Advertisement

Babel: An XML-Based Application Integration Framework

  • Huaxin Zhang
  • Eleni Stroulia
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2348)

Abstract

One of the major problems in integrating independently developed applications is the divergence between the data and control-of-processing models assumed by these applications. Research on database integration has focused on establishing and maintaining a canonical schema on top of the schemas of the underlying databases. At the same time, web-accessible software systems have been adopting a multi-layer architecture style, with databases in the lowest tier, business logic in the middle tier and user interfaces in the top-most tier. However, as the time-to-market window shrinks, new software is presented with the challenge of reusing and integrating the functionalities of existing whole applications, instead of simply their database back-ends. The Babel framework provides support for specifying existing applications in terms of the functionalities they deliver and the data they manipulate. In addition, it supports the specification of the “logic” defining how these functionalities should be integrated. Based on these specifications, Babel produces a run-time mediator that monitors the behavior of the underlying applications, evaluates the defined logic on the global state of the integrated system, and generates triggers for new functionalities to be accomplished according to these rules.

Keywords

Average Processing Time Semistructured Data Event Queue Information Repository Execution Event 
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.
    W.M.P. van der Aalst, “Petri-net-based Workflow Management Software”, Proceedings of the NFS Workshop on Workflow and Process Automation in Information Systems, Athens, Georgia, May 1996, pp. 114–118.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Batini, C., Lenzerini, M. and Navathe, S.B., “A comparative analysis of methodologies for database schema integration”, ACM Computing Surveys, Vol. 18, No. 4, Dec. 1986, pp. 323–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    E. Bertino, “Integration of heterogeneous database applications though object-oriented interface”, Information systems, 1989, pp. 407–420.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Y. Breitbart, P. Olson, and G. Thompson, “Database integration in a distributed heterogeneous database system”, Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Data Engineering, Los Angeles, CA, February 1986, pp. 301–310.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    A. Gal, J. Mylopoulos, “Supporting Distributed Autonomous Integration Services Using Coordination”, International Journal of Cooperative Information Systems, vol. 9, no. 3 pp. 255–282, 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    R. Goldman, J. McHugh, and J. Widom. “From Semistructured Data to XML: Migrating the Lore Data Model and Query Language”, Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on the Web and Databases (WebDB’ 99), pp. 25–30, 1999.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    S. Heiler, “Semantic Interoperability”, ACM Computing Surveys, 27(2):271–273, June 1995.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    JavaTM APIs for XML Processing (JAXP), http://java.sun.com/xml/xml_jaxp.html
  9. 9.
    R. Kapoor, “ Mathaino: Device Retargetable User Interface Migration UsingXML”, University of Alberta, TR-01-112001.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    A. Levy, A. Rajaraman, and J. Ordile, “Querying heterogeneous information sources using source description”, Proceedings of the International Conference on VLDB, Bombay, India, 1996, pp. 251–262.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    C. Baru, A. Gupta, B. Ludascher, R. Marciano, Y. Papakonstantinou, P. Velikhov, V. Chu, “XML-based information mediation with MIX”, ACM SIGMOD, pp. 597–599, 1999.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    J. Mylopoulos, A. Gal, K. Kontogiannis, M. Stanley, “A Generic Integration Architecture for Cooperative Information Systems”, Proceedings of the 1st IFCIS Intl. Conference on Cooperative Information Systems, Brussels, Belgium, pp. 208–217, June 1996.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Y. Papakonstantinou, H. Garcia-Molina, J. Widom, “Object Exchange Across Heterogeneous Information Sources”, In Proceedings of Eleventh International Conference on Data Engineering, Taipei, Taiwan, 251–260, 1995.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    XSLT processor implementation, http://users.iclway.co.uk/mhkay/saxon/
  15. 15.
    A. Sheth, D. Georgakopoulos, S.M.M. Joosten, M. Rusinkiewicz, W. Scacchi, J. Wileden, A. Wolf, “Reports from the NSF Workflow and Process Automation in Information Systems”, ACM SIGMOD Record, Volume 25 Number 4 December 1996.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Q. Situ and E. Stroulia, “ Task-structure Based Mediation: The Travel-Planning Assistant Example”, Proceedings of the 13thCanadian Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AI’2000), 14–17 May, 2000, pp. 400–410, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    E. Stroulia, M. El-Ramly, P. Sorenson, R. Penner, “Legacy Systems Migration in Cel L-EST”, Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Software Engineering, Limerick, Ireland (June 4–11, 2000), pp. 790. IEEE Computer Society Press.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    “The Workflow Reference Model”, Workflow Management Coalition, Document Number TC00-1003, http://www.wfmc.org/standards/docs/tc003v11.pdf.
  19. 19.
    D. Wodtke and G. Weikum, “A formal foundation for distributed workflow execution based on statecharts”, 6th International Conference on Database Theory (ICDT 97), pp. 230–246, 1997.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    G. Wiederhold: Mediation and Software Maintenance; Technical Note STAN-CS-TN-95-26.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    H. Zhang, and E. Stroulia, “Babel: Application Integration through XML specification of Rules”, 23rd International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE 2001), 12–19 May 2001, Toronto, Canada. 831–832. IEEE Computer Society Press.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    D. Garlan, R. Allen, and J. Ockerbloom. Architectural Mismatch, or Why it is hard to build systems out of existing parts. In Proceedings 17th International Conference on Software Engineering, pp. 179–185, Seattle, Washington, April 1995. ACM SIGSOFT.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    K. J. Sullivan and J. C. Knight. Experience Assessing an Architectural Approach to Large-Scale Systematic Reuse. Proceedings of 18th International Conference on Software Engineering, pp. 220–229, IEEE Computer Society Press.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    A. Sahuguet and F. Azavant. “Looking at the Web through XML Glasses”, Conference on Cooperative Information Systems, pp. 148–159, 1999.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    B. Adelberg. NoDoSE: A tool for semi-automatically extracting semi-structured data from text documents. In Proc. Intl. Conference on Management of Data, pp. 283–294, 1998.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    L. Liu and C. Pu. CQ: A personalized update monitoring toolkit. In Proc. of the ACM SIGMOD Conf., pp. 547–549, Seattle, 1998.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    U. Dayal, E.N. Hanson, and J. Widom. Active database systems. In W. Kim, editor, Modern Database Systems: The Object Model, Interoperability, and Beyond. ACM Press, New York, 1994.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Huaxin Zhang
    • 1
  • Eleni Stroulia
    • 1
  1. 1.Computing Science DepartmentUniversity of AlbertaEdmontonCanada

Personalised recommendations