Advertisement

Implicit vs. Explicit Data-Flow Requirements in Web Service Composition Goals

  • Annapaola Marconi
  • Marco Pistore
  • Paolo Traverso
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4294)

Abstract

In this paper we compare two different approaches to specify data-flow requirements in Web service composition problems, i.e., requirements on data that are exchanged among component services. Implicit data-flow requirements are a set of rules that specify how the functions computed by the component services are to be combined by the composite service. They implicitly define the required constraints among exchanged data. Explicit data-flow requirements are a set of explicit specifications on how the composition should manipulate messages and route them from/to components. In the paper, we compare these two approaches through an experimental evaluation, both from the point of view of efficiency and scalability and from that of practical usability.

Keywords

Component Service Composite Service Composite Process Composition Domain Automate Synthesis 
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.
    Hull, R., Benedikt, M., Christophides, V., Su, J.: E-Services: A Look Behind the Curtain. In: Proc. PODS 2003 (2003)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Andrews, T., Curbera, F., Dolakia, H., Goland, J., Klein, J., Leymann, F., Liu, K., Roller, D., Smith, D., Thatte, S., Trickovic, I., Weeravarana, S.: Business Process Execution Language for Web Services, version 1.1 (2003)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Berardi, D., Calvanese, D., Giacomo, G.D., Mecella, M.: Composition of Services with Nondeterministic Observable Behaviour. In: Benatallah, B., Casati, F., Traverso, P. (eds.) ICSOC 2005. LNCS, vol. 3826, pp. 520–526. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brogi, A., Popescu, R.: Towards Semi-automated Workflow-Based Aggregation of Web Services. In: Benatallah, B., Casati, F., Traverso, P. (eds.) ICSOC 2005. LNCS, vol. 3826, pp. 214–227. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Pistore, M., Traverso, P., Bertoli, P., Marconi, A.: Automated Synthesis of Composite BPEL4WSWeb Services. In: Proc. ICWS (2005)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Pistore, M., Traverso, P., Bertoli, P.: Automated Composition of Web Services by Planning in Asynchronous Domains. In: Proc. ICAPS 2005 (2005)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Pistore, M., Marconi, A., Traverso, P., Bertoli, P.: Automated Composition of Web Services by Planning at the Knowledge Level. In: Proc. IJCAI 2005 (2005)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Marconi, A., Pistore, M., Traverso, P.: Specifying Data-Flow Requirements for the Automated Composition of Web Services. In: Proc. SEFM 2006 (2006)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pistore, M., Spalazzi, L., Traverso, P.: A Minimalist Approach to Semantic Annotations of Web Processes. In: Gómez-Pérez, A., Euzenat, J. (eds.) ESWC 2005. LNCS, vol. 3532. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    McIlraith, S., Son, S.: Adapting Golog for Composition of SemanticWeb Services. In: Proc. KR 2002 (2002)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ponnekanti, S., Fox, A.: SWORD: A Developer Toolkit for Web Service Composition. In: Proc. WWW 2002 (2002)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Annapaola Marconi
    • 1
  • Marco Pistore
    • 1
  • Paolo Traverso
    • 1
  1. 1.ITC-irstTrentoItaly

Personalised recommendations