Contractual Proximity of Business Services

  • Lam-Son LêEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9446)


Business services arguably play a central role in service-based information systems as they would fill in the gap between the technicality of Service-Oriented Architecture and the business aspects captured in Enterprise Architecture. Business services have distinctive features that are not typically observed in Web services, e.g. significant portions of the functionality of business services might be executed in a human-mediated fashion. The representation of business services requires that we view human activity and human-mediated functionality through the lens of computing and systems engineering.

Given the specification of a relatively complex business service, practitioners can deal with its complexity either by breaking it down into constituent services through common practices such as outsourcing or delegation, or by picking up an existing group of services (e.g. from a service catalog) that best realize that functionality. To address these challenges, we devise a formal machinery to (a) verify if a group of services contractually match the specification of the larger service in question; (b) to assess the contractual proximity of service groups relative to a contractual service specification to help decide which combination of services from a catalog best realize the desired functionality.


Service engineering Goal modeling Service contract Quality of service Service composition Serviceability Outsourcing 



I would like to thank my former colleague, Aditya Ghose, for his valuable feedback on this work, especially in the formalization of service goals and QoS. I am also thankful to the other members of his research group for their comments (mostly about terminology used in modeling business services) on my talks given in the weekly seminars when I was in this group.


  1. 1.
    Paulson, L.D.: Services science: a new field for today’s economy. Computer 39(8), 18–21 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Singh, M.P., Huhns, M.N.: Service-Oriented Computing: Semantics, Processes. Wiley, Agents (2005)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    IfM and IBM: Succeeding through Service Innovation: A Service Perspective for Education, Research. University of Cambridge Institute for Manufacturing, Cambridge, UK, Business and Government. White paper (2008)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hansmann, U., Merk, L., Nicklous, M.S., Stober, T.: Pervasive Computing: The Mobile World, 2nd edn. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ghose, A.K., Lê, L.S., Hoesch-Klohe, K., Morrison, E.: The business service representation language: a preliminary report. In: Cezon, M., Wolfsthal, Y. (eds.) ServiceWave 2010 Workshops. LNCS, vol. 6569, pp. 145–152. Springer, Heidelberg (2011) Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lê, L.S., Dam, H., Ghose, A.: On Business services representation - the 3 x 3 x 3 approach. In: Proceedings of 21st Australasian Conference on Information Systems, Brisbane, Australia, Association for Information Systems, December 2010Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Letier, E., van Lamsweerde, A.: Deriving operational software specifications from system goals. ACM SIGSOFT Softw. Eng. Notes 27(6), 119–128 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Smullyan, R.M.: First-Order Logic. Dover Publications, Mineola (1995)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Liskov, B.H., Wing, J.M.: A behavioral notion of subtyping. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 16(6), 1811–1841 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hardouin, L., Cottenceau, B., Lhommeau, M., Le Corronc, E.: Interval systems over idempotent semiring. Linear Algebra Appl. 431(5–7), 855–862 (2009)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Davey, B.A., Priestley, H.A.: Introduction to Lattices and Order. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2002)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hinge, K., Ghose, A., Koliadis, G.: Process SEER: a tool for semantic effect annotation of business process models. In: Proceedings of the 13th IEEE International Conference on Enterprise Distributed Object Computing, Auckland, New Zealand, pp. 49–58. IEEE Computer Society, September 2009Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hughes, B., Cotterell, M.: Software Project Management, 5th edn. McGraw-Hill, New Delhi (2009) Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Andrikopoulos, V., Benbernou, S., Papazoglou, M.P.: Evolving services from a contractual perspective. In: van Eck, P., Gordijn, J., Wieringa, R. (eds.) CAiSE 2009. LNCS, vol. 5565, pp. 290–304. Springer, Heidelberg (2009) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Comerio, M., Truong, H.-L., De Paoli, F., Dustdar, S.: Evaluating contract compatibility for service composition in the SeCO\(_\text{2 }\) framework. In: Baresi, L., Chi, C.-H., Suzuki, J. (eds.) ICSOC-ServiceWave 2009. LNCS, vol. 5900, pp. 221–236. Springer, Heidelberg (2009) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hirsch, D., Tuosto, E.: SHReQ: coordinating application level QoS. In: 3rd IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering and Formal Methods, Koblenz, Germany, pp. 425–434, September 2005Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ferrari, G., Lluch-Lafuente, A.: A logic for graphs with QoS. Electron. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci. 142, 143–160 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Jackson, D.: Alloy: a lightweight object modelling notation. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 11(2), 256–290 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Computer Science and EngineeringHCMC University of TechnologyHo Chi Minh CityVietnam

Personalised recommendations