Advertisement

Compliance Preorders for Web Services

  • Michele Bugliesi
  • Damiano Macedonio
  • Luca Pino
  • Sabina Rossi
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6194)

Abstract

Compliance is a basic property of web-service architectures that ensures the absence of deadlocks and livelocks during execution. Following recent attempts in the literature, we interpret compliance as an experiment, much like the experiments made by a test process in testing theories, and use it as the basis for a notion of compliance preserving substitution of components within a composition of web services.

We review the different notions of compliance in the literature, analyze their relative strengths and weaknesses, and formalize their inter-relationships by providing a uniform formal framework where we reconcile the different perspectives that characterize them.

Keywords

Service Composition Label Transition System Process Algebra Session Type Maximal Computation 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Berardi, D., Calvanese, D., De Giacomo, G., Lenzerini, M., Mecella, M.: Automatic service composition based on behavioral descriptions. Int. J. Cooperative Inf. Syst. 14(4), 333–376 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bernardi, G., Bugliesi, M., Macedonio, D., Rossi, S.: A theory of adaptable contract-based service composition. In: Global Comp. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2008)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bravetti, M., Zavattaro, G.: Contract based multi-party service composition. In: Arbab, F., Sirjani, M. (eds.) FSEN 2007. LNCS, vol. 4767, pp. 207–222. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bravetti, M., Zavattaro, G.: Towards a unifying theory for choreography conformance and contract compliance. In: Lumpe, M., Vanderperren, W. (eds.) SC 2007. LNCS, vol. 4829, pp. 34–50. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Caires, L., Vieira, H.T.: Conversation types. In: Castagna, G. (ed.) ESOP 2009. LNCS, vol. 5502, pp. 285–300. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Carbone, M., Honda, K., Yoshida, N.: Structured communication-centred programming for web services. In: De Nicola, R. (ed.) ESOP 2007. LNCS, vol. 4421, pp. 2–17. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Carpineti, S., Castagna, G., Laneve, C., Padovani, L.: A formal account of contracts for web services. In: Bravetti, M., Núñez, M., Zavattaro, G. (eds.) WS-FM 2006. LNCS, vol. 4184, pp. 148–162. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Castagna, G., Gesbert, N., Padovani, L.: A theory of contracts for web services. In: POPL 2008, pp. 261–272. ACM Press, New York (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Castagna, G., Gesbert, N., Padovani, L.: A theory of contracts for web services. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems (to appear, 2009)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    De Giacomo, G., Sardiña, S.: Automatic synthesis of new behaviors from a library of available behaviors. In: Veloso, M.M. (ed.) IJCAI, pp. 1866–1871 (2007)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Honda, K., Vasconcelos, V., Kubo, M.: Language primitives and type discipline for structured communication-based programming. In: Hankin, C. (ed.) ESOP 1998. LNCS, vol. 1381, pp. 122–138. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Honda, K., Yoshida, N., Carbone, M.: Multiparty asynchronous session types. In: POPL 2008, pp. 273–284. ACM Press, New York (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Laneve, C., Padovani, L.: The must preorder revisited. In: Caires, L., Vasconcelos, V.T. (eds.) CONCUR 2007. LNCS, vol. 4703, pp. 212–225. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Milner, R.: Communication and Concurrency. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1989)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    De Nicola, R., Hennessy, M.: Testing equivalences for processes. Theoretical Computer Science 34, 83–133 (1984)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Pierce, B.C., Sangiorgi, D.: Typing and subtyping for mobile processes. Mathematical Structures in Computer Science 6(5), 409–453 (1996)zbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rensink, A., Vogler, W.: Fair testing. Information and Computation 205(2), 125–198 (2007)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Traverso, P., Pistore, M.: Automated composition of semantic web services into executable processes. In: McIlraith, S.A., Plexousakis, D., van Harmelen, F. (eds.) ISWC 2004. LNCS, vol. 3298, pp. 380–394. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michele Bugliesi
    • 1
  • Damiano Macedonio
    • 1
  • Luca Pino
    • 1
  • Sabina Rossi
    • 1
  1. 1.Dipartimento di InformaticaUniversità Ca’ Foscari Venezia 

Personalised recommendations