Mediator Synthesis in a Component Algebra with Data

  • Lukáš Holík
  • Malte Isberner
  • Bengt Jonsson
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9360)


We formulate a compositional specification theory for components that interact by directed synchronous communication actions. The theory is an extension of interface automata which is also able to capture both absence of deadlock as well as constraints on data parameters in interactions. We define refinement, parallel composition, and quotient. The quotient is an adjoint of parallel composition, and produces the most general component that makes the components cooperate to satisfy a given system specification. We show how these operations can be used to synthesize mediators that allow components in networked systems to interoperate. This is illustrated by application to the synthesis of mediators in e-commerce applications.


Service Composition Parallel Composition Synthesis Problem Disjunctive Normal Form Input Symbol 
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.
    Bauer, S., Larsen, K., Legay, A., Nyman, U., Wasowski, A.: A Modal Specification Theory for Components with Data. Sci. Comput. Program. 83, 106–128 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bennaceur, A., Chilton, C., Isberner, M., Jonsson, B.: Automated mediator synthesis: combining behavioural and ontological reasoning. In: Hierons, R.M., Merayo, M.G., Bravetti, M. (eds.) SEFM 2013. LNCS, vol. 8137, pp. 274–288. Springer, Heidelberg (2013) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Berardi, D., Calvanese, D., De Giacomo, G., Hull, R., Mecella, M.: Automatic composition of transition-based semantic web services with messaging. In: Proc. of VLDB 2005. VLDB Endowment (2005)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bertoli, P., Pistore, M., Traverso, P.: Automated Composition of Web Services via Planning in Asynchronous Domains. Artif. Intell. 174(3–4) (2010)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bhaduri, P., Ramesh, S.: Interface Synthesis and Protocol Conversion. Form. Asp. Comput. 20(2), 205–224 (2008)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chen, T., Chilton, C., Jonsson, B., Kwiatkowska, M.: A compositional specification theory for component behaviours. In: Seidl, H. (ed.) ESOP 2012. LNCS, vol. 7211, pp. 148–168. Springer, Heidelberg (2012) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    de Alfaro, L., Henzinger, T.A.: Interface Automata. SIGSOFT Softw. Eng. Notes 26(5), 109–120 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dill, D.: Trace Theory for Automatic Hierarchical Verification of Speed-independent Circuits. PhD thesis, Carnegie Mellon University (1988)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Guermouche, N., Perrin, O., Ringeissen, C.: A mediator based approach for services composition. In: SERA 2008. IEEE (2008)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hull, R., Benedikt, M., Christophides, V., Su, J.: E-services: a look behind the curtain. In: Proc. 22nd ACM Symp. on Principles of Database Systems, pp. 1–14. ACM (2003)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jonsson, B.: Compositional specification and verification of distributed systems. ACM Trans. on Programming Languages and Systems 16(2), 259–303 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Larsen, K.G., Nyman, U., Wasowski, A.: Modal I/O automata for interface and product line theories. In: De Nicola, R. (ed.) ESOP 2007. LNCS, vol. 4421, pp. 64–79. Springer, Heidelberg (2007) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lynch, N.A., Tuttle, M.R.: Hierarchical correctness proofs for distributed algorithms. In: Proc. 6th ACM Symp. on Principles of Distributed Computing, pp. 137–151 (1987)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Olderog, E., Hoare, C.: Specification-oriented semantics for communicating processes. Acta Informatica 23(1), 9–66 (1986)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Raclet, J.-B.: Residual for component specifications. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science 215, 93–110 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Raclet, J.-B., Badouel, E., Benveniste, A., Caillaud, B., Legay, A., Passerone, R.: Modal interfaces: unifying interface automata and modal specifications. In: Proc. of EMSOFT 2009, pp. 87–96. ACM (2009)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Raclet, J.-B., Badouel, E., Benveniste, A., Caillaud, B., Legay, A., Passerone, R.: A Modal Interface Theory for Component-based Design. Fundamenta Informaticae 108(1–2), 119–149 (2011)MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Raclet, J.-B., Badouel, E., Benveniste, A., Caillaud, B., Passerone, R.: Why are modalities good for interface theories? In: ACSD 2009, pp. 119–127. IEEE (2009)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Raskin, J.-F., Chatterjee, K., Doyen, L., Henzinger, T.A.: Algorithms for Omega-Regular Games with Imperfect Information. Logical Methods in CS 3(3) (2007)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ryzhyk, L., Chubb, P., Kuz, I., Sueur, E.L., Heiser, G.: Automatic device driver synthesis with termite. In: SOSP 2009, pp. 73–86. ACM (2009)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Tretmans, J.: Model-based testing and some steps towards test-based modelling. In: Bernardo, M., Issarny, V. (eds.) SFM 2011. LNCS, vol. 6659, pp. 297–326. Springer, Heidelberg (2011) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Yellin, D.M., Strom, R.E.: Protocol Specifications and Component Adaptors. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 19(2), 292–333 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Brno University of TechnologyBrnoCzech Republic
  2. 2.Technical University of DortmundDortmundGermany
  3. 3.Uppsala UniversityUppsalaSweden

Personalised recommendations