Chapter 5: From Mashup Technologies to Universal Integration: Search Computing the Imperative Way

  • Florian Daniel
  • Stefano Soi
  • Fabio Casati
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5950)


Mashups, i.e., web applications that are developed by integrating data, application logic, and user interfaces sourced from the Web, represent one of the innovations that characterize Web 2.0. Novel content wrapping technologies, the availability of so-called web APIs (e.g., web services), and the increasing sophistication of mashup tools allow also the less skilled programmer (or even the average web user) to compose personal applications on the Web. In many cases, such applications also feature search capabilities, achieved by explicitly integrating search services, such as Google or Yahoo!, into the overall logic of the composite application.

In this chapter, we first overview the state of the art in mashup development by looking at which technologies a mashup developer should master and which instruments exist that facilitate the overall development process. Then we specifically focus on our own mashup platform, mashArt, and discuss its approach to what we call universal integration, i.e., integration at the data, application, and user interface layer inside one and the same mashup environment. To better explain the novel ideas of the platform and its value in the context of search computing, we discuss an example inspired by the idea of search computing.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Yu, J., Benatallah, B., Casati, F., Daniel, F.: Understanding Mashup Development and its Differences with Traditional Integration. Internet Computing 12(5), 44–52 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    OASIS. Web Services for Remote Portlets (August 2003),
  3. 3.
    Yu, J., Benatallah, B., Saint-Paul, R., Casati, F., Daniel, F., Matera, M.: A Framework for Rapid Integration of Presentation Components. In: WWW 2007, pp. 923–932 (2007)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Alonso, G., Casati, F., Kuno, H., Machiraju, V.: Web Services: Concepts, Architectures and Applications. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)MATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dustdar, S., Schreiner, W.: A survey on web services composition. Int. J. Web Grid Services 1(1), 1–30 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    OASIS. Web Services Business Process Execution Language Version 2.0 (April 2007),
  7. 7.
    Pautasso, C.: BPEL for REST. In: Dumas, M., Reichert, M., Shan, M.-C. (eds.) BPM 2008. LNCS, vol. 5240, pp. 278–293. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    van Lessen, T., Leymann, F., Mietzner, R., Nitzsche, J., Schleicher, D.: A Management Framework for WS-BPEL. In: ECoWS 2008, Dublin (2008)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Curbera, F., Duftler, M.J., Khalaf, R., Lovell, D.: Bite: Workflow Composition for the Web. In: Krämer, B.J., Lin, K.-J., Narasimhan, P. (eds.) ICSOC 2007. LNCS, vol. 4749, pp. 94–106. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Maximilien, E.M., Ranabahu, A., Gomadam, K.: An Online Platform for Web APIs and Service Mashups. Internet Computing 12(5), 32–43 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Braga, D., Ceri, S., Daniel, F., Martinenghi, D.: Optimization of Multi-Domain Queries on the Web. In: VLDB 2008, Auckland, pp. 562–573 (2008)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Daniel, F., Yu, J., Benatallah, B., Casati, F., Matera, M., Saint-Paul, R.: Understanding UI Integration - A Survey of Problems, Technologies, and Opportunities. IEEE Internet Computing, 59–66 (May 2007)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Microsoft Corporation. Smart Client - Composite UI Application Block (December 2005),
  14. 14.
    The Eclipse Foundation. Rich Client Platform (October 2008),
  15. 15.
    Sun Microsystems. JSR-000168 Portlet Specification (October 2003),
  16. 16.
    Acerbis, R., Bongio, A., Brambilla, M., Butti, S., Ceri, S., Fraternali, P.: Web Applications Design and Development with WebML and WebRatio 5.0. TOOLS (46), 392–411 (2008)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gómez, J., Bia, A., Parraga, A.: Tool Support for Model-Driven Development of Web Applications. In: Ngu, A.H.H., Kitsuregawa, M., Neuhold, E.J., Chung, J.-Y., Sheng, Q.Z. (eds.) WISE 2005. LNCS, vol. 3806, pp. 721–730. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Braga, D., Ceri, S., Daniel, F., Martinenghi, D.: Optimization of Multi-Domain Queries on the Web. In: VLDB 2008, Auckland, New Zealand, August 2008, pp. 562–573 (2008)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Daniel, F., Casati, F., Benatallah, B., Shan, M.-C.: Hosted Universal Composition: Models, Languages and Infrastructure in mashArt. In: Laender, A.H.F., et al. (eds.) ER 2009. LNCS, vol. 5829, pp. 428–443. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Fielding, R.T.: Architectural Styles and the Design of Network-based Software Architectures. University of California, Irvine, Dissertation (2000),
  21. 21.
    Abiteboul, S., Manolescu, I., Zoupanos, S.: OptimAX: efficient support for data-intensive mash-ups. In: ICDE 2008, pp. 1564–1567 (2008)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Florian Daniel
    • 1
  • Stefano Soi
    • 1
  • Fabio Casati
    • 1
  1. 1.University of TrentoTrentoItaly

Personalised recommendations