Advertisement

webAppOS: Creating the Illusion of a Single Computer for Web Application Developers

  • Sergejs KozlovičsEmail author
Conference paper
  • 36 Downloads
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 399)

Abstract

Unlike traditional single-PC applications, which have access to directly attached computational resources (CPUs, memory, and I/O devices), web applications have to deal with the resources scattered across the network. Besides, web applications are intended to be accessed by multiple users simultaneously. That not only requires a more sophisticated infrastructure but also brings new challenges to web application developers.

The webAppOS platform is an operating system analog for web applications. It factors out the network and provides the illusion of a single computer, the “web computer”. That illusion allows web application developers to focus on business logic and create web applications faster. Besides, webAppOS standardizes many aspects of web applications and has the potential to become a universal environment for them.

Keywords

Web computer Web applications Web application operating system webAppOS Web application platform 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The work has been supported by European Regional Development Fund within the project #1.1.1.2/16/I/001, application #1.1.1.2/VIAA/1/16/214 “Model-Based Web Application Infrastructure with Cloud Technology Support”.

References

  1. 1.
    Andrews, M., Whittaker, J.A.: How to Break Web Software: Functional and Security Testing of Web Applications and Web Services. Addison-Wesley Professional, Boston (2006)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Barzdins, J., Barzdins, G., Cerans, K., Liepins, R., Sprogis, A.: OWLGrEd: a UML style graphical notation and editor for OWL 2. In: Proceedings of OWLED 2010 (2010)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Corno, F., Farinetti, L.: Logic and reasoning in the semantic web (Part II - OWL). Materials for the “1LHVIU - Semantic Web: Technologies, Tools, Applications” course at Politecnico di Torino, Dipartimento di Automatica e Informatica (2012). http://elite.polito.it/files/courses/01LHV/2012/7-OWLreasoning.pdf
  4. 4.
    Dudáš, M., Lohmann, S., Svátek, V., Pavlov, D.: Ontology visualization methods and tools: a survey of the state of the art. Knowl. Eng. Rev. 33, e10 (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0269888918000073CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kegel, D.: The C10K problem. http://www.kegel.com/c10k.html
  6. 6.
    Kozlovics, S.: Calculating the layout for dialog windows specified as models. In: Scientific Papers, University of Latvia, vol. 787, pp. 106–124 (2012)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kozlovičs, S.: Efficient model repository for web applications. In: Lupeikiene, A., Vasilecas, O., Dzemyda, G. (eds.) DB&IS 2018. CCIS, vol. 838, pp. 216–230. Springer, Cham (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-97571-9_18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kozlovičs, S.: Fast model repository as memory for web applications. Databases Inf. Syst. X 315, 176–191 (2019)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kozlovičs, S.: The web computer and its operating system: a new approach for creating web applications. In: Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Web Information Systems and Technologies (2019).  https://doi.org/10.5220/0008053800460057
  10. 10.
    Lawton, G.: Moving the OS to the web. Computer 41(3), 16–19 (2008).  https://doi.org/10.1109/MC.2008.94
  11. 11.
    Object Management Group: OMG Meta Object Facility (MOF) Core Specification Version 2.4.1 (2011)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ovčinnikova, J., Čerāns, K.: Advanced UML style visualization of OWL ontologies. In: Proceedings of the Second International Workshop on Visualization and Interaction for Ontologies and Linked Data co-located with the 15th International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC 2016) CEUR 1704, pp. 136–142 (2016)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Pitt, E., McNiff, K.: Java.Rmi: The Remote Method Invocation Guide. Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., Boston (2001)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sprogis, A.: ajoo: WEB based framework for domain specific modeling tools. In: Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications Volume 291: Databases and Information Systems IX (2016)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Stallman, R.: Who does that server really serve? (2010). http://www.bostonreview.net/richard-stallman-free-software-DRM
  16. 16.
    Steinberg, D., Budinsky, F., Paternostro, M., Merks, E.: EMF: Eclipse Modeling Framework, 2nd edn. Addison-Wesley, Boston (2008)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Tozzi, C.: For Fun and Profit: A History of the Free and Open Source Software Revolution. The MIT Press, Cambridge (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    W3C: OWL Web Ontology Language reference (2004). http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-ref/
  19. 19.
    W3C: OWL 2 Web Ontology Language Document Overview, 2nd edn. (2012). http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-overview/
  20. 20.
    W3C: RDF Vocabulary Description Language 1.0: RDF Schema (2014). http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/
  21. 21.
    W3C: Resource Description Framework (2014). http://www.w3.org/RDF/

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Mathematics and Computer ScienceUniversity of LatviaRigaLatvia

Personalised recommendations