Advertisement

Evaluating Contract Compatibility for Service Composition in the SeCO2 Framework

  • Marco Comerio
  • Hong-Linh Truong
  • Flavio De Paoli
  • Schahram Dustdar
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5900)

Abstract

Recently, the Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) model has been increasingly supported, becoming a major part of the new emerging cloud computing paradigms. Although SaaS exists in different forms, supporting and providing SaaS developed based Web services has attracted a large effort from industries and academics because this form of SaaS allows software to be easily composed and integrated to offer new services for customers. Even though various service composition techniques, based on functional and non-functional parameters, have been proposed, the issue of service contract compatibility has been neglected. This issue is of paramount importance in the Web services-based SaaS model because services are provided by different providers, associated with different contracts which are defined by different specifications. This paper proposes techniques for supporting service composers to deal with the heterogeneity of service contracts in service composition. We describe a novel approach for modeling and mapping different service contract specifications, and a set of techniques for evaluating service contract compatibility. Our techniques consider contract terms associated with data and control flows, as well as composition patterns. Illustrating scenarios are proposed to demonstrate the efficiency of our techniques.

Keywords

Service Composition Composite Service Mapping Rule Contract Term Service Contract 
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.

References

  1. 1.
    Armbrust, M., Fox, A., Grifth, R., Joseph, A.D., Katz, R., Konwinski, A., Lee, G., Patterson, D., Rabkin, A., Stoica, I., Zaharia, M.: Above the clouds: A berkeley view of cloud computing. Technical report, University of California at Berkeley (2009)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Truong, H.-L., Gangadharan, G.R., Treiber, M., Dustdar, S., D’Andrea, V.: On reconciliation of contractual concerns of web services. In: NFPSLASOC 2008 (2nd Non Functional Properties and Service Level Agreements in SOC Workshop), Dublin, Ireland (2008)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gangadharan, G.R., Weiss, M., D’Andrea, V., Iannella, R.: Service License Composition and Compatibility Analysis. In: Krämer, B.J., Lin, K.-J., Narasimhan, P. (eds.) ICSOC 2007. LNCS, vol. 4749, pp. 257–269. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gangadharan, G.R., D’Andrea, V., Iannella, R., Weiss, M.: ODRL Service Licensing Profile (ODRL-S). In: Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop for Technical, Economic, and Legal Aspects of Business Models for Virtual Goods (2007)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ludwig, H., Keller, A., Dan, A., King, R., Franck, R.: Web Service Level Agreement (WSLA) Language Specification. IBM Coporation (2003)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Tosic, V., Pagurek, B., Patel, K., Esfandiari, B., Ma, W.: Management Applications of the Web Service Offerings Language (WSOL). Information Systems 30(7), 564–586 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Zeng, L., Benatallah, B., Ngu, A., Dumas, M., Kalagnanam, J., Chang, H.: Qos-aware middleware for web services composition. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 30(5), 311–327 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jaeger, M., Rojec-Goldmann, G., Muhl, G.: Qos aggregation for web service composition using workflow patterns. In: EDOC 2004: Proceedings of the Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference, Eighth IEEE International, Washington, DC, USA, pp. 149–159. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Aggarwal, R., Verma, K., Miller, J., Milnor, W.: Constraint driven web service composition in meteor-s. In: Proceedings of the 2004 IEEE International Conference on Services Computing (SCC 2004), pp. 23–30 (2004)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    De Paoli, F., Palmonari, M., Comerio, M., Maurino, A.: A Meta-Model for Non-Functional Property Descriptions of Web Services. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Web Services (ICWS), Beijing, China (2008)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Noy, N.F., Musen, M.A.: The prompt suite: Interactive tools for ontology merging and mapping. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 59 (2003)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Castano, S., Ferrara, A., Montanelli, S.: H-match: an algorithm for dynamically matching ontologies in peer-based systems. In: Proc. of the 1st VLDB Int. Workshop on Semantic Web and Databases (SWDB 2003), Berlin, Germany (2003)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mitra, P., Wiederhold, G., Decker, S.: A scalable framework for the interoperation of information sources, Stanford University, pp. 317–329 (2001)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Comerio, M., De Paoli, F., Maurino, A., Palmonari, M.: NFP-aware Semantic Web Services Selection. In: Proceedings of the 11th IEEE International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference, EDOC (2007)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marco Comerio
    • 1
  • Hong-Linh Truong
    • 2
  • Flavio De Paoli
    • 1
  • Schahram Dustdar
    • 2
  1. 1.University of Milano - BicoccaMilanoItaly
  2. 2.Distributed Systems GroupVienna University of Technology 

Personalised recommendations