Advertisement

Behavioral Constraints for Services

  • Niels Lohmann
  • Peter Massuthe
  • Karsten Wolf
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4714)

Abstract

In service-oriented architectures (SOA), deadlock-free interaction of services is an important correctness criterion. To support service discovery in an SOA, operating guidelines serve as a structure to characterize all deadlock-freely interacting partners of a services. In practice, however, there are intended and unintended deadlock-freely interacting partners of a service. In this paper, we provide a formal approach to express intended and unintended behavior as behavioral constraints. With such a constraint, unintended partners can be “filtered” yielding a customized operating guideline. Customized operating guidelines can be applied to validate a service and for service discovery.

Keywords

Business process modeling and analysis Formal models in business process management Process verification and validation Petri nets Operating guidelines Constraints 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Gottschalk, K.: Web Services Architecture Overview. IBM whitepaper, IBM developerWorks (2000), http://ibm.com/developerWorks/web/library/w-ovr
  2. 2.
    Massuthe, P., Schmidt, K.: Operating Guidelines – An Automata-Theoretic Foundation for the Service-Oriented Architecture. In: Cai, K.Y., Ohnishi, A., Lau, M. (eds.) QSIC 2005. Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Quality Software, Melbourne, Australia, pp. 452–457. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2005)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lohmann, N., Massuthe, P., Wolf, K.: Operating Guidelines for Finite-State Services. In: Kleijn, J., Yakovlev, A. (eds.) ICATPN 2007. 28th International Conference on Applications and Theory of Petri Nets and Other Models of Concurrency, Siedlce, Poland. LNCS, vol. 4546, Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Massuthe, P., Reisig, W., Schmidt, K.: An Operating Guideline Approach to the SOA. Annals of Mathematics, Computing & Teleinformatics 1(3), 35–43 (2005)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Alves, A., et al.: Web Services Business Process Execution Language Version 2.0. Committee Specification, Organization for the Advancement of Structured Information Standards (OASIS) (2007)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lohmann, N., Massuthe, P., Stahl, C., Weinberg, D.: Analyzing Interacting BPEL Processes. In: Dustdar, S., Fiadeiro, J.L., Sheth, A. (eds.) BPM 2006. LNCS, vol. 4102, pp. 17–32. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Aalst, W.M.P.v.d.: The application of Petri nets to workflow management. Journal of Circuits, Systems and Computers 8(1), 21–66 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lohmann, N., Massuthe, P., Stahl, C., Weinberg, D.: Analyzing Interacting WS-BPEL Processes Using Flexible Model Generation. In: Dustdar, S., Fiadeiro, J.L., Sheth, A. (eds.) BPM 2006. LNCS, vol. 4102, Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cassandras, C., Lafortune, S.: Introduction to Discrete Event Systems. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (1999)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ramadge, P., Wonham, W.: Supervisory control of a class of discrete event processes. SIAM J. Control Optim. 25(1), 206–230 (1987)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Badouel, E., Darondeau, P.: Theory of Regions. In: Reisig, W., Rozenberg, G. (eds.) Lectures on Petri Nets I: Basic Models. LNCS, vol. 1491, pp. 529–586. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Graf, S., Steffen, B.: Compositional Minimization of Finite State Systems. In: Clarke, E., Kurshan, R.P. (eds.) CAV 1990. LNCS, vol. 531, pp. 186–196. Springer, Heidelberg (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Valmari, A.: Composition and Abstraction. In: Cassez, F., Jard, C., Rozoy, B., Dermot, M. (eds.) MOVEP 2000. LNCS, vol. 2067, pp. 58–98. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Davulcu, H., Kifer, M., Ramakrishnan, I.V.: CTR-S: a logic for specifying contracts in semantic web services. In: Feldman, S.I., Uretsky, M., Najork, M., Wills, C.E. (eds.) WWW 2004. Proceedings of the 13th international conference on World Wide Web, pp. 144–153. ACM, New York (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Benatallah, B., Casati, F., Toumani, F.: Representing, analysing and managing web service protocols. Data Knowl. Eng. 58(3), 327–357 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Pathak, J., Basu, S., Honavar, V.: Modeling Web Services by Iterative Reformulation of Functional and Non-functional Requirements. In: Dan, A., Lamersdorf, W. (eds.) ICSOC 2006. LNCS, vol. 4294, pp. 314–326. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Berardi, D., Calvanese, D., Giacomo, G.D., Mecella, M.: Composition of Services with Nondeterministic Observable Behavior. In: Benatallah, B., Casati, F., Traverso, P. (eds.) ICSOC 2005. LNCS, vol. 3826, pp. 520–526. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Niels Lohmann
    • 1
  • Peter Massuthe
    • 1
  • Karsten Wolf
    • 2
  1. 1.Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Institut für Informatik, Unter den Linden 6, 10099 BerlinGermany
  2. 2.Universität Rostock, Institut für Informatik, 18051 RostockGermany

Personalised recommendations