Advertisement

An Abstract Interaction Concept for Designing Interaction Behaviour of Service Compositions

  • Teduh Dirgahayu
  • Dick Quartel
  • Marten van Sinderen

Abstract

In a service composition, interaction behaviour specifies an information exchange protocol that must be complied with in order to guarantee interoperability between services. Interaction behaviour can be designed using a top-down design approach utilising high abstraction levels to control its design complexity. However, current interaction design concepts that merely represent interaction mechanisms supported by communication middleware force designers to design interaction behaviour close to an implementation level. Such design concepts cannot be used for designing interaction behaviour at high abstraction levels. Designers need an interaction design concept that is able to model interactions in an abstract way. In this paper we present such a design concept called abstract interaction. We show the suitability of our abstract interaction concept for designing interaction behaviour at high abstraction levels by comparing it to BPMN interaction concept in an example.

Keywords

Enterprise modeling for interoperability Modelling methods tools and frameworks for (networked) enterprises Service oriented Architectures for interoperability 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    Baresi L, Heckel R, Thöne S, Varró D, (2003) Modeling and validation of service-oriented architectures: application vs. style. Proc. 9th European Software Engineering Conf.: 68–77Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    Benatallah B, Dijkman RM., Dumas M, Maamar Z, (2005) Service Composition: Concepts, Techniques, Tools and Trends. Service-Oriented Software Engineering: Challenges and Practices. Idea Group, Inc.: 48–66Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    Curbera F, Khalaf R, Mukhi N, Tai S, Weerawarana S, (2003) The Next Step in Web Services. Communications of the ACM 46(10): 24–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. [4]
    Dijkman R, Dumas M, (2004) Service-Oriented Design: A Multi-Viewpoint Approach. International Journal of Cooperative Information Systems 13(4): 337–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. [5]
    Dijkman RM, (2006) Choreography-Based Design of Business Collaborations. BETA Working Paper WP-188, Eindhoven University of TechnologyGoogle Scholar
  6. [6]
    Emig C, Weisser J, Abeck S, (2006) Development of SOA-Based Software Systems-an Evolutionary Programming Approach. Proc. Advanced Intl. Conf. on Telecommunications and Intl. Conf. on Internet and Web Applications and Services: 182–187Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    Hamadi R, Benatallah B, (2003) A Petri Net-Based Model for Web Service Composition. Proc. 14pth Australasian Database Conf.: 191–200Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    Kramler G, Kapsammer E, Retschitzegger W, Kappel G, (2006) Towards Using UML 2 for Modelling Web Service Collaboration Protocols. Interoperability of Enterprise Software and Applications, Springer: 227–238Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    Leymann F, Roller D, Schmidt M-T, (2002) Web Services and Business Process Management. IBM Systems Journal 41(2): 198–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. [10]
    Millard DE, Howard Y, Jam E-R, Chennupati S, Davis HC, Gilbert L, Wills GB, (2006) FREMA Method for describing Web Services in a Service-Oriented Architecture. Technical Report ECSTR-IAM06-002, University of SouthamptonGoogle Scholar
  11. [11]
    OMG, (2001) Model Driven Architecture (MDA). ormsoc/2001-07-01Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    OMG, (2006) Business Process Modeling Notation (BPMN) Specification. dtc/06-02-01Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    OMG, (2007) Unified Modeling Language: Superstructure version 2.1.1. formal/2007-02-03Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    Peltz C, (2003) Web Services Orchestration and Choreography. IEEE Computer 36(8): 46–52Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    Peterson JL, (1981) Petri Net Theory and the Modeling of Systems. Prentice-HallGoogle Scholar
  16. [16]
    Quartel D, Dijkman R, van Sinderen M, (2004) Methodological support for service-oriented design with ISDL. Proc. 2nd Intl. Conf. on Service Oriented Computing: 1–10Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    Quartel D, Ferreira Pires L, van Sinderen M, (2002) On Architectural Support for Behaviour Refinement in Distributed Systems Design. Journal of Integrated Design and Process Science 6(1): 1–30Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    Quartel DAC, Steen MWA, Pokraev S, van Sinderen MJ, (2007) COSMO: A Conceptual Framework for Service Modelling and Refinement. Information Systems Frontiers 9: 225–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. [19]
    Skogan D, Grønmo R, Solheim I, (2004) Web service composition in UML. Proc. 8th IEEE Intl. Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conf.: 47–57Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    Thöne S, Depke R, Engels G, (2003) Process-Oriented, Flexible Composition of Web Services with UML. LNCS 2784: 390–401Google Scholar
  21. [21]
    White SA, (2005) Using BPMN to Model a BPEL Process. BPTrends 3(3): 1–18Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    Zaha JM, Dumas M, ter Hofstede A, Barros A, Decker G, (2006) Service Interaction Modeling: Bridging Global and Local View. Proc. 10th IEEE Intl. EDOC Conf.: 45–55Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Teduh Dirgahayu
    • 1
  • Dick Quartel
    • 2
  • Marten van Sinderen
    • 1
  1. 1.Centre for Telematics and Information Technology (CTIT)University of TwenteEnschedeThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Telematica InstituutEnschedeThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations