Advertisement

Enforcing Policies and Guidelines in Web Portals: A Case Study

  • Siim Karus
  • Marlon Dumas
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4832)

Abstract

Customizability is generally considered a desirable feature of web portals. However, if left uncontrolled, customizability may come at the price of lack of uniformity or lack of maintainability. Indeed, as the portal content and services evolve, they can break assumptions made in the definition of customized views. Also, uncontrolled customization may lead to certain content considered important by the web portal owners (e.g. advertisements), to not be displayed to end users. Thus, web portal customization is hindered by the need to enforce customization policies and guidelines with minimal overhead. This paper presents a case study where a combination of techniques was employed to semi-automatically enforce policies and guidelines on community-built presentation components in a web portal. The study shows that a combination of automated verification and semantics extraction techniques can reduce the amount of manual checks required to enforce these policies and guidelines.

Keywords

web portal customization policy guideline 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Armbruster, C.: Design for Evolution. White paper (1999), available at: http://chrisarmbruster.com/documents/D4E/witepapr.htm
  2. 2.
    Bennett, K., Layzell, P., Budgen, D., Brereton, P., Macaulay, L., Munro, M.: Service-Based Software: The Future for Flexible Software. In: APSEC. Proceedings of the 7th Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference, Singapore, December 2000, pp. 214–221. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2000)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Clark, J. (ed.): XSL Transformations (XSLT), W3C Recommendation (1999), http://www.w3.org/TR/xslt
  4. 4.
    Jazayeri, M.: Some Trends in Web Application Development. In: FOSE 2007. Future of Software Engineering, May 2007, pp. 199–213. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2007)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Karus, S.: Kasutajate poolt loodud XSL teisendustele esitavate nõuete spetsifitseerimine (Specifying Requirements for User-Created XSL Transformations). Bachelors Thesis, Faculty of Mathematics & Computer Science, University of Tartu, Estonia (in Estonian) (2005), http://math.ut.ee/~siim04/b2005/bak1.0_word2.doc
  6. 6.
    Karus, S.: Forward Compatible Design of Web Services Presentation Layer. Masters Thesis, Faculty of Mathematics & Computer Science, University of Tartu, Estonia (2007), http://www.cyber.ee/dokumendid/Karus.pdf/
  7. 7.
    Fundulaki, I., Marx, M.: Specifying Access Control Policies for XML Documents with XPath. In: Proceedings of the 9th ACM Symposium on Access Control Models and Technologies (SACMAT), Yorktown Heights, NY, USA, June 2004, pp. 61–69. ACM Press, New York (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Vanderdonckt, J., Beirekdar, A.: Automated Web Evaluation by Guideline Review. Journal of Web Engineering 4(2), 102–117 (2005)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Yu, J., Benatallah, B., Saint-Paul, R., Casati, F., Daniel, F., Matera, M.: A Framework for Rapid Integration of Presentation Components. In: WWW. Proceedings of the 16th International World Wide Web Conference, Banff, Alberta, Canada, May 2007, ACM Press, New York (2007)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wege, C.: Portal Server Technology. IEEE Internet Computing 6(3), 73–77 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Siim Karus
    • 1
  • Marlon Dumas
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Institute of Computer Science, University of TartuEstonia
  2. 2.Faculty of IT, Queensland University of TechnologyAustralia

Personalised recommendations