Computational Logic for Run-Time Verification of Web Services Choreographies: Exploiting the SOCS-SI Tool

  • Marco Alberti
  • Federico Chesani
  • Marco Gavanelli
  • Evelina Lamma
  • Paola Mello
  • Marco Montali
  • Sergio Storari
  • Paolo Torroni
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4184)


In this work, we investigate the feasibility of using a framework based on computational logic, and mainly defined in the context of Multi-Agent Systems for Global Computing (SOCS UE Project), for modeling choreographies of Web Services with respect to the conversational aspect.

One of the fundamental motivations of using computational logic, beside its declarative and highly expressive nature, is given by its operational counterpart, that can provide a proof-theoretic framework able to verify the consistency of services designed in a cooperative and incremental manner.

In particular, in this paper we show that suitable “Social Integrity Constraints”, introduced in the SOCS social model, can be used for specifying global protocols at the choreography level. In this way, we can use a suitable tool, derived from the proof-procedure defined in the context of the SOCS project, to check at run-time whether a set of existing services behave in a conformant manner w.r.t. the defined choreography.


Service Orient Architecture Integrity Constraint Computational Logic Conformance Testing Business Process Modeling Notation 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Andrews, T., Curbera, F., Dholakia, H., Goland, Y., Klein, J., Leymann, F., Liu, K., Roller, D., Smith, D., Thatte, S., Trickovic, I., Weerawarana, S.: Business Process Execution Language for Web Services version 1.1 (2003), Available at:
  2. 2.
    W3C (Web services choreography description language version 1.0), Home Page:
  3. 3.
    Barros, A., Dumas, M., Oaks, P.: A critical overview of the web services choreography description language (WS-CDL), BPTrends (2005)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    van der Aalst, W., Dumas, M., ter Hofstede, A., Russell, N., Verbeek, H.M.W., Wohed, P.: Life after BPEL? In: Bravetti, M., Kloul, L., Zavattaro, G. (eds.) EPEW/WS-EM 2005. LNCS, vol. 3670, pp. 35–50. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Baldoni, M., Baroglio, C., Martelli, A., Patti, V., Schifanella, C.: Verifying the conformance of web services to global interaction protocols: A first step. In: Bravetti, M., Kloul, L., Zavattaro, G. (eds.) EPEW/WS-EM 2005. LNCS, vol. 3670, pp. 257–271. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kazhamiakin, R., Pistore, M.: A parametric communication model for the verification of bpel4ws compositions. In: EPEW/WS-FM, pp. 318–332 (2005)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    van der Aalst, W.: Business alignment: Using process mining as a tool for delta analysis and conformance testing. Requirements Engineering Journal (to appear, 2005)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ouyang, C., van der Aalst, W., Breutel, S., Dumas, M., ter Hofstede, A., Verbeek, H.: Formal semantics and analysis of control flow in ws-bpel. Technical Report BPM-05-15, (2005)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rozinat, A., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Conformance testing: Measuring the fit and appropriateness of event logs and process models. In: Bussler, C.J., Haller, A. (eds.) BPM 2005. LNCS, vol. 3812, pp. 163–176. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kakas, A.C., Kowalski, R.A., Toni, F.: Abductive Logic Programming. Journal of Logic and Computation 2(6), 719–770 (1993)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    (Societies Of ComputeeS (SOCS): a computational logic model for the description, analysis and verification of global and open societies of heterogeneous computees. IST-2001-32530), Home Page:
  12. 12.
    Alberti, M., Chesani, F., Gavanelli, M., Lamma, E., Mello, P., Torroni, P.: Compliance verification of agent interaction: a logic-based software tool. Applied Artificial Intelligence 20(2-4), 133–157 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bry, F., Eckert, M., Patranjan, P.: Reactivity on the web: Paradigms and applications of the language xchange. Journal of Web Engineering 5(1), 3–24 (2006)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lloyd, J.W.: Foundations of Logic Programming, 2nd edn. Springer, Heidelberg (1987)MATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jaffar, J., Maher, M.: Constraint logic programming: a survey. Journal of Logic Programming 19-20, 503–582 (1994)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Alberti, M., Chesani, F., Gavanelli, M., Lamma, E., Mello, P., Torroni, P.: The SOCS computational logic approach for the specification and verification of agent societies. In: Priami, C., Quaglia, P. (eds.) GC 2004. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3267, pp. 314–339. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kakas, A.C., Mancarella, P.: On the relation between Truth Maintenance and Abduction. In: Fukumura, T. (ed.) Proc. PRICAI 1990, Nagoya, Japan (Ohmsha Ltd.), pp. 438–443 (1990)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Fung, T.H., Kowalski, R.A.: The IFF proof procedure for abductive logic programming. Journal of Logic Programming 33(2), 151–165 (1997)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Denecker, M., Schreye, D.D.: SLDNFA: an abductive procedure for abductive logic programs. Journal of Logic Programming 34(2), 111–167 (1998)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gavanelli, M., Lamma, E., Mello, P.: Proof of properties of the SCIFF proof-procedure. Technical Report CS-2005-01, Computer science group, Dept. of Engineering, Ferrara University (2005),
  21. 21.
    Alberti, M., Gavanelli, M., Lamma, E., Mello, P., Torroni, P.: The sciff abductive proof-procedure. In: Bandini, S., Manzoni, S. (eds.) AI*IA 2005. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3673, pp. 135–147. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Initiative, B.P.M.: (Business process modeling notation)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Chesani, F., Ciampolini, A., Mello, P., Montali, M., Storari, S.: Testing guidelines conformance by translating a graphical language to computational logic, Workshop on AI techniques in healthcare. In: conjunction with ECAI (to appear, 2006)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Alberti, M., Chesani, F., Gavanelli, M., Lamma, E., Mello, P., Torroni, P.: Security protocols verification in abductive logic programming: A case study. In: Dikenelli, O., Gleizes, M.-P., Ricci, A. (eds.) ESAW 2005. LNCS, vol. 3963, pp. 283–295. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kazhamiakin, R., Pistore, M., Roveri, M.: Formal verification of requirements using spin: A case study on web services. In: Proc. of the Software Engineering and Formal Methods (SEFM 2004), Washington, DC, USA, pp. 406–415. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Alberti, M., Chesani, F., Gavanelli, M., Lamma, E., Mello, P., Montali, M.: An abductive framework for a-priori verification of web services. In: Maher, M. (ed.) Principles and Practice of Declarative Programming (PPDP 2006), ACM Press, New York (2006)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    (The socs protocols repository), Available at:

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marco Alberti
    • 2
  • Federico Chesani
    • 1
  • Marco Gavanelli
    • 2
  • Evelina Lamma
    • 2
  • Paola Mello
    • 1
  • Marco Montali
    • 1
  • Sergio Storari
    • 2
  • Paolo Torroni
    • 1
  1. 1.DEIS – Dipartimento di Elettronica, Informatica e Sistemistica, Facoltà di IngegneriaUniversità di BolognaBolognaItaly
  2. 2.DI – Dipartimento di Ingegneria, Facoltà di IngegneriaUniversità di FerraraFerraraItaly

Personalised recommendations