Decidability Results for Choreography Realization

  • Niels Lohmann
  • Karsten Wolf
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7084)


A service choreography defines a set of permitted sequences of message events as a specification for the interaction of services. Realizability is a fundamental sanity check for choreographies comparable to the notion of soundness for workflows.

We study several notions of realizability: partial, distributed, and complete realizability. They establish increasingly strict conditions on realizing services. We investigate decidability issues under the synchronous and asynchronous communication models. For partial realizability, we show undecidability whereas the other two problems are decidable with reasonable complexity.


Distant Event Decidability Result Regular Language Asynchronous Communication Message Sequence Chart 
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.
    Alur, R., Etessami, K., Yannakakis, M.: Inference of message sequence charts. IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 29(7), 623–633 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bultan, T., Ferguson, C., Fu, X.: A tool for choreography analysis using collaboration diagrams. In: ICWS 2009, pp. 856–863. IEEE (2009)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bultan, T., Fu, X.: Specification of realizable service conversations using collaboration diagrams. SOCA 2(1), 27–39 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Decker, G., Weske, M.: Local enforceability in interaction petri nets. In: Alonso, G., Dadam, P., Rosemann, M. (eds.) BPM 2007. LNCS, vol. 4714, pp. 305–319. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Diekert, V.: The Book of Traces. World Scientific Publishing Co., Inc., River Edge (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fu, X., Bultan, T., Su, J.: Conversation protocols: a formalism for specification and verification of reactive electronic services. Theor. Comput. Sci. 328(1-2), 19–37 (2004)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kanellakis, P.C., Smolka, S.A.: CCS expressions, finite state processes, and three problems of equivalence. Inf. Comput. 86(1), 43–68 (1990)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kavantzas, N., Burdett, D., Ritzinger, G., Lafon, Y.: Web Services Choreography Description Language Version 1.0. W3C Candidate Recommendation (November 2005),
  9. 9.
    Kazhamiakin, R., Pistore, M.: Analysis of realizability conditions for Web service choreographies. In: Najm, E., Pradat-Peyre, J.-F., Donzeau-Gouge, V.V. (eds.) FORTE 2006. LNCS, vol. 4229, pp. 61–76. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kazhamiakin, R., Pistore, M., Santuari, L.: Analysis of communication models in Web service compositions. In: WWW 2006, pp. 267–276. ACM (2006)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kleijn, H.C.M., Morin, R., Rozoy, B.: Event structures for local traces. Electr. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci. 16(2) (1998)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lohmann, N., Wolf, K.: Realizability is controllability. In: Laneve, C., Su, J. (eds.) WS-FM 2009. LNCS, vol. 6194, pp. 110–127. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mazurkiewicz, A.W.: Trace Theory. In: Brauer, W., Reisig, W., Rozenberg, G. (eds.) APN 1986. LNCS, vol. 255, pp. 279–324. Springer, Heidelberg (1987)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    OMG: Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN). FTF Beta 1 for Version 2.0, Object Management Group (2009),
  15. 15.
    Sakarovitch, J.: The “last” decision problem for rational trace languages. In: Simon, I. (ed.) LATIN 1992. LNCS, vol. 583, pp. 460–473. Springer, Heidelberg (1992)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Salaün, G., Bultan, T.: Realizability of choreographies using process algebra encodings. In: Leuschel, M., Wehrheim, H. (eds.) IFM 2009. LNCS, vol. 5423, pp. 167–182. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Su, J., Bultan, T., Fu, X., Zhao, X.: Towards a theory of web service choreographies. In: Dumas, M., Heckel, R. (eds.) WS-FM 2007. LNCS, vol. 4937, pp. 1–16. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wolf, K.: Does my service have partners? In: Jensen, K., van der Aalst, W.M.P. (eds.) ToPNoC II. LNCS, vol. 5460, pp. 152–171. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wolf, K.: Decidability issues for decentralized controllability of open nets. In: AWPN 2010. pp. 124–129. CEUR Workshop Proceedings Vol. 643, (2010)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    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

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Niels Lohmann
    • 1
  • Karsten Wolf
    • 1
  1. 1.Institut für InformatikUniversität RostockRostockGermany

Personalised recommendations