Managing Non-Functional Properties of Inter-enterprise Business Service Delivery

  • Toni Ruokolainen
  • Lea Kutvonen
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4907)


In inter-enterprise business service collaborations management of non-functional properties has become a fundamental issue as business management and computing infrastructures are expected to align more closely. Already, service-oriented computing emphasizes dynamic binding between the functional elements participating in service collaborations and late encapsulation of properties on them. In such environments, the non-functional service properties are used a) as selection criteria during service discovery and b) as parts of collaboration contracts and service-level agreements in particular.

This paper contributes to the conceptualisation of non-functional properties in the context of service-oriented computing. The nature of non-functional properties is elaborated by metamodels that formalize the concepts and provide facilities for the management of non-functional properties during design time and run time.


Business Service Graph Transformation Legal Entity Aspect Model Object Management Group 
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.
    Kutvonen, L.: Roadmap for the non-functional aspect management in inter-enterprise collaborations (submitted, 2007) (manuscript)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Köllmann, C., Kutvonen, L., Linington, P., Solberg, A.: An Aspect-Oriented Approach to Manage QoS Dependability Dimensions in Model Driven Development. In: The 3rd International Workshop on Model-Driven Enterprise Information Systems ( MDEIS 2007) (2007)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kutvonen, L., Ruokolainen, T., Metso, J.: Interoperability middleware for federated business services in web-Pilarcos. International Journal in Enterprise Information Systems, Special issue on INTEROP-ESA 2005 3 (2007)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kutvonen, L., Metso, J., Ruokolainen, T.: Inter-enterprise collaboration management in dynamic business networks. In: Meersman, R., Tari, Z. (eds.) OTM 2005. LNCS, vol. 3760, pp. 593–611. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ruokolainen, T., Kutvonen, L.: Service Typing in Collaborative Systems. In: Doumeingts, G., Müller, J., Morel, G., Vallespir, B. (eds.) Enterprise Interoperability: New Challenges and Approaches, pp. 343–354. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kutvonen, L., Metso, J., Ruohomaa, S.: From trading to eCommunity population: Responding to social and contractual challenges. In: Proceedings of the 10th IEEE International EDOC Conference (EDOC 2006), Hong Kong (2006)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Metso, J., Kutvonen, L.: Managing Virtual Organizations with Contracts. In: Workshop on Contract Architectures and Languages (CoALa 2005), Enschede, The Netherlands (published, 2005)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Papazoglou, M.P., Georgakopoulos, D.: Introduction. Commun. ACM 46, 24–28 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    W3C: Web Services Architecture. W3C Working Group Note (2004)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Keller, A., Kar, G., Ludwig, H., Dan, A., Hellerstein, J.: Managing dynamic services: a contract based approach to a conceptual architecture. In: Network Operations and Management Symposium, IFIP, pp. 513–528. IEEE, Los Alamitos (2002)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ludwig, H., Keller, A., Dan, A., King, R., Franck, R.: A service level agreement language for dynamic electronic services. Electronic Commerce Research 3, 43–59 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Christensen, E., Curbera, F., Meredith, G., Weerawarana, S.: Web Services Description Language (WSDL) 1.1. W3C. 1.1 edn. (2001)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Object Management Group: Unified Modeling Language: Superstructure. 2 edn. (2005)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Vallecillo, A., Vasconcelos, V.T., Ravara, A.: Typing the Behavior of Objects and Components using Session Types. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science 68 (2003) (Presented at FOCLASA 2002)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Allen, R., Garlan, D.: Formalizing architectural connection. In: ICSE 1994, pp. 71–80. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (1994)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Object Management Group: UML 2.0 OCL Specification. 2.0 edn., OMG Final Adopted Specification – ptc/03-10-14 (2003)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Garschhammer, M., Hauck, R., Hegering, H.G., Kempter, B., Radisic, I., Rolle, H., Schmidt, H., Langer, M., Nerb, M.: Towards generic service management concepts a service model based approach. In: IEEE/IFIP International Symposium on Integrated Network Management, pp. 719–732 (2001)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Whittle, J., Araújo, J., Moreira, A.: Composing aspect models with graph transformations. In: EA 2006: Proceedings of the 2006 international workshop on Early aspects at ICSE, pp. 59–65. ACM Press, New York (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Röttger, S., Zschaler, S.: Model-driven development for non-functional properties: Refinement through model transformation. In: Baar, T., Strohmeier, A., Moreira, A., Mellor, S.J. (eds.) UML 2004. LNCS, vol. 3273, pp. 275–289. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Czarnecki, K., Kim, C.H.P., Kalleberg, K.T.: Feature Models are Views on Ontologies. In: SPLC 2006: Proceedings of the 10th International on Software Product Line Conference, Washington, DC, USA, pp. 41–51. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2006)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kim, C.H.P.: On the Relationship between Feature Models and Ontologies. Master’s thesis, University of Waterloo (2006)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Zschaler, S.: Towards a semantic framework for non-functional specifications of component-based systems. In: Proceedings of the 30th EUROMICRO Conference (EUROMICRO 2004), Washington, DC, USA, pp. 92–99. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Skene, J., Skene, A., Crampton, J., Emmerich, W.: The monitorability of service-level agreements for application-service provision. In: WOSP 2007: Proceedings of the 6th international workshop on Software and performance, pp. 3–14. ACM Press, New York (2007)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Viroli, M., Moro, G., Omicini, A.: On observation as a coordination paradigm: an ontology and a formal framework. In: SAC 2001: Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Applied Computing, pp. 166–175. ACM Press, New York (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Frankel, D.S.: Model Driven Architecture: Applying MDA to Enterprise Computing. OMG Press (2003)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    France, R.B., Kim, D.K., Ghosh, S., Song, E.: A UML-Based Pattern Specification Technique. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 30, 193–206 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Object Management Group: Meta Object Facility (MOF) Core Specification. 2.0 edn., OMG Available Specification – formal/06-01-01 (2006)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Linington, P.F.: Model Driven Development and Non-functional Aspects. In: WMDD 2004 Workshop, ECOOP 2004, Oslo, Norway, p. 3 (2004)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Jonkers, H., Lacob, M.E., Lankhorst, M.M., Strating, P.: Integration and Analysis of Functional and Non-Functional Aspects in Model-Driven E-Service Development. In: Ninth IEEE International EDOC Enterprise Computing Conference (EDOC 2005), pp. 229–238 (2005)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Cortellessa, V., Marco, A.D., Inverardi, P.: Non-functional Modeling and Validation in Model-Driven Architecture. In: Working IEEE/IFIP Conference on Software Architecture (WICSA 2007). IEEE, Los Alamitos (2007)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Toni Ruokolainen
    • 1
  • Lea Kutvonen
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of Helsinki(Gustaf Hällströmin katu 2b)Finland

Personalised recommendations