Verifying Interaction Protocol Compliance of Service Orchestrations

  • Andreas Schroeder
  • Philip Mayer
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5364)


An important aspect of service-oriented computing is the ability to invoke services without knowledge of the actual implementation. This requires at least a description of the service interface; better yet is a specification of the complete interaction protocol. This applies to atomic services as well as service compositions. In both cases, however, guaranteeing that a service complies with the promised interaction protocol is crucial for deadlock-free communication. In this paper, we present an analysis method and tool for verifying compliance of service orchestrations with service interaction protocols given as UML models. Our method is part of a larger suite of methods and tools for model driven development of service oriented architectures covering code generation for the Web service stack and other service platforms: MDD4SOA.


Service Composition Service Oriented Architecture Service Interface Interaction Protocol Service Orchestration 
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.
    Adler, B.T., de Alfaro, L., da Silva, L.D., Faella, M., Legay, A., Raman, V., Roy, P.: Ticc: A Tool for Interface Compatibility and Composition. In: Ball, T., Jones, R.B. (eds.) CAV 2006. LNCS, vol. 4144, pp. 59–62. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Berardi, D., Calvanese, D., De Giacomo, G., Lenzerini, M., Mecella, M.: Automatic Composition of E-Services that Export Their Behavior. In: Orlowska, M.E., Weerawarana, S., Papazoglou, M.P., Yang, J. (eds.) ICSOC 2003. LNCS, vol. 2910, pp. 43–58. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Beyer, D., Chakrabarti, A., Henzinger, T.A.: Web service interfaces. In: 14th Int. Conf. on World Wide Web, pp. 148–159. ACM, New York (2005)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Beyer, D., Chatterjee, K., Henzinger, T.A., Mang, F.Y.C.: Chic: Checker for Interface Compatibility,
  5. 5.
    Foster, H., Uchitel, S., Magee, J., Kramer, J.: Compatibility Verification for Web Service Choreography. In: 3rd Int. Conf. on Web Services, pp. 738–741. IEEE, Los Alamitos (2004)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fu, X., Bultan, T., Su, J.: Analysis of Interacting BPEL Web Services. In: 3rd Int. Conf. on Web Services, pp. 621–630. IEEE, Los Alamitos (2004)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kovács, M., Gönczy, L.: Simulation and Formal Analysis of Workflow Models. In: 5th Int. Workshop. on Graph Transformation and Visual Modeling Techniques. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, pp. 215–224. Elsevier, Amsterdam (2006)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Larsen, K., Nyman, U., Wasowski, A.: Modal I/O Automata for Interface and Product Line Theories. In: De Nicola, R. (ed.) ESOP 2007. LNCS, vol. 4421, pp. 64–79. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mayer, P., Schroeder, A., Koch, N.: UML4SOA: Model-Driven Service Orchestration. In: 12th Int. Enterprise Computing Conf. IEEE, Los Alamitos (2008)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Meredith, L.G., Bjorg, S.: Contracts and Types. Comm. ACM 46(10), 41–47 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Salan, G., Bordeaux, L., Schaerf, M.: Describing and Reasoning on Web Services Using Process Algebra. In: 3rd Int. Conf. on Web Services, pp. 43–50. IEEE, Los Alamitos (2004)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Störrle, H.: Structured Nodes in UML 2.0 Activities. Nord. J. of Comput. 11(3), 279–302 (2004)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    van der Aalst, W., Weske, M.: The P2P approach to interorganizational workflows. In: Dittrich, K.R., Geppert, A., Norrie, M.C. (eds.) CAiSE 2001. LNCS, vol. 2068, pp. 140–155. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wirsing, M., Clark, A., Gilmore, S., Hölzl, M., Knapp, A., Koch, N., Schroeder, A.: Semantic-based development of service-oriented systems. In: Najm, E., Pradat-Peyre, J.-F., Donzeau-Gouge, V.V. (eds.) FORTE 2006. LNCS, vol. 4229, pp. 24–45. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wombacher, A., Mahleko, B.: Finding trading partners to establish ad-hoc business processes. In: Meersman, R., Tari, Z., et al. (eds.) CoopIS 2002, DOA 2002, and ODBASE 2002. LNCS, vol. 2519, pp. 339–355. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andreas Schroeder
    • 1
  • Philip Mayer
    • 1
  1. 1.Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität MünchenGermany

Personalised recommendations