Advertisement

Distributed Workflows: The OpenKnowledge Experience

  • Paolo Besana
  • Vivek Patkar
  • David Glasspool
  • Dave Robertson
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5333)

Abstract

Software systems are becoming ever more complex, and one source of complexity lies in integrating heterogeneous subsystems. Service Oriented Architectures are part of the answer: they decouple the components of the system. However normally SOA is used from a centralised perspective: a single process invokes remote services, unaware of being part of a workflow. We claim that the centralised, or orchestration-based, approach cannot scale well with increasing complexity and heterogeneity of the components, and we propose an alternative distributed, or choreography-based, approach, that forces developers to think in terms of actors, roles and interactions. We first present the OpenKnowledge framework, designed according to choreography-based principles and then show how a complex, distributed model for managing the triple assessment of patients suspected with breast cancer can be easily implemented using this framework.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Garg, A.X., Adhikari, N.K., McDonald, H., Rosas-Arellano, M., Devereaux, P.J., Beyene, J., Sam, J., Haynes, R.B.: Effects of computerised clinical decision support systems on practictioner performance and patient outcome: a systematic review. JAMA 293, 1223–1238 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Besana, P., Robertson, D.: How service choreography statistics reduce the ontology mapping problem. In: Aberer, K., Choi, K.-S., Noy, N., Allemang, D., Lee, K.-I., Nixon, L., Golbeck, J., Mika, P., Maynard, D., Mizoguchi, R., Schreiber, G., Cudré-Mauroux, P. (eds.) ASWC 2007 and ISWC 2007. LNCS, vol. 4825, pp. 44–57. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Giunchiglia, F., Yatskevich, M., McNeill, F.: Structure preserving semantic matching. In: Proceedings of the ISWC+ASWC International workshop on Ontology Matching (OM), Busan, KR (2007)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    McNeill, F., Shvaiko, P., Pane, J., Giunchiglia, F., Yatskevich, M., Besana, P.: Approximate structure preserving semantic matching. In: ECAI 2008 (2008)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kotoulas, S., Siebes, R.: Deliverable 2.2: Adaptive routing in structured peer-to-peer overlays. Technical report, OpenKnowledgeGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Patkar, V., Hurt, C., Steele, R., Purushotham, A., Williams, M., Thomson, R., Fox, J.: Evidence-based guidelines and decision support services: a discussion and evaluation in triple assessment of suspected breast cancer. British Journal of Cancer 95, 1490–1496 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Robertson, D.: Multi-agent coordination as distributed logic programming. In: International Conference on Logic Programming, Sant-Malo, France (2004)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Robertson, D., Walton, C., Barker, A., Besana, P., Chen-Burger, Y., Hassan, F., Lambert, D., Li, G., McGinnis, J., Osman, N., Bundy, A., McNeill, F., van Harmelen, F., Sierra, C., Giunchiglia, F.: Models of interaction as a grounding for peer to peer knowledge sharing. In: Advances in Web Semantics, vol. 1 (in press)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Siebes, R., Dupplaw, D., Kotoulas, S., Perreau de Pinninck, A., van Harmelen, F., Robertson, D.: The openknowledge system: an interaction-centered approach to knowledge sharing. In: Proceedings of the 15th Intl. Conference on Cooperative Information Systems, CoopIS (2007)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    var der Aalst, W.M.P., Aldred, L., Dumas, M., ter Hofstede, A.H.M.: Design and implementation of the yawl system. In: Persson, A., Stirna, J. (eds.) CAiSE 2004, vol. 3084, pp. 142–159. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paolo Besana
    • 1
  • Vivek Patkar
    • 2
  • David Glasspool
    • 1
  • Dave Robertson
    • 1
  1. 1.University of EdinburghUK
  2. 2.UCL Department of OncologyUK

Personalised recommendations