Advertisement

Modelling of Service Compositions: Relations to Business Process and Workflow Modelling

  • Michael C. Jaeger
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4652)

Abstract

The service oriented architecture (SOA) represents a trend in the IT industry for the development of a flexible and unifying software infrastructure. In an SOA, software components provide their functionality as a service by using uniform interface description and invocation protocols. The provision of software components in an uniform manner allow their efficient composition to form new complex services. Currently, the compositions of services is a popular field of research with many ongoing efforts.

However, the sheer number of existing proposals and efforts to describe service compositions in this field have led to term Web Services Acronym Hell (WSAH) [1] and an obvious confusion. This paper intends to serve as an orientation for explaining what the differences between business processes and workflow control flow languages are and why service compositions are used in this field. It will also introduce past and existing proposals for Web service composition languages for understanding why so many different languages for modelling workflows, business processes and compositions exist.

Keywords

Business Process Service Composition Model Business Process Object Management Group Business Process Execution Language 
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.

References

  1. 1.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P., Dumas, M., ter Hofstede, A.H.M.: Web Service Composition Languages: Old Wine in New Bottles? In: EUROMICRO 2003. Proceedings of the 29th EUROMICRO Conference New Waves in System Architecture, Belek, Turkey, September 2003, pp. 298–304. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (2003)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Booth, D., Haas, H., McCabe, F., Newcomer, E., Champion, M., Ferris, C., Orchard, D.: Web Services Architecture (February 2004), http://www.w3c.org/TR/ws-arch/
  3. 3.
    Hollingsworth, D.: The Workflow Reference Model. Technical Report TC00-1003, Workflow Management Coalition, Lighthouse Point, Florida, USA (1995)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hammer, M., Champy, J.: A Manifesto for Business Revolution. Harper Business (1993)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Frank, H., Gronau, N., Krallman, H.: Systemanalyse im Unternehmen, 3 edn. Oldenbourg Verlag, München, Germany (October 2000)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Keller, G., Nüttgens, M., Scheer, A.W.: Semantische Prozeßmodellierung auf der Grundlage Ereignisgesteuerter Prozeßketten (EPK). Veröffentlichungen des Instituts für Wirtschaftsinformatik (IWi) 89, Universität des Saarlandes, Saarbrücken, Germany (1992)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Arkin, A., et al: Business Process Modeling Language (BPML). Technical Report Version 1.0, BPMI.org (2002)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    White, S.A.: Business Process Modeling Notation (BPMN). Technical Report Working Draft (1.0), BPMI.org (August 2003)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Leymann, F.: Web Services Flow Language (WSFL 1.0). Technical report, IBM Software Group (2001), http://www-4.ibm.com/software/solutions/webser-vices/pdf/WSFL.pdf
  10. 10.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Don’t go with the flow: Web services composition standards exposed. In: Jan/Feb 2003 Issue of IEEE Intelligent Systems, January 2003, pp. 72–76. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (2003)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Thatte, S.: XLANG - Web Services for Business Process Design (2001), http://www.gotdotnet.com/team/xml_wsspecs/xlang-c/default.htm
  12. 12.
    (OMG), O.M.G.: Unified Modeling Language: Superstructure. OMG formal document/05-07-04 (August 2005)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Shaffer, D., Dayton, B.: Orchestrating Web Services: The Case for a BPEL Server. Technical report, Oracle Corporation, Redwood Shores, California, USA (June 2004)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lynch, E., Venkatapathy, C.: Sustaining your Advantage with Business Process Integration based on Service Oriented Architecture. White Paper (October 2005)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Johnson, J., Roberts, T.L., Verplank, W., Smith, D.C., Irby, C., Beard, M., Mackey, K.: The Xerox Star: A Retrospective. Computer 22(9), 11–26 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mahling, D.E., Craven, N., Croft, W.B.: From Office Automation to Intelligent Workflow Systems. IEEE Intelligent Systems 10(3), 41–47 (1995)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P., ter Hofstede, A.H.M., Kiepuszewski, B., Barros, A.P.: Workflow Patterns. Distributed and Parallel Databases 14(1), 5–51 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Marin, M., Brunt, J., Zurek, W., Stephenson, T., Bojanic, S., Gouri, G.: Workflow Process Definition Interface – XML Process Definition Langauge, Version 1.0. In: Technical Report WFMC-TC-1025, Workflow Management Coalition, Lighthouse Point, Florida (October 2002)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    ISO/IEC: ISO/IEC 15909-1: High-level Petri nets – Part 1: Concepts, Definitions and Graphical Notation. Published Standard (December 2004)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Janssens, G.K., Verelst, J., Weyn, B.: Techniques for modelling workflows and their support of reuse. In: van der Aalst, W.M.P., Desel, J., Oberweis, A. (eds.) Business Process Management. LNCS, vol. 1806, pp. 1–15. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Workflow Verification: Finding Control-Flow Errors Using Petri-Net-Based Techniques. In: van der Aalst, W.M.P., Desel, J., Oberweis, A. (eds.) Business Process Management. LNCS, vol. 1806, pp. 161–183. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P., van Hee, K.M., Houben, G.J.: Modelling Workflow Management Systems with high-level Petri Nets. In: De Michelis, G., Ellis, C., Memmi, G. (eds.) Proceedings of the second Workshop on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work, Petri nets and related formalisms, pp. 31–50 (1994)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P., Aldred, L., Dumas, M., ter Hofstede, A.H.M.: Design and implementation of the YAWL system. Technical Report FIT-TR-2003-07, Centre for IT Innovation, QUT (2004), http://www.tm.tue.nl/it/research/patterns
  24. 24.
    Hollingsworth, D.: The Workflow Reference Model 10 Years On (extracted from Workflow Handbook 2004). In: Workflow Management Coalition, Lighthouse Point, Florida (February 2004)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Smith, H., Fingar, P.: Workflow is just a Pi Process, January 2004. Business Process Trends, Columns and Articles (2004)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Smith, H., Fingar, P.: Business Process Fusion Is Inevitable. Business Process Trends, Columns and Articles (March 2004)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Bolcer, G.A., Kaiser, G.: SWAP: Leveraging the Web to Manage Workflow. In: IEEE Internet Computing, January-February 1999, pp. 85–88. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (1999)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Dijkman, R.M., Dumas, M.: Service-Oriented Design: A Multi-Viewpoint Approach. International Journal of Cooperative Information Systems (IJCIS) 13(4), 337–368 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Huhns, M.N., Singh, M.P.: Service-oriented computing: Key concepts and principles. In: IEEE Internet Computing, January and February 2005, pp. 75–81 (2005)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Papazoglou, M.P.: Service-Oriented Computing: Concepts, Characteristics and Directions. In: WISE 2003. Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Web Information Systems Engineering, Roma, Italy, December 2003, pp. 3–12. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (2003)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Yang, J.: Web Service Componentization. Communications of the ACM 46(10) (2003)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    ISO/IEC: ITU.TS Recommendation X.902 | ISO/IEC 10746-1: Open Distributed Processing Reference Model - Part 1: Overview (August 1996)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Shapiro, R., Marin, M., Brunt, J., Zurek, W., Stephenson, T., Bojanic, S., Gouri, G.: Process Definition Interface – XML Process Definition Language, Version 2.0. Technical Report WFMC-TC-1025, Workflow Management Coalition, Lighthouse Point, Florida (October 2005)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Tony, A., et al.: Business Process Execution Language for Web Services Version 1.1. Technical report, BEA Systems, IBM Corp., Microsoft Corp., (2003), http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/webser-vices/library/ws-bpel/
  35. 35.
    TC, O.W.B.: WS-BPEL Specification Editors Draft (December 2005), http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/12791/wsbpel-specification-draft-May-20-2005.html
  36. 36.
    Assaf, A., et al.: Web Service Choreography Interface (WSCI) 1.0. Technical report, W3C (2002), http://www.w3.org/TR/wsci
  37. 37.
    Burdett, D., Nickolas, K. (eds.): WS Choreography Model Overview, W3C Working Draft 24 March 2004. Technical report, W3C (2004), http://www.w3.org/TR/ws-chor-model/
  38. 38.
    (OMG), O.M.G.: Model Driven Architecture. ormsc/2001-07-01 (August 2001)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Wohed, P., van der Aalst, W.M.P., Dumas, M., ter Hofstede, A.H.: Pattern Based Analysis of BPEL4WS. Technical Report FIT-TR-2002-04, QUT, Queensland University of Technology, Queensland, Australia (2002)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P., Dumas, M., ter Hofstede, A.H.M., Wohed, P.: Pattern Based Analysis of BPML (and WSCI). FIT Technical Report FIT-TR-2002-05, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia (2002)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Skogan, D., Grønmo, R., Solheim, I.: Web Service Composition in UML. In: EDOC 2004. Proceedings of the 8th IEEE Intl Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conf., Monterey, California, September 2004, pp. 47–57. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (2004)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Grønmo, R., Jaeger, M.C.: Model-Driven Methodology for Building QoS-Optimised Web Service Compositions. In: Kutvonen, L., Alonistioti, N. (eds.) DAIS 2005. LNCS, vol. 3543, pp. 68–82. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael C. Jaeger
    • 1
  1. 1.Technische Universität Berlin, FG Formal Models, Logic and Programming, Sek. FR 6-10, Franklinstrasse 28/29, D-10587 BerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations