Advertisement

A Service Composition Construct to Support Iterative Development

  • Roy Grønmo
  • Michael C. Jaeger
  • Andreas Wombacher
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4422)

Abstract

Development of composed services requires a continues adaptation of the composed service to the changing environment of offered services. Services may no longer be available or may change performance characteristics, price, or quality of service criteria after they have been selected and used in a composition. The replacement of such a service requires a good understanding why this service got selected in the first place. This is hard to accomplish as it is known from software maintenance. Therefore we propose an approach where the conceptual task implemented by a selected service as well as the relationship between task and selected service is explicated and maintained during the complete life cycle of a composed service. This covers the design of the composition, derivation of service search criteria, and the execution of the composed service. The approach has been validated by an implementation in the Service Composition Studio (SERCS) supporting the iterative development of composed services.

Keywords

Service Composition Service Discovery Service Node Emergency Team Business Process Modeling Notation 
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.
    Agarwal, V., et al.: A service creation environment based on end to end composition of Web services. In: International conference on World Wide Web (2005)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ludäscher, B., et al.: Scientific Workflow Management and the Kepler System. Concurrency and Computation: Practice & Experience, Special Issue on Scientific Workflows (2005)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    BPMI.org. Business Process Modeling Notation (BPMN) Version 1.0 (May 2004)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cardoso, J., Sheth, A.P.: Semantic E-Workflow Composition. Journal of Intelligent Information Systems 21(3), 191–225 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Martin, D., Paolucci, M., McIlraith, S.A., Burstein, M., McDermott, D., McGuinness, D.L., Parsia, B., Payne, T.R., Sabou, M., Solanki, M., Srinivasan, N., Sycara, K.P.: Bringing Semantics to Web Services: The OWL-S Approach. In: Cardoso, J., Sheth, A.P. (eds.) SWSWPC 2004. LNCS, vol. 3387, pp. 26–42. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jaeger, M.C., Ladner, H.: A Model for the Aggregation of QoS in WS Compositions Involving Redundant Services. Journal of Digital Information Management 4(1), 44–49 (2006)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kiepuszewski, B., ter Hofstede, A.H.M., Bussler, C.J.: On Structured Workflow Modelling. In: Wangler, B., Bergman, L.D. (eds.) CAiSE 2000. LNCS, vol. 1789, pp. 431–445. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lara, R., Roman, D., Polleres, A., Fensel, D.: A Conceptual Comparison of WSMO and OWL-S. In (LJ) Zhang, L.-J., Jeckle, M. (eds.) ECOWS 2004. LNCS, vol. 3250, pp. 254–269. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    O.M.G. (OMG). UML 2.0 Superstructure Specification, OMG Adopted Specification ptc/03-08-02 (August 2003)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Pautasso, C., Alonso, G.: The JOpera visual composition language. Journal of Visual Languages and Computing (JVLC) 16(1-2), 119–152 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Peer, J.: A PDDL Based Tool for Automatic Web Service Composition. In: Ohlbach, H.J., Schaffert, S. (eds.) PPSWR 2004. LNCS, vol. 3208, pp. 149–163. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ponnekanti, S.R., Fox, A.: SWORD: A Developer Toolkit for Web Service Composition. In: Proc. of the Eleventh International World Wide Web Conference (WWW), Honolulu, Hawaii, USA (2002)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tatte, S. (ed.): Business Process Execution Language for Web Services Version 1.1 (February 2005)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Schiersner, F.: Fallstudien: Die Oder-Flut im Sommer (1997), http://www.krisennavigator.de/kafa1-d.htm
  15. 15.
    Traverso, P., Pistore, M.: Automated Composition of Semantic Web Services into Executable Processes. In: McIlraith, S.A., Plexousakis, D., van Harmelen, F. (eds.) ISWC 2004. LNCS, vol. 3298, pp. 380–394. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Tsalgatidou, A., Pantazoglou, M., Athanasopoulos, G.: Specification of the Unified Service Query Language (USQL), Technical Report (June 2006)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P., ter Hofstede, A.H.M., Kiepuszewski, B., Barros, A.P.: Workflow patterns. Distributed and Parallel Databases 14(1), 5–51 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Roy Grønmo
    • 1
  • Michael C. Jaeger
    • 2
  • Andreas Wombacher
    • 3
  1. 1.SINTEF, P.O.Box 124 Blindern, N-0314 OsloNorway
  2. 2.Technische Universität Berlin, FG FLP, Sek. FR6-10, Franklinstrasse 28/29, D-10587 BerlinGermany
  3. 3.School of Computer and Communication Sciences, Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne (EPFL), CH-1015 LausanneSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations