ADAPT: A Semantics-Oriented Protocol Architecture

  • Stefan Götz
  • Christian Beckel
  • Tobias Heer
  • Klaus Wehrle
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5343)


Although modularized protocol frameworks are flexible and adaptive to the increasing heterogeneity of networking environments, it remains a challenge to automatically compose communication stacks from protocol modules. The typical static classification into network layers or class hierarchies cannot appropriately accommodate cross-cutting changes such as overlay routing or cross-layer signaling.

In this paper, we discuss how protocol composition can be driven by functionality and demand at runtime based on extensible semantic models of protocols and their execution environment. Such an approach allows to reason about the functionality and quality of automatically composed and adapted protocol compounds and it is open to existing and future protocols.


Execution Environment Class Hierarchy Communication Subsystem Future Protocol Orchestration Process 
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.
    Muhugusa, M., Di Marzo, G., Tschudin, C.F., Harms, J.: ComScript: An Environment for the Implementation of Protocol Stacks and their Dynamic Reconfiguration. In: International Symposium on Applied Corporate Computing (1994)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hutchinson, N.C., Peterson, L.L.: The x-Kernel: An Architecture for Implementing Network Protocols. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 17(1) (1991)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    O’Malley, S.W., Peterson, L.L.: A Dynamic Network Architecture. ACM Trans. Comput. Syst. 10(2), 110–143 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Zitterbart, M., Stiller, B., Tantawy, A.N.: A Model for Flexible High-performance Communication Subsystems. IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications 11(4), 507–518 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Plagemann, T., Vogt, M., Plattner, B., Walter, T.: Modules as Building Blocks for Protocol Configuration. In: 1993 International Conference on Network Protocols 1993. Proceedings, pp. 106–113 (1993)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Paolucci, M., Kawamura, T., Payne, T.R., Sycara, K.P.: Semantic Matching of Web Services Capabilities. In: Horrocks, I., Hendler, J. (eds.) ISWC 2002. LNCS, vol. 2342, pp. 333–347. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Li, L., Horrocks, I.: A Software Framework for Matchmaking Based on Semantic Web Technology. In: Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on World Wide Web, New York, NY, USA, pp. 331–339 (2003)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wang, X.H., Zhang, D.Q., Gu, T., Pung, H.K.: Ontology Based Context Modeling and Reasoning Using OWL, 18–22 (2004)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Zhou, L., Pung, H.K., Ngoh, L.H., Gu, T.: Ontology Modeling of a Dynamic Protocol Stack. In: 31st IEEE Conference on Local Computer Networks, pp. 353–360. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2006)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    McGuinness, D.L., van Harmelen, F.: OWL Web Ontology Language Overview. W3C Recommendation (February 2004)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Prud’hommeaux, E., Seaborne, A.: SPARQL Query Language for RDF. W3C Recommendation (January 2008)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stefan Götz
    • 1
  • Christian Beckel
    • 1
  • Tobias Heer
    • 1
  • Klaus Wehrle
    • 1
  1. 1.Distributed Systems GroupRWTH Aachen UniversityGermany

Personalised recommendations