Advertisement

Requirements-Driven Collaborative Choreography Customization

  • Ayman Mahfouz
  • Leonor Barroca
  • Robin Laney
  • Bashar Nuseibeh
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5900)

Abstract

Evolving business needs call for customizing choreographed interactions. However, conventional choreography description languages provide only a partial view of the interaction. Business goals of each participant and organizational dependencies motivating the interaction are not captured in the specification of messaging. Absence of this critical business knowledge makes it hard to reason if a particular customization satisfies the goals of participants. Furthermore, there is no systematic means to assess the impact of change in one participant’s process (local view) on the choreography (global view) as well as on other participants’ processes. To this end, we argue for the benefits of representing choreography at the level of requirements motivating the interaction. We propose a framework that allows participants to collaborate on customizing choreographed interactions, while reconciling their competing business needs. To bridge the worlds of messaging and requirements, we employ an automated technique for deriving a choreography description from the customized requirements.

Keywords

Choreography Requirements Evolution Viewpoints 

References

  1. 1.
    Peltz, C.: Web Services Orchestration and Choreography. IEEE Computer 36, 46–52 (2003)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Web Services Choreography Description Language Version 1.0. W3C (2005), http://www.w3.org/TR/ws-cdl-10/
  3. 3.
    Bresciani, P., Perini, A., Giorgini, P., Giunchiglia, F., Mylopoulos, J.: Tropos: An Agent-Oriented Software Development Methodology. Journal of Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 8, 203–236 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Barros, A., Dumas, M., Oaks, P.: Standards for Web Service Choreography and Orchestration: Status and Perspectives. In: Bussler, C.J., Haller, A. (eds.) BPM 2005. LNCS, vol. 3812, pp. 61–74. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fuxman, A., Liu, L., Mylopoulos, J., Pistore, M., Roveri, M., Traverso, P.: Specifying and analyzing early requirements in Tropos. RE Journal 9, 132–150 (2004)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mahfouz, A., Barroca, L., Laney, R., Nuseibeh, B.: Customizing Choreography: Deriving Conversations from Organizational Dependencies. Presented at Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference (EDOC), Munich, Germany (2008)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mahfouz, A., Barroca, L., Laney, R., Nuseibeh, B.: From Organizational Requirements to Service Choreography. In: Congress on Services - I, pp. 546–553 (2009)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Giorgini, P., Mylopoulos, J., Nicchiarelli, E., Sebastiani, R.: Formal Reasoning Techniques for Goal Models. In: Spaccapietra, S., March, S., Aberer, K. (eds.) Journal on Data Semantics I. LNCS, vol. 2800, pp. 1–20. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dijkman, R.M., Dumas, M.: Service-Oriented Design: A Multi-Viewpoint Approach. International Journal of Cooperative Information Systems 13, 337–368 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Zaha, J. M., Dumas, M., ter Hofstede, A.H.M., Barros, A.P., Decker, G.: Service Interaction Modeling: Bridging Global and Local Views. Presented at EDOC, China (2006)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Zaha, J.M., Barros, A.P., Dumas, M., ter Hofstede, A.H.M.: Let’s Dance: A Language for Service Behavior Modeling. In: Meersman, R., Tari, Z. (eds.) OTM 2006. LNCS, vol. 4275, pp. 145–162. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mendling, J., Hafner, M.: From Inter-Organizational Workflows to Process Execution: Generating BPEL from WS-CDL. Presented at ACM / IEEE 8th International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems, Montego Bay, Jamaica (2005)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Foster, H., Uchitel, S., Magee, J., Kramer, J.: Model-based Verification of Web Service Compositions. Presented at 18th International Conference on Automated Software Engineering, ASE 2003 (2003)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Nitto, E.D., Ghezzi, C., Metzger, A., Papazoglou, M.P., Pohl, K.: A journey to highly dynamic, self-adaptive service-based applications. Automated Software Engineering 15, 313–341 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rinderle, S., Wombacher, A., Reichert, M.: On the Controlled Evolution of Process Choreographies. Presented at 22nd International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE 2006), Atlanta, GA, USA (2006)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mallya, A.U., Singh, M.P.: Incorporating Commitment Protocols into Tropos. In: Müller, J.P., Zambonelli, F. (eds.) AOSE 2005. LNCS, vol. 3950, pp. 69–80. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Telang, P.R., Singh, M.P.: Enhancing Tropos with Commitments: A Business Metamodel and Methodology. Presented at Conceptual Modeling: Foundations and Applications (2009)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Desai, N., Chopra, A.K., Singh, M.P.: Amoeba: A Methodology for Modeling and Evolution of Cross-Organizational Business Processes. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology (TOSEM) 19 (2009)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Charfi, A., Mezini, M.: Aspect-Oriented Web Service Composition with AO4BPEL. In: Zhang, L.-J., Jeckle, M. (eds.) ECOWS 2004. LNCS, vol. 3250, pp. 168–182. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Orriëns, B., Yang, J.: A Rule Driven Approach for Developing Adaptive Service Oriented Business Collaborations. Presented at IEEE International Conference on Services Computing (SCC), Chicago, Illinois, USA (2006)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kazhamiakin, R., Pistore, M., Roveri, M.: A Framework for Integrating Business Processes and Business Requirements. Presented at Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference (EDOC 2004), Monterey, California, USA (2004)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Yu, E.: Towards Modeling and Reasoning Support for Early-Phase Requirements Engineering. Presented at 3rd IEEE Int. Symp. on Requirements Engineering, Washington D.C., USA (1997)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Khallouf, J., Winikoff, M.: Goal-Oriented Design of Agent Systems: A Refinement of Prometheus and its Evaluation. International Journal Agent-Oriented Software Engineering 3, 88–112 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Traverso, P., Pistore, M., Roveri, M., Marconi, A., Kazhamiakin, R., Lucchese, P., Busetta, P., Bertoli, P.: Supporting the Negotiation between Global and Local Business Requirements in Service Oriented Development. ITC-irst, Trento, Italy (2004)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Berry, A., Milosevic, Z.: Extending Choreography With Business Contract Constraints. International Journal of Cooperative Information Systems (IJCIS) 14, 131–179 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Vitolins, V., Kalnins, A.: Semantics of UML 2.0 Activity Diagram for Business Modeling by Means of Virtual Machine. Presented at EDOC 2005, Enschede, The Netherlands (2005)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ayman Mahfouz
    • 1
  • Leonor Barroca
    • 1
  • Robin Laney
    • 1
  • Bashar Nuseibeh
    • 1
  1. 1.Computing DepartmentThe Open UniversityMilton KeynesUK

Personalised recommendations