  14. Martin Gudgin, Marc Hadley, Noah Mendelsohn, JeanJacques Moreau, and Henrik Frystyk Nielsen (2003). SOAP Version 1.2 Part 1: Messaging Framework W3C Recommendation 24 June, Scholar
  15. On the development of reactive systems, pages 477–498. SpringerVerlag New York, Inc., New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
  16. D. Harel and M. Politi.(1998). Modeling Reactive Systems with Statecharts: The STATEMATE Approach. McGrawHill.Google Scholar
  17. The Rule Markup Initiative. Scholar
  18. C.A.R Hoare. An axiomatic basis for computer programming. Comm. ACM, 12 (1969) 576–580,583, 1969.Google Scholar
  19. Ian Horrocks, Peter F. PatelSchneider, Harold Boley, Said Tabet, Benjamin Grosof, Mike Dean (2003). SWRL: A Semantic Web Rule Language Combining OWL and RuleML. Technical report, University of Manchester, Version 0.5 of 19 November.Google Scholar
  20. M Imperato (1991). An introduction to Z. ChartwellBratt, 1991.Google Scholar
  21. Z. Manna and A. Pnueli (1991). The Temporal Logic of Reactive and Concurrent Systems: Specification. SpringerVerlag, New York.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. Zohar Manna and Amir Pnueli.(1993) Models for reactivity. Acta Inf., 30(7):609–678.CrossRefMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. Mike Dean and Guus Schreiber (eds.) 2004. OWL Web Ontology Language Reference, 10 February 2004. Scholar
  24. J. Misra and K.M. Chandy (1981). Proofs of networks of processes. In IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, volume 7(7):417426.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  25. Monika Solanki and Antonio Cau and Hussein Zedan (2003). Introducing compositionality in Webservice Descriptions. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Anwire Workshop on Adaptable Service Provision, Paris, France, 2003. SpringerVerlag.Google Scholar
  26. Monika Solanki and Antonio Cau and Hussein Zedan (2004). Introducing Compositionality in Web Service Descriptions. In Proceedings of the 10th International Workshop on Future Trends in Distributed Computing Systems FTDCS 2004, Suzhou, China, May, 2004. IEEE Computer Society Press.Google Scholar
  27. B Moszkowski (1983). Reasoning about Digital Circuits. PhD thesis, Department of Computer Science, Stanford UniversityGoogle Scholar
  28. B. Moszkowski (1986). Executing temporal Logic Programs. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England.Google Scholar
  29. B. Moszkowski (1994). Programming Concepts, Methods and Calculi, IFIP Transactions, A-56., Some Very Compositional Temporal Properties, pages 307–326. Elsevier Science, B. V., North Holland, 1994.Google Scholar
  30. B. Moszkowski (1995). Compositional reasoning about projected and infinite time. In Proceedings of the First IEEE Int’l Conf, on Engineering of Complex Computer Systems (ICECCS195). In, pages 238245. IEEE Computer Society Press.Google Scholar
  31. B. Moszkowski (1995). A temporal logic for multilevel reasoning about hardware. IEEE Computer, pages 10–19.Google Scholar
  32. B. Moszkowski (1996). Compositionality: The Significant Difference, volume 1536 of LNCS, chapter Compositional reasoning using Interval Temporal Logic and Tempura, pages 439–464. Springer Verlag, Berlin, 1996.Google Scholar
  33. B. Moszkowski (1996). Using temporal fixpoints to compositionally reason about liveness. In He Jifeng, John Cooke, and Peter Wallis, editors, BCSFACS 7th Refinement Workshop, electronic Workshops in Computing. “SpringerVerlag and British Computer Society”, London.Google Scholar
  34. Nickolas Kavantzas, David Burdett, Gregory Ritzinger, Tony Fletcher, Yves Lafon (2004).Web Services Choreography Description Language Version 1.0: W3C Working Draft 17 December.Google Scholar
  35. Feng Pan and Jerry R. Hobbs (2004). Time in OWLS. In Proceedings of AAAI Spring Symposium Series on Semantic Web Services, 2004.Google Scholar
  36. P. K. Pandya (1990). Some comments on the assumption commitment framework for compositional verification of distributed programs. In REX workshop: Proceedings on Stepwise refinement of distributed systems: models, formalisms, correctness, pages 622–640, New York, NY, USA. SpringerVerlag New York, Inc.Google Scholar
  37. Satish Thatte. XLANG: Web Services for Business Process Design, 2002. Amazon Web Service. Scholar
  38. Monika Solanki. (2005) A Graphical representation of Class Hierarchies in the ITLTempura Ontology. Scholar
  39. Monika Solanki. (2005) An Ontology for ITL and Tempura. Scholar
  40. Monika Solanki, Antonio Cau, and Hussein Zedan (2004). Augmenting semantic web service descriptions with compositional specification. In Proceedings of the 13th international conference on World Wide Web, pages 544–552. ACM Press.Google Scholar
  41. J. Michael Spivey (1996). Richer types for Z. Formal Asp. Comput., 8(5):565–584, 1996.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  42. The Protégé ontology editor and knowledge acquisition system. http://Protégé Scholar
  43. Ketil Stolen (1990). Development of parallel programs on shared datastructures. Technical report, Department of Computer Science, University of Manchester.Google Scholar
  44. Kim Sunesen (1998). Reasoning about Reactive Systems. PhD thesis, BRICS, Department of Computer Science University of Aarhus.Google Scholar
  45. The OWL-S Coalition, (2004). OWLS 1.1 Release, Scholar
  46. Tony Andrews et al. (2003) Business Process Execution Language for Web Services, Version 1.1, 2003. Scholar
  47. Web Service Modelling Ontology, (2004). Scholar
  48. R. J. Wieringa (2003). Design Methods for Reactive Systems. MorganKaufmann: Elsevier Science, San Francisco.Google Scholar
  49. Qiwen Xu and Mohalik Swarup, (1998). Compositional reasoning using the assumptioncommitment paradigm. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 1536:565–583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Cau A. Xu Q. W. and Collette P (1994). On unifying assumptioncomrnitment style proof rules for concurrency. In B. Jonsson and Eds. J. Parrow, editors, In CONCUR’94, LNCS 836.Google Scholar
  51. Shikun Zhou (2003). Compositional Framework for the Guided Evolution of Timecritical Systems. PhD thesis, Software Technology Research Laboratory, De Montfort University UK.Google Scholar
  52. J. Zwiers (1989). Compositionality, concurrency and partial correctness. SpringerVerlag New York, Inc., New York, NY, USA.zbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Monika Solanki
    • 1
  • Antonio Cau
    • 1
  • Hussein Zedan
    • 1
  1. 1.Software Technology Research LaboratoryDe Montfort UniversityUK

Personalised recommendations