Specifying Service Composition Using UML 2.x and Composition Policies

  • Judith E. Y. Rossebø
  • Ragnhild Kobro Runde
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5301)


In the current and future service environment, service parts are being developed separately while being dynamically combined at runtime. In this paper we address the problem of defining a model-driven process for enabling dynamic composition of services. Composition policies are used to define choices in behaviour under which service roles involved in a composite service can be dynamically combined at runtime. We model policy-ruled choreography of collaboration components using a policy enforcement state machine (PESM). We also define transformation rules for translating a global PESM diagram into a set of local PESM diagrams, one for each role. As an example, we consider the case of dynamically composing an existing service with a set of authentication and authorization collaborations. The approach is supported by a formal syntax and semantics.


Service Composition Policy Rule Elementary Role Runtime System Policy Decision Point 
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. 1.
    Object Management Group: UML 2.1.2 Superstructure Specification, formal/2007-11-02 (2007)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rossebø, J.E.Y., Bræk, R.: Towards a framework of authentication and authorization patterns for ensuring availability in service composition. Technical Report 332, Dept. of Inf., Univ. of Oslo (2007)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rossebø, J.E.Y., Bræk, R.: Using composition policies to manage authentication and authorization patterns and services. In: Proc. Availability, Reliability and Security (ARES 2008), pp. 597–603. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (2008)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Damianou, N., Dulay, N., Lupu, E., Sloman, M.: The ponder policy specification language. In: Sloman, M., Lobo, J., Lupu, E.C. (eds.) POLICY 2001. LNCS, vol. 1995, pp. 18–39. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    International Telecommunication Union: ITU-T Recommendation Z.150, User Requirements Notation (URN) – Language Requirements and Framework (2003)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Amyot, D., Becca, H., Bræk, R., Rossebø, J.E.Y.: Next generation service engineering. In: Proc. ITU-T NGN Kaleidoscope Conference. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (to appear)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Haugen, Ø., Husa, K.E., Runde, R.K., Stølen, K.: STAIRS towards formal design with sequence diagrams. Software and Systems Modeling 4(4), 349–458 (2005)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Runde, R.K.: STAIRS — Understanding and Developing Specifications Expressed as UML Interaction Diagrams. PhD thesis, Univ. of Oslo (2007)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sanders, R.T.: Collaborations, Semantic Interfaces and Service Goals: a way forward for Service Engineering. PhD thesis, NTNU (2007)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Floch, J., Bræk, R.: A compositional approach to service validation. In: Prinz, A., Reed, R., Reed, J. (eds.) SDL 2005. LNCS, vol. 3530, pp. 281–297. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Engelhardtsen, F.B., Prinz, A.: Application of stuck-free conformance to service-role composition. In: Gotzhein, R., Reed, R. (eds.) SAM 2006. LNCS, vol. 4320, pp. 115–132. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Widom, J., Ceri, S. (eds.): Active Database Systems: Triggers and Rules For Advanced Database Processing. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (1996)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rossebø, J.E.Y., Runde, R.K.: Specifying service composition using UML 2.x and composition policies. Technical report, Dept. of Inf., Univ. of Oslo (to appear)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Keeney, J.: Completely Unanticipated Dynamic Adaptation of Software. PhD thesis, Trinity College, Univ. of Dublin (2004)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sanders, R.T., Castejón, H.N., Kraemer, F., Bræk, R.: Using UML 2.0 collaborations for compositional service specification. In: Briand, L.C., Williams, C. (eds.) MoDELS 2005. LNCS, vol. 3713, pp. 460–475. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Castejón, H.N., Bræk, R., von Bochmann, G.: Realizability of collaboration-based service specifications. In: Proc. Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference (APSEC 2007), pp. 73–80. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kraemer, F.A., Herrmann, P., Bræk, R.: Synthesizing components with sessions from collaboration-oriented service specifications. In: Gaudin, E., Najm, E., Reed, R. (eds.) SDL 2007. LNCS, vol. 4745, pp. 166–185. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kavantzas, N., Burdett, D., Ritzinger, G., Fletcher, T., Lafon, Y., Barreto, C.: WS-CDL version 1.0 (2005), http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/CR-ws-cdl-10-20051109/
  19. 19.
    Kramler, G., Kapsammer, E., Retschitzegger, W., Kappel, G.: Towards using UML 2 for modelling web service collaboration protocols. In: INTEROP-ESA 2005. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Chun, S.A., Atluri, V., Adam, N.R.: Policy-based web service composition. In: Proc. Research Issues on Data Engineering (RIDE 2004), pp. 85–92. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (2004)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Fujii, K., Suda, T.: Dynamic service composition using semantic information. In: Proc. Intl. Conf. on Service Oriented Computing (ICSOC 2004), pp. 39–48. ACM Press, New York (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Yang, J., Papazoglou, M.P., Orriens, B., van den Heuvel, W.-J.: A rule based approach to the service composition life-cycle. In: Proc. Web Information Systems Engineering (WISE 2003), pp. 295–298. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (2003)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Reddy, Y.R., Ghosh, S., France, R.B., Straw, G., Bieman, J.M., McEachen, N., Song, E., Georg, G.: Directives for composing aspect-oriented design class models. In: Rashid, A., Akşit, M. (eds.) Transactions on Aspect-Oriented Software Development I. LNCS, vol. 3880, pp. 75–105. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Clarke, S., Walker, R.J.: Towards a standard design language for AOSD. In: Proc. Intl. Conf. on Aspect-Oriented Software Development (AOSD 2002), pp. 113–119. ACM Press, New York (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Judith E. Y. Rossebø
    • 1
    • 2
  • Ragnhild Kobro Runde
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of TelematicsNTNUNorway
  2. 2.Telenor R&INorway
  3. 3.Department of InformaticsUniversity of OsloNorway

Personalised recommendations