Model Driven Orchestration: Design for Service Compatibility

  • Georg Grossmann
  • Michael Schrefl
  • Markus Stumptner
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6395)


Service composition is a recent field that has seen a flurry of different approaches proposed towards the goal of flexible distributed heterogeneous interoperation of software systems, usually based on the expectation that such systems must be derived from higher level models rather than be coded at low level. In practice, achieving service interoperability nonetheless continues to require significant modelling approach at multiple levels, and existing formal approaches typically require the analysis of the global space of joint executions of interacting services. Based on our earlier work on providing locally checkable consistency rules for guaranteeing the behavioral consistency of inheritance hierarchies, we propose a model-driven approach for creating consistent service orchestrations. We represent service execution and interaction with a high-level model in terms of Petri-net based Behavior diagrams, provide formal criteria for service consistency that can be checked in terms of local model properties, and give a design methodology for developing services that are guaranteed to be interoperable.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Becker, K., Lopes, A., Milojicic, D., Pruyne, J., Singhal, S.: Automatically Determining Compatibility of Evolving Services. In: ICWS, pp. 161–168 (2008)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Benatallah, B., Casati, F., Toumani, F.: Representing, analysing and managing Web service protocols. DKE 58(3), 327–357 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bichler, P., Preuner, G., Schrefl, M.: Workflow Transparency. In: Olivé, À., Pastor, J.A. (eds.) CAiSE 1997. LNCS, vol. 1250, pp. 423–436. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bordeaux, L., Salaün, G., Berardi, D., Mecella, M.: When are two web services compatible? In: Shan, M.-C., Dayal, U., Hsu, M. (eds.) TES 2004. LNCS, vol. 3324, pp. 15–28. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Eshuis, R., Grefen, P.W.P.J., Till, S.: Structured Service Composition. In: Dustdar, S., Fiadeiro, J.L., Sheth, A.P. (eds.) BPM 2006. LNCS, vol. 4102, pp. 97–112. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gong, X., Liu, J., Zhang, M., Hu, J.: Formal Analysis of Services Compatibility. In: COMPSAC, pp. 243–248 (2009)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Grossmann, G., Ren, Y., Schrefl, M., Stumptner, M.: Behavior Based Integration of Composite Business Processes. In: van der Aalst, W.M.P., Benatallah, B., Casati, F., Curbera, F. (eds.) BPM 2005. LNCS, vol. 3649, pp. 186–204. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Grossmann, G., Schrefl, M., Stumptner, M.: Orchestration Modeling: Design for Service Compatibility. Technical report, UniSA, ACRC (2010),
  9. 9.
    Guermouche, N., Perrin, O., Ringeissen, C.: Timed Specification For Web Services Compatibility Analysis. Electr. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci. 200(3), 155–170 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kappel, G., Schrefl, M.: Object/Behavior Diagrams. In: Proceedings IEEE ICDE, pp. 530–539. IEEE Press, Los Alamitos (1991)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kiepuszewski, B., ter Hofstede, A.H.M., Bussler, C.J.: On Structured Workflow Modelling. In: Wangler, B., Bergman, L.D. (eds.) CAiSE 2000. LNCS, vol. 1789, pp. 431–445. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lohmann, N., Massuthe, P., Stahl, C., Weinberg, D.: Analyzing interacting WS-BPEL processes using flexible model generation. DKE 64(1) (2008)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Schrefl, M., Stumptner, M.: Behavior-consistent Specialization of Object Life Cycles. ACM TOSEM 11(1), 92–148 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Tan, W., Rao, F., Fan, Y., Zhu, J.: Compatibility analysis and mediation-aided composition for bpel services. In: Kotagiri, R., Radha Krishna, P., Mohania, M., Nantajeewarawat, E. (eds.) DASFAA 2007. LNCS, vol. 4443, pp. 1062–1065. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wombacher, A.: Decentralized Consistency Checking in Cross-organizational Workflows. In: Proc. CEC/EEE 2006, pp. 39–46 (2006)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wu, Z., Deng, S., Li, Y., Wu, J.: Computing compatibility in dynamic service composition. Knowl. Inf. Syst. 19(1), 107–129 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Zaha, J.M., Dumas, M., ter Hofstede, A.H.M., Barros, A.P., Decker, G.: Bridging Global and Local Models of Service-Oriented Systems. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part C 38(3), 302–318 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Zhou, Z.B., Bhiri, S., Gaaloul, W., Shu, L., Hauswirth, M.: Behavioral Compatibility of Web Services. In: OTM Workshops, pp. 27–28 (2008)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Georg Grossmann
    • 1
  • Michael Schrefl
    • 1
  • Markus Stumptner
    • 1
  1. 1.Advanced Computing Research CentreUniversity of South AustraliaAdelaideAustralia

Personalised recommendations