Advertisement

Using Goals for Flexible Service Orchestration

A First Step
  • M. Birna van Riemsdijk
  • Martin Wirsing
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4504)

Abstract

This paper contributes to a line of research that aims to apply agent-oriented techniques in the field of service-oriented computing. In particular, we propose to use goal-oriented techniques from the field of cognitive agent programming for service orchestration. The advantage of using an explicit representation of goals in programming languages is the flexibility in handling failure that goals provide. Moreover, goals have a close correspondence with declarative descriptions as used in the context of semantic web services. This paper now presents first steps towards the definition of a goal-based orchestration language that makes use of semantic matchmaking. The orchestration language we propose and its semantics are formally defined and analyzed, using operational semantics.

Keywords

Transition Rule Service Description Belief Base Agent Programming Propositional Formula 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Alechina, N., et al.: Automating belief revision for agentspeak. In: Baldoni, M., Endriss, U. (eds.) DALT 2006. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4327, Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baldoni, M., et al.: Interaction protocols and capabilities: A preliminary report. In: Alferes, J.J., et al. (eds.) PPSWR 2006. LNCS, vol. 4187, pp. 63–77. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bistarelli, S., Montanari, U., Rossi, F.: Semiring-based constraint solving and optimization. Journal of ACM 44, 201–236 (1997)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bozzo, L., et al.: CooWS: Adaptive BDI agents meet service-oriented programming. In: Proc. of WWW/Internet’05, vol. 2, pp. 205–209. IADIS Press (2005)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Braubach, L., et al.: Goal representation for BDI agent systems. In: Bordini, R.H., et al. (eds.) PROMAS 2004. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3346, pp. 44–65. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bruni, R., Melgratti, H., Montanari, U.: Theoretical foundations for compensations in flow composition languages. In: Proc. of POPL’05, pp. 209–220 (2005)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cook, W.R., Misra, J.: Computation orchestration: A basis for wide-area computing. To appear in the Journal on Software and System Modeling (2007)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    de Bruijn, J., et al.: The web service modeling language WSML. WSML deliverable d16.1v0.2 (2005), http://www.wsmo.org/TR/d16/d16.1/v0.2/
  9. 9.
    Dickinson, I., Wooldridge, M.: Agents are not (just) web services: considering BDI agents and web services. In: Proc. of SOCABE’05 (2005)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Juric, M., Sarang, P., Mathew, B.: Business Process Execution Language for Web Services, 2nd edn. Packt Publishing, Birmingham (2006)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Li, L., Horrocks, I.: A software framework for matchmaking based on semantic web technology. In: Proc. of WWW’03, pp. 331–339. ACM Press, New York (2003)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Martin, D., et al.: 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
  13. 13.
    Mascardi, V., Casella, G.: Intelligent agents that reason about web services: a logic programming approach. In: Proc. of ALPSWS’06, pp. 55–70 (2006)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mazzara, M., Lucchi, R.: A framework for generic error handling in business processes. Electr. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci. 105, 133–145 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    McIlraith, S.A., Son, T.C., Zeng, H.: Semantic web services. IEEE Intelligent Systems 16(2), 46–53 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Paolucci, M., et al.: Semantic matching of web services capabilities. In: Horrocks, I., Hendler, J. (eds.) ISWC 2002. LNCS, vol. 2342, pp. 333–347. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Plotkin, G.D.: A Structural Approach to Operational Semantics. Technical Report DAIMI FN-19, University of Aarhus (1981)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rao, A.S.: AgentSpeak(L): BDI agents speak out in a logical computable language. In: Perram, J., Van de Velde, W. (eds.) MAAMAW 1996. LNCS, vol. 1038, pp. 42–55. Springer, Heidelberg (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Roman, D., et al.: Web service modeling ontology. Applied Ontology 1, 77–106 (2005)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    van Riemsdijk, M.B.: Cognitive Agent Programming: A Semantic Approach. PhD thesis (2006)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    van Riemsdijk, M.B., et al.: Goal-oriented modularity in agent programming. In: Proc. of AAMAS’06, Hakodate, pp. 1271–1278 (2006)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Winikoff, M., et al.: Declarative and procedural goals in intelligent agent systems. In: Proc. of KR’02 (2002)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wirsing, M., et al.: Semantic-based development of service-oriented systems. In: Najm, E., Pradat-Peyre, J.-F., Donzeau-Gouge, V.V. (eds.) FORTE 2006. LNCS, vol. 4229, pp. 24–45. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Birna van Riemsdijk
    • 1
  • Martin Wirsing
    • 1
  1. 1.Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität MünchenGermany

Personalised recommendations