Does My Service Have Partners?

  • Karsten Wolf
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5460)


Controllability for service models is a similar criterion as soundness for workflow models: it establishes a necessary condition for correct behavior of a given service model. Technically, controllability is the problem to decide, for a given service, whether it can interact correctly with at least one other service. Parameters to the problem are the established correctness criterion (e.g. deadlock freedom, livelock freedom, quasi-liveness), the shape of partners (centralized partners versus independently acting partners), or the shape of communication (asynchronous versus synchronous).

In this article, we survey and partly extend various recent results concerning the verification of controllability for Petri net based service models. Significant extensions include the study of livelock freedom as correctness criterion as well as the new results on autonomous multi-port controllability.


Transition System Simulation Relation Cooperative Partner Synchronous Communication Service Repository 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Alonso, G., Casati, F., Kuno, H., Machiraju, V.: Web Services: Concepts, Architectures and Applications. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alves, A., et al.: Web Services Business Process Execution Language Version 2.0. OASIS Standard (April 2007)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Badouel, E., Darondeau, P.: Theory of Regions. In: Reisig, W., Rozenberg, G. (eds.) APN 1998. LNCS, vol. 1491, Springer, Heidelberg (1998)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Benatallah, B., Casati, F., Grigori, D., Motahari Nezhad, H.R., Toumani, F.: Developing Adapters for Web Services Integration. In: Pastor, Ó., Falcão e Cunha, J. (eds.) CAiSE 2005. LNCS, vol. 3520, pp. 415–429. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bracciali, A., Brogi, A., Canal, C.: A formal approach to component adaptation. J. Systems and Software 74(1), 45–54 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brogi, A., Canal, C., Pimentel, E., Vallecillo, A.: Formalizing Web Service Choreographies. ENTCS 105, 73–94 (2004)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bryant, R.: Graph-based algorithms for Boolean function manipulation. IEEE Trans. on Computers C-35(8), 677–691 (1986)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Clarke, G., Grumberg, O., Peled, D.: Model Checking. MIT Press, Cambridge (1999)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dehnert, J., Rittgen, P.: Relaxed soundness of business processes. In: Dittrich, K.R., Geppert, A., Norrie, M.C. (eds.) CAiSE 2001. LNCS, vol. 2068, pp. 157–170. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Desel, J., Reisig, W.: The synthesis problem of Petri nets. Acta Informatica 33, 297–315 (1996)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dumas, M., Spork, M., Wang, K.: Adapt or Perish: Algebra and Visual Notation for Service Interface Adaptation. In: Dustdar, S., Fiadeiro, J.L., Sheth, A.P. (eds.) BPM 2006. LNCS, vol. 4102, pp. 65–80. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ehrenfeucht, A., Rozenberg, G.: Partial 2-structures. Acta Informatica 27, 315–368 (1990)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fahland, D., Reisig, W.: ASM-based semantics for BPEL: The negative Control Flow. In: Proc. ASM, pp. 131–151 (2005)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gottschalk, K.: Web Services Architecture Overview. IBM Whitepaper, IBM DeveloperWorks (September 2000),
  15. 15.
    Hull, R., Benedikt, M., Christophides, V., Su, J.: E-services: a look behind the curtain. In: Proc. PODS, pp. 1–14. ACM, New York (2003)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Juhas, G., Lorenz, R., Neumair, C.: Modelling and Control with Modules of Signal Nets. In: Desel, J., Reisig, W., Rozenberg, G. (eds.) Lectures on Concurrency and Petri Nets. LNCS, vol. 3098, pp. 585–625. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kerlin, A.: Bedienbarkeit unter Kausalität. Diploma thesis, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin (2007)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kindler, E.: A compositional partial order semantics for Petri net components. In: Azéma, P., Balbo, G. (eds.) ICATPN 1997. LNCS, vol. 1248, pp. 235–252. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kindler, E., Martens, A., Reisig, W.: Inter-operability of Workshop Applications – Local Criteria for Global Soundness. In: van der Aalst, W.M.P., Desel, J., Oberweis, A. (eds.) Business Process Management. LNCS, vol. 1806, pp. 235–253. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lohmann, N., Kleine, J.: Fully-automatic Translation of Open Workflow Net Models into Human-readable Abstract BPEL Processes. In: Proc. Modellierung, vol. LNI P-127, pp. 57–72 (2008)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lohmann, N., Massuthe, P., Stahl, C., Weinberg, D.: Analyzing interacting WS-BPEL processes using flexible model generation. Data Knowl. Eng. 64(1), 38–54 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lohmann, N., Massuthe, P., Wolf, K.: Behavioral constraints for services. In: Alonso, G., Dadam, P., Rosemann, M. (eds.) BPM 2007. LNCS, vol. 4714, pp. 271–287. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lohmann, N., Massuthe, P., Wolf, K.: Operating guidelines for finite-state services. In: Kleijn, J., Yakovlev, A. (eds.) ICATPN 2007. LNCS, vol. 4546, pp. 321–341. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lohmann, N., Verbeek, H.M.W., Ouyang, C., Stahl, C., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Comparing and Evaluating Petri Net Semantics for BPEL. Computer Science Report 07/23, Eindhoven University of Technology (2007)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Martens, A.: Verteilte Geschäftsprozesse – Modellierung und Verifikation mit Hilfe von Web Services. Dissertation, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin (2003)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Martens, A.: Analyzing Web Service based Business Processes. In: Cerioli, M. (ed.) FASE 2005. LNCS, vol. 3442, pp. 19–33. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Massuthe, P., Reisig, W., Schmidt, K.: An Operating Guideline Approach to the SOA. Annals of Mathematics, Computing & Teleinformatics 1(3), 35–43 (2005)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Massuthe, P., Serebrenik, A., Sidorova, N., Wolf, K.: Can I find a partner? (accepted for IPL)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Papazoglou, M.P.: Agent-oriented technology in support of e-business. Commun. ACM 44(4), 71–77 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ramadge, P.J., Wonham, W.M.: Supervisory control of a class of discrete -event processes. SIAM J. Control and Optimization 25(1) (1987)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Reisig, W., Schmidt, K., Stahl, C.: Kommunizierende Workflow-Services modellieren und analysieren. Informatik - Forschung und Entwicklung, 90–101 (2005)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Schmidt, K.: Controllability of Open Workflow Nets. In: Enterprise Modelling and Information Systems Architectures, vol. LNI P-75, pp. 236–249 (2005)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Stahl, C.: A Petri Net Semantics for BPEL. Technical Report 188, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin (2005)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Valmari, A.: A stubborn attack to state explosion. In: Clarke, E., Kurshan, R.P. (eds.) CAV 1990. LNCS, vol. 531, pp. 156–165. Springer, Heidelberg (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    van der Aalst, W., Lohmannn, N., Massuthe, P., Stahl, C., Wolf, K.: From public views to private views – correctness-by-design for services. In: Dumas, M., Heckel, R. (eds.) WS-FM 2007. LNCS, vol. 4937, pp. 139–153. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P.: The application of petri nets in workflow management. J. Circuits, Systems, and Computers 8(1), 21–66 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Weinberg, D.: Analyse der Bedienbarkeit. Diplomarbeit, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin (2004)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Wolf, M.: Synchrone und asynchrone Kommunikation in offenen Workflownetzen. Studienarbeit, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin (2007)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Karsten Wolf
    • 1
  1. 1.Institut für InformatikUniversität RostockRostockGermany

Personalised recommendations