A Theory for Strong Service Compliance

  • Mario Bravetti
  • Gianluigi Zavattaro
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4467)


We investigate, in a process algebraic setting, a new notion of compliance that we call strong service compliance: composed services are strong compliant if their composition is both deadlock and livelock free (this is the traditional notion of compliance) and whenever a message can be sent to invoke a service, this service is ensured to be ready to serve the invocation. We define also a new notion of refinement, called strong subcontract pre-order, suitable for strong compliance: given a composition of strong compliant services each one executing according to some specific contracts, we can replace the services with other services executing corresponding strong subcontracts preserving strong compliance. Finally, we present a characterization of the strong subcontract pre-order resorting to the theory of (should) testing pre-order.


Output Action Service Composition Operational Semantic Output Transition Label Transition System 
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. Bravetti, M., Zavattaro, G.: Contract based Multi-party Service Composition. In: FSEN’07. LNCS ((to appear, 2007)Google Scholar
  2. Busi, N., Gorrieri, R., Guidi, C., Lucchi, R., Zavattaro, G.: Choreography and orchestration: A synergic approach for system design. In: Benatallah, B., Casati, F., Traverso, P. (eds.) ICSOC 2005. LNCS, vol. 3826, pp. 228–240. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Busi, N., Gorrieri, R., Guidi, C., Lucchi, R., Zavattaro, G.: Choreography and orchestration conformance for system design. In: Ciancarini, P., Wiklicky, H. (eds.) COORDINATION 2006. LNCS, vol. 4038, pp. 63–81. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Carbone, M., Honda, K., Yoshida, N.: Structured Communication-Centred Programming for Web Services. In: ESOP’07. LNCS (to appear, 2007)Google Scholar
  5. Carpineti, S., Castagna, G., Laneve, C., Padovani, L.: A Formal Account of Contracts for Web Services. In: Bravetti, M., Núñez, M., Zavattaro, G. (eds.) WS-FM 2006. LNCS, vol. 4184, pp. 148–162. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. De Nicola, R., Hennessy, M.: Testing Equivalences for Processes. Theoretical Computer Science 34, 83–133 (1984)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. Fournet, C., Hoare, C.A.R., Rajamani, S.K., Rehof, J.: Stuck-Free Conformance. In: Alur, R., Peled, D.A. (eds.) CAV 2004. LNCS, vol. 3114, pp. 242–254. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)Google Scholar
  8. Leymann, F.: Web Services Flow Language (wsfl 1.0). Technical report, IBM Software Group (2001)Google Scholar
  9. Rensink, A., Vogler, W.: Fair testing. CTIT Technical Report TR-CTIT-05-64, Dep. of Computer Science, University of Twente (2005)Google Scholar
  10. OASIS. Web Services Business Process Execution Language Version 2.0. []
  11. Thatte, S.: XLANG: Web services for business process design. Microsoft Corporation (2001)Google Scholar
  12. W3C. Web Services Choreography Description Language.

Copyright information

© Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mario Bravetti
    • 1
  • Gianluigi Zavattaro
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer Science, University of BolognaItaly

Personalised recommendations