- From: Monika Solanki <monika@dmu.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 14:35:18 +0100
- To: rayluo <rayluo@rogers.com>
- CC: Steve Ross-Talbot <steve@enigmatec.net>, chiusano_joseph@bah.com, public-ws-chor@w3.org, "Prof. Hussein Zedan" <zedan@dmu.ac.uk>
Hi Ray, I am a PHD student and one of the problems I have addressed in my thesis is how to avoid Feature interaction in service composition. We have introduced the notion of compositionality, given a theoretical framework using Temporal Logics and also an implementation model for validation/verification of services at runtime to avoid undesirable interactiosn between services. We have also extended our model to account for semantic web services. Please find belwo references to couple of papers Do not hesistate to get in touch for further queries. -Monika Monika Solanki, Antonio Cau, Hussein Zedan. Augmenting Semantic Web Service Description With Compositional Specification. The 13 th International World Wide Web Conference (Refereed Semantic Web track)WWW 2004 ACM, NYC- USA May 17-22, 2004 http://www.cse.dmu.ac.uk/~monika/Papers/Mypapers/313-solanki.pdf Monika Solanki, Antonio Cau, Hussein Zedan. Introducing Compositionality in Web service Descriptions. 10th International Workshop on Future Trends in Distributed Computing Systems FTDCS 2004 IEEE, Suzhou, China, May 26-28, 2004, 7 pages http://www.cse.dmu.ac.uk/~monika/Papers/Mypapers/solankim_compositionality.pdf Steve Ross-Talbot wrote: > > Interesting discussion given this is on the choreography public > mailing list. > > The Choreography approach is by design. That is you design a global > model that contractually prevents unwanted FI. So in a sense it is > impossible to get unwanted FI because all of the valid interaction are > modeled. This works for many real problems in which the parties > concerned wish to interact to do some business transactions. For > example most if not all financial service xaction are done this way. > Hence the use of vertical standards. What we do in Choreo (through > WS-CDL) is provide a standard way of describing such interaction from > a neutral perspective thus ensuring peer-to-peerness is maintained (so > no orchestration is needed) and providing a sound description language > that enables such "global-models" to be defined. > > Take a look at FIX (www.fixprotocol.org) as a real example of such a > protocol. > > Cheers > > Steve T > > On 29 Sep 2004, at 22:15, rayluo wrote: > >> Hi Chiusano, >> >> Thanks for your reply. Yes, sometimes the undesirable FI (Feature >> Interaction) can be avoided if the consumer and provider have enough >> "awareness". But how to achieve it? That is one of the purpose of my >> thesis: try to collect FI examples as many as possible,categorise and >> document them. Hope to offer a reference for web service designer and >> developer in the future. I have spent 15 months to explore those >> kinds of examples. But not enough examples can be identified. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Ray > > > > -- **>><<**>><<**>><<**>><<**>><<**>><<**>><<** Monika Solanki Software Technology Research Laboratory(STRL) De Montfort University Gateway building, G4.61 The Gateway Leicester LE1 9BH, UK phone: +44 (0)116 250 6170 intern: 6170 email: monika@dmu.ac.uk web: http://www.cse.dmu.ac.uk/~monika **>><<**>><<**>><<**>><<**>><<**>><<**>><<**
Received on Thursday, 30 September 2004 14:34:39 UTC