A Fault Taxonomy for Web Service Composition

  • K. S. May Chan
  • Judith Bishop
  • Johan Steyn
  • Luciano Baresi
  • Sam Guinea
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4907)


Web services are becoming progressively popular in the building of both inter- and intra-enterprise business processes. These processes are composed from existing Web services based on defined requirements. In collecting together the services for such a composition, developers can employ languages and standards for the Web that facilitate the automation of Web service discovery, execution, composition and interoperation. However, there is no guarantee that a composition of even very good services will always work. Mechanisms are being developed to monitor a composition and to detect and recover from faults automatically. A key factor in such self-healing is to know what faults to look for. If the nature of a fault is known, the system can suggest a suitable recovery mechanism sooner. This paper proposes a novel taxonomy that captures the possible failures that can arise in Web service composition, and classifies the faults that might cause them. The taxonomy covers physical, development and interaction faults that can cause a variety of observable failures in a system’s normal operation. An important use of the taxonomy is identifying the faults that can be excluded when a failure occurs. Examples of using the taxonomy are presented.


Web services service composition fault taxonomy self-healing 


  1. 1.
    Arkin A.: Business Process Modelling Language,
  2. 2.
    Avižienis, A., Laprie, J.-C., Randell, B., Landwehr, C.: Basic Concepts and Taxonomy of Dependable and Secure Computing. IEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure Computing 1(1), 11–32 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baresi, L., Ghezzi, C., Guinea, S.: Towards Self-healing Compositions of Services. In: Krämer, B.J., Halang, W.A. (eds.) Contributions to Ubiquitous Computing. Studies in Computational Intellligence, vol. 42. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Baresi, L., Guinea, S.: Dynamo and Self-Healing BPEL Compositions. ICSE Companion, 69–70 (2007)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cardoso, J., Sheth, A.P., Miller, J.A., Arnold, J., Kochut, K.: Quality of service for workflows and Web service processes. Web Semantics 1(3), 281–308 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fan, X., Umapathy, K., Yen, J., Purao, S.: Team-based Agents for Proactive Failure Handling in Dynamic Composition of Web services. In: Proc. IEEE Intl. Conference on Web services, pp. 782–785 (2004)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fu, X., Bultan, T., Su, J.: Analysis of Interacting BPEL Web services. In: Proc. 13th ACM Intl. Conf. on the World Wide Web, pp. 621–630 (2004)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Iribarne, L.: Web Components: A comparison between Web services and software components. Colombian Journal of Computation 5(1), 47–66 (2004)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lamport, L.: Concurrent Reading and Writing of Clocks. ACM Trans. Comput. Syst. 8(4), 305–310 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ludwig, H., Gimpel, H., Dan, A., Kearney, R.D.: Template-Based Automated Service Provisioning - Supporting the Agreement-Driven Service Life-Cycle. In: Benatallah, B., Casati, F., Traverso, P. (eds.) ICSOC 2005. LNCS, vol. 3826, pp. 283–295. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mariani, L.: A Fault Taxonomy for Component-Based Software. In: Proc. Intl. Workshop on Test and Analysis of Component-Based Systems (TACoS 2003) (April 2003). Electr. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci., vol. 82(6) (2003)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Martin, D. (ed.): OWL-S 1.1 Release,
  13. 13.
    Narayanan, S., McIlraith, S.A.: Simulation, Verification and Automated Composition of Web services. In: Proc. 11th ACM Intl. Conf. on the World Wide Web, pp. 77–88 (2002)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Oasis: Web Services Business Process Execution Language Version 2.0,
  15. 15.
    Oracle BPEL Process Manager Suite 10g, OracleGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ouyang, C., Verbeek, E., van der Aalst, W.M.P., Breutel, S., Dumas, M., ter Hofstede, A.H.M.: WofBPEL: A tool for automated analysis of BPEL processes. In: Benatallah, B., Casati, F., Traverso, P. (eds.) ICSOC 2005. LNCS, vol. 3826, pp. 484–489. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Singhal, M., Shivaratri, N.G.: Advanced concepts in operating systems: distributed, database, and multiprocess operating systems. McGraw-Hill, New York (1994)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Steyn J.: Approaches to Failure and Recovery in Service Composition, Technical Report, Polelo Research Group, University of Pretoria (2006),
  19. 19.
    Tanenbaum, A.S., van Steen, M.: Distributed Systems: Principles and Paradigms. Prentice-Hall, New Jersey (2002)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Tartanoglu, F., Issarny, V., Romanovsky, A., Levy, N.: Dependability in the Web services Architecture,
  21. 21.
    Yu, T., Lin, K.: Service selection algorithms for composing complex services with multiple qoS constraints. In: Benatallah, B., Casati, F., Traverso, P. (eds.) ICSOC 2005. LNCS, vol. 3826, pp. 130–143. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • K. S. May Chan
    • 1
  • Judith Bishop
    • 1
  • Johan Steyn
    • 1
  • Luciano Baresi
    • 2
  • Sam Guinea
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of PretoriaPretoriaSouth Africa
  2. 2.Dipartimento di Elettronica e InformazionePolitecnico di MilanoMilanoItaly

Personalised recommendations