Monitoring and Analyzing Service-Based Internet Systems through a Model-Aware Service Environment

  • Ta’id Holmes
  • Uwe Zdun
  • Florian Daniel
  • Schahram Dustdar
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6051)


As service-based Internet systems get increasingly complex they become harder to manage at design time as well as at runtime. Nowadays, many systems are described in terms of precisely specified models, e.g., in the context of model-driven development. By making the information in these models accessible at runtime, we provide better means for analyzing and monitoring the service-based systems. We propose a model-aware repository and service environment (MORSE) to support model access and evolution at both design time and runtime. MORSE focuses on enabling us to monitor, interpret, and analyze the monitored information. In an industrial case study, we demonstrate how compliance monitoring can benefit from MORSE to monitor violations at runtime and how MORSE can ease the root cause analysis of such violations. Performance and scalability evaluations show the applicability of our approach for the intended use cases and that models can be retrieved during execution at low cost.


Business Process Process Instance Eclipse Modeling Framework Industrial Case Study Compliance Rule 
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.


  1. 1.
    Mayer, P., Schroeder, A., Koch, N.: MDD4SOA: Model-driven service orchestration. In: EDOC, pp. 203–212. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2008)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Zdun, U., Hentrich, C., Dustdar, S.: Modeling process-driven and service-oriented architectures using patterns and pattern primitives. TWEB 1(3) (2007)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Skene, J., Emmerich, W.: Engineering runtime requirements-monitoring systems using mda technologies. In: De Nicola, R., Sangiorgi, D. (eds.) TGC 2005. LNCS, vol. 3705, pp. 319–333. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chowdhary, P., Bhaskaran, K., Caswell, N.S., Chang, H., Chao, T., Chen, S.K., Dikun, M.J., Lei, H., Jeng, J.J., Kapoor, S., Lang, C.A., Mihaila, G.A., Stanoi, I., Zeng, L.: Model driven development for business performance management. IBM Systems Journal 45(3), 587–606 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Völter, M., Stahl, T.: Model-Driven Software Development: Technology Engineering Management. Wiley, Chichester (2006)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bank for International Settlements: Basel II: International Convergence of Capital Measurement and Capital Standards: A Revised Framework - Comprehensive Version (June 2006), (accessed in February 2010)
  7. 7.
    Congress of the United States: Public Company Accounting Reform and Investor Protection Act (Sarbanes-Oxley Act), Pub.L. 107-204, 116 Stat. 745 (July 2002), (accessed in February 2010)
  8. 8.
    Holmes, T., Zdun, U., Dustdar, S.: MORSE: A Model-Aware Service Environment. In: Proceedings of the 4th IEEE Asia-Pacific Services Computing Conference (APSCC), December 2009, pp. 470–477. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Organization for the Advancement of Structured Information Standards: Web service business process execution language version 2.0. OASIS Standard, OASIS Web Services Business Process Execution Language (WSBPEL) TC (January 2007) (accessed in February 2010)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Feather, M., Fickas, S., van Lamsweerde, A., Ponsard, C.: Reconciling system requirements and runtime behavior. In: Proceedings of Ninth International Workshop on Software Specification and Design, April 1998, pp. 50–59 (1998)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Michelson, B.: Event-Driven Architecture Overview: Event-Driven SOA Is Just Part of the EDA Story (February 2006), (accessed in February 2010)
  12. 12.
    International Organization for Standardization: ISO/IEC 19501:2005 information technology – open distributed processing – unified modeling language (UML), v1.4.2 (April 2005), (accessed in February 2010)
  13. 13.
    The Apache Software Foundation: Apache Subversion (2000), (accessed in February 2010)
  14. 14.
    Eclipse Modeling Framework Project (EMF) (2002), (accessed in February 2010)
  15. 15.
    The Elver Project: Teneo (2005), (accessed in February 2010)
  16. 16.
    Eclipse Persistence Services Project (EclipseLink) (2008), (accessed in February 2010)
  17. 17.
    PostgreSQL Global Development Group: PostgreSQL (1997), (accessed in February 2010)
  18. 18.
    The Apache Software Foundation: Apache CXF: An Open Source Service Framework, (accessed in February 2010)
  19. 19.
    The Apache Software Foundation: Apache Maven, (accessed in February 2010)
  20. 20.
    International Telecommunication Union: ISO/IEC 9834-8 information technology – open systems interconnection – procedures for the operation of OSI registration authorities: Generation and registration of universally unique identifiers (UUIDs) and their use as ASN.1 object identifier components (September 2004), (accessed in February 2010)
  21. 21.
    Dardenne, A., van Lamsweerde, A., Fickas, S.: Goal-directed requirements acquisition. Sci. Comput. Program. 20(1-2), 3–50 (1993)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Cohen, D., Feather, M.S., Narayanaswamy, K., Fickas, S.S.: Automatic monitoring of software requirements. In: ICSE 1997: Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Software Engineering, pp. 602–603. ACM, New York (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ahluwalia, J., Krüger, I.H., Phillips, W., Meisinger, M.: Model-based run-time monitoring of end-to-end deadlines. In: Wolf, W. (ed.) EMSOFT, pp. 100–109. ACM, New York (2005)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sriplakich, P., Blanc, X., Gervais, M.P.: Supporting transparent model update in distributed case tool integration. In: Haddad, H. (ed.) SAC, pp. 1759–1766. ACM, New York (2006)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kramler, G., Kappel, G., Reiter, T., Kapsammer, E., Retschitzegger, W., Schwinger, W.: Towards a semantic infrastructure supporting model-based tool integration. In: GaMMa 2006: Proceedings of the 2006 international workshop on Global integrated model management, pp. 43–46. ACM, New York (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Altmanninger, K., Kappel, G., Kusel, A., Retschitzegger, W., Seidl, M., Schwinger, W., Wimmer, M.: AMOR – towards adaptable model versioning. In: 1st International Workshop on Model Co-Evolution and Consistency Management, in conjunction with MODELS 2008 (2008)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Brosch, P., Langer, P., Seidl, M., Wimmer, M.: Towards end-user adaptable model versioning: The by-example operation recorder. In: CVSM 2009: Proceedings of the 2009 ICSE Workshop on Comparison and Versioning of Software Models, Washington, DC, USA, pp. 55–60. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Murta, L., Corrêa, C., Prudêncio, J., Werner, C.: Towards Odyssey-VCS 2: Improvements over a UML-based version control system. In: CVSM 2008: Proceedings of the 2008 international workshop on Comparison and versioning of software models, pp. 25–30. ACM, New York (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Altmanninger, K., Seidl, M., Wimmer, M.: A survey on model versioning approaches. IJWIS 5(3), 271–304 (2009)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Brosch, P., Seidl, M., Wieland, K., Wimmer, M., Langer, P.: We can work it out: Collaborative conflict resolution in model versioning. In: ECSCW 2009: Proceedings of the 11th European Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, pp. 207–214. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ta’id Holmes
    • 1
  • Uwe Zdun
    • 1
  • Florian Daniel
    • 2
  • Schahram Dustdar
    • 1
  1. 1.Distributed Systems Group, Institute of Information SystemsVienna University of TechnologyViennaAustria
  2. 2.Information Engineering and Computer Science DepartmentUniversity of TrentoTrentoItaly

Personalised recommendations