Turning Web Applications into Mashup Components: Issues, Models, and Solutions

  • Florian Daniel
  • Maristella Matera
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5648)


Sometimes it looks like development for Web 2.0 is completely detached from the “traditional” world of web engineering. It is true that Web 2.0 introduced new and powerful instruments such as tags, micro formats, RESTful services, and light-weight programming models, which ease web development. However, it is also true that they didn’t really substitute conventional practices such as component-based development and conceptual modeling.

Traditional web engineering is still needed, especially when it comes to developing components for mashups, i.e., components such as web services or UI components that are meant to be combined, possibly by web users who are not skilled programmers. We argue that mashup components do not substantially differ from common web applications and that, hence, they might benefit from traditional web engineering methods and instruments. As a bridge toward Web 2.0, in this paper we show how, thanks to the adoption of suitable models and abstractions, generic web applications can comfortably be turned into mashup components.


User Interface Component Component Event RESTful Service Policy Component Compliance Expert 
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.
    Yu, J., Benatallah, B., Casati, F., Daniel, F.: Understanding UI Integration: A survey of problems, technologies. Internet Computing 12, 44–52 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Yahoo!: Pipes (2009),
  3. 3.
    Google: Google Mashup Editor (2009),
  4. 4.
    Ennals, R., Garofalakis, M.N.: MashMaker: Mashups for the Masses. In: Chan, C.Y., Ooi, B.C., Zhou, A. (eds.) SIGMOD Conference, pp. 1116–1118. ACM, New York (2007)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Intel: MahMaker (2009),
  6. 6.
    Microsoft: Popfly (2009),
  7. 7.
  8. 8.
    Yu, J., Benatallah, B., Saint-Paul, R., Casati, F., Daniel, F., Matera, M.: A Framework for Rapid Integration of Presentation Components. In: Proc. of WWW 2007, pp. 923–932. ACM Press, New York (2007)Google Scholar
  9. 9. Microformats (2009),
  10. 10.
    Ceri, S., Fraternali, P., Bongio, A., Brambilla, M., Comai, S., Matera, M.: Designing Data-Intensive Web Applications. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc, San Francisco (2002)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Makela, E., Viljanen, K., Alm, O., Tuominen, J., Valkeapaa, O., Kauppinen, T., Kurki, J., Sinkkila, R., Kansala, T., Lindroos, R., Suominen, O., Ruotsalo, T., Hyvonen, E.: Enabling the Semantic Web with Ready-to-Use Mash-Up Components. In: First Industrial Results of Semantic Technologies (2007)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Benslimane, D., Dustdar, S., Sheth, A.: Services Mashups: The New Generation of Web Applications. IEEE Internet Computing 12, 13–15 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tummarello, G., Morbidoni, C., Nucci, M., Panzarino, O.: Brainlets: ”instant” Semantic Web applications. In: Proc. of the 2nd Workshop on Scripting for the Semantic Web (2006)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Florian Daniel
    • 1
  • Maristella Matera
    • 2
  1. 1.University of TrentoPovo (TN)Italy
  2. 2.Politecnico di Milano - DEIMilanoItaly

Personalised recommendations