Negotiation Among Web Services Using LOTOS/CADP

  • Gwen Salaün
  • Andrea Ferrara
  • Antonella Chirichiello
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3250)


It is now well-admitted that formal methods are helpful for many issues raised in the web service area. In a previous work, we advocated the use of process algebra to describe, compose and reason on web services at an abstract level. In this paper, we extend this initial proposal, which only dealt with behavioural aspects, to cope with the question of representing data aspects as well. In this context, we show how the expressive process algebra LOTOS (and its toolbox CADP) can be used to tackle this issue. We illustrate the usefulness of our proposal on an important application in e-business: negotiation among web services. The connection between abstract specifications and running web services is made concrete thanks to guidelines enabling one to map LOTOS and the executable language BPEL in both directions.


Web Services Formal Methods LOTOS CADP Negotiation BPEL 


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.: Specification: Business Process Execution Language for Web Services Version 1.1 (2003)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Berardi, D., Calvanese, D., De Giacomo, G., Lenzerini, M., Mecella, M.: Automatic Composition of E-services That Export Their Behavior. In: Orlowska, M.E., Weerawarana, S., Papazoglou, M.P., Yang, J. (eds.) ICSOC 2003. LNCS, vol. 2910, pp. 43–58. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bergstra, J.A., Ponse, A., Smolka, S.A. (eds.): Handbook of Process Algebra. Elsevier, Amsterdam (2001)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bertino, E., Ferrari, E., Squicciarini, A.C.: Trust-chi: An XML Framework for Trust Negotiations. In: Lioy, A., Mazzocchi, D. (eds.) CMS 2003. LNCS, vol. 2828, pp. 146–157. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chiu, D.K.W., Cheung, S.-C., Hung, P.C.K.: Developing e-Negotiation Process Support by Web Service. In: Proc. of ICWS 2003 (2003)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fatima, S.S., Wooldridge, M., Jennings, N.R.: An Agenda-based Framework for Multi-issue Negotiation. Artificial Intelligence 152(1), 1–45 (2004)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Foster, H., Uchitel, S., Magee, J., Kramer, J.: Model-based Verification of Web Service Compositions. In: Proc. of ASE, Canada, pp. 152–163. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (2003)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fu, X., Bultan, T., Su, J.: Analysis of Interacting BPEL Web Services. In: Proc. of WWW 2004 (2004)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Garavel, H., Serwe, W.: State Space Reduction for Process Algebra Specifications. In: Rattray, C., Maharaj, S., Shankland, C. (eds.) AMAST 2004. LNCS, vol. 3116, pp. 164–180. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hamadi, R., Benatallah, B.: A Petri Net-based Model for Web Service Composition. In: Proc. of ADC 2003 (2003)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hull, R., Benedikt, M., Christophides, V., Su, J.: E-Services: a Look Behind the Curtain. In: Proc. of PODS 2003 (2003)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    ISO. LOTOS: a Formal Description Technique based on the Temporal Ordering of Observational Behaviour. Technical Report 8807, International Standards Organisation (1989) Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kim, J.B., Segev, A., Cho, M.G., Patankar, A.K.: Web Services and BPEL4WS for Dynamic eBusiness Negotiation Processes. In: Proc. of ICWS 2003 (2003)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lazovik, A., Aiello, M., Papazoglou, M.P.: Planning and monitoring the execution of web service requests. In: Orlowska, M.E., Weerawarana, S., Papazoglou, M.P., Yang, J. (eds.) ICSOC 2003. LNCS, vol. 2910, pp. 335–350. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Leymann, F.: Managing Business Processes via Workflow Technology. Tutorial at VLDB 2001, Italy (2001)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lomuscio, A.R., Wooldridge, M., Jennings, N.R.: A Classification Scheme for Negotiation in Electronic Commerce. International Journal of Group Decision and Negotiation 12(1), 31–56 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Nakajima, S.: Model-checking Verification for Reliable Web Service. In: Proc. of OOWS 2002, satellite event of OOPSLA 2002 (2002)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Narayanan, S., McIlraith, S.: Analysis and Simulation of Web Services. Computer Networks 42(5), 675–693 (2003)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Salaün, G., Bordeaux, L., Schaerf, M.: Describing and Reasoning on Web Services using Process Algebra. In: Proc. of ICWS (2004)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Salaün, G., Ferrara, A., Chirichiello, A.: Negotiation among Web Services using LOTOS/CADP. Technical Report 13.04, DIS - Università di Roma ”La Sapienza” (2004), Available on the G. Salaün’s webpageGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Skogsrud, H., Benetallah, B., Casati, F.: Trust-Serv: Model-Driven Lifecycle Management of Trust Negotiation Policies for Web Services. In: Proc. of WWW 2004(2004)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wooldridge, M., Parsons, S.: Languages for Negotiation. In: Proc. of ECAI 2000 (2000)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Zlotkin, G., Rosenschein, J.S.: Mechanisms for Automated Negotiation in State Oriented Domains. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 5, 163–238 (1996)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gwen Salaün
    • 1
  • Andrea Ferrara
    • 1
  • Antonella Chirichiello
    • 1
  1. 1.DISUniversità di Roma ”La Sapienza”RomaItalia

Personalised recommendations