Structural Matching of BPEL Processes

BPEL has emerged as the industrial standard language for modelling behavioral aspects of web services. To support business partners in dynamically and flexibly binding their services together, different BPEL processes need to be efficiently matched. This paper identifies and defines various types of structural matching for BPEL processes. The matching definitions are based on heuristics: they take behavioral interaction aspects of the compared services into account, but abstract from irrelevant syntactical differences. Since the definitions are structural, they can be efficiently computed, and thus are useful to support dynamic and flexible binding of services. The approach is illustrated with an example from an existing business scenario.

[1]  Rik Eshuis,et al.  Constructing customized process views , 2008, Data Knowl. Eng..

[2]  Paul W. P. J. Grefen,et al.  An analysis of web services support for dynamic business process outsourcing , 2006, Inf. Softw. Technol..

[3]  Fabio Casati,et al.  Representing, analysing and managing Web service protocols , 2006, Data Knowl. Eng..

[4]  Gerhard Friedrich,et al.  Configuration Knowledge Representation Using UML/OCL , 2002, UML.

[5]  Sebastián Uchitel,et al.  Model-based verification of Web service compositions , 2003, 18th IEEE International Conference on Automated Software Engineering, 2003. Proceedings..

[6]  Karl Aberer,et al.  CrossFlow: Cross-Organizational Workflow Management in Dynamic Virtual Enterprises , 2000 .

[7]  Jos de Bruijn,et al.  Web Service Modeling Ontology , 2005, Appl. Ontology.

[8]  Jung-Eun Lim,et al.  A Metamodel-Based Approach for Extracting Ontological Semantics from UML Models , 2006, WISE.

[9]  Jun Zhang,et al.  Simlarity Search for Web Services , 2004, VLDB.

[10]  Karsten Wolf,et al.  Transforming BPEL to Petri Nets , 2005, Business Process Management.

[11]  Robin Milner,et al.  Communication and concurrency , 1989, PHI Series in computer science.

[12]  Dimitris Plexousakis,et al.  Enhanced Specifications for Web Service Composition , 2006, 2006 European Conference on Web Services (ECOWS'06).

[13]  Wil M. P. van der Aalst,et al.  Process Equivalence: Comparing Two Process Models Based on Observed Behavior , 2006, Business Process Management.

[14]  Andreas Wombacher.  Evaluation of Technical Measures for Workflow Similarity Based on a Pilot Study , 2006, OTM Conferences.

[15]  Matjaz B. Juric,et al.  Business process execution language for web services , 2004 .

[16]  Takahiro Kawamura,et al.  Semantic Matching of Web Services Capabilities , 2002, SEMWEB.

[17]  Mark Klein,et al.  Towards High-Precision Service Retrieval , 2002, SEMWEB.

[18]  Shing-Chi Cheung,et al.  Workflow View Driven Cross-Organizational Interoperability in a Web Service Environment , 2004, Inf. Technol. Manag..

[19]  Asunción Gómez-Pérez,et al.  ODE SWS: a framework for designing and composing semantic Web services , 2004, IEEE Intelligent Systems.

[20]  Jan Verelst,et al.  When are two Workflows the Same? , 2005, CATS.

[21]  Jerry R. Hobbs,et al.  DAML-S: Semantic Markup for Web Services , 2001, SWWS.

[22]  Matthias Klusch,et al.  WSMO-MX: A Logic Programming Based Hybrid Service Matchmaker , 2006, 2006 European Conference on Web Services (ECOWS'06).

[23]  Patrick Albert,et al.  Configuration based workflow composition , 2005, IEEE International Conference on Web Services (ICWS'05).

[24]  Birgitta König-Ries,et al.  Coupled Signature and Specification Matching for Automatic Service Binding , 2004, ECOWS.

[25]  Erich J. Neuhold,et al.  Transforming BPEL into annotated deterministic finite state automata for service discovery , 2004 .

[26]  Daniela Grigori,et al.  BPEL Processes Matchmaking for Service Discovery , 2006, OTM Conferences.

[27]  Matthias Klusch,et al.  Larks: Dynamic Matchmaking Among Heterogeneous Software Agents in Cyberspace , 2002, Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems.

[28]  Robert E. Tarjan,et al.  Fast Algorithms for Finding Nearest Common Ancestors , 1984, SIAM J. Comput..

[29]  Thorsten Liebig,et al.  Pitfalls of OWL-S: a practical semantic web use case , 2004, ICSOC '04.

[30]  Zhenhua Duan,et al.  Transforming OWL-S Process Model into EDFA for Service Discovery , 2006, 2006 IEEE International Conference on Web Services (ICWS'06).

[31]  Ian Horrocks,et al.  A Software Framework for Matchmaking Based on Semantic Web Technology , 2004, Int. J. Electron. Commer..

[32]  Freddy Lécué,et al.  Semantic Web Service Composition Based on a Closed World Assumption , 2006, 2006 European Conference on Web Services (ECOWS'06).

[33]  James A. Hendler,et al.  HTN planning for Web Service composition using SHOP2 , 2004, J. Web Semant..

[34]  Catriel Beeri,et al.  Querying business processes , 2006, VLDB.

[35]  Rik Eshuis,et al.  Dynamic business network process management in instant virtual enterprises , 2009, Comput. Ind..

[36]  Paul W. P. J. Grefen.  Towards Dynamic Interorganizational Business Process Management , 2006, 15th IEEE International Workshops on Enabling Technologies: Infrastructure for Collaborative Enterprises (WETICE'06).

[37]  Jianwen Su,et al.  Web service discovery based on behavior signatures , 2005, 2005 IEEE International Conference on Services Computing (SCC'05) Vol-1.

[38]  Gustavo Alonso,et al.  Web Services: Concepts, Architectures and Applications , 2009 .

[39]  Paul W. P. J. Grefen,et al.  A Three-Level Framework for Process and Data Management of Complex E-Services , 2003, Int. J. Cooperative Inf. Syst..

[40]  Mark Klein,et al.  Massachusetts Institute of Technology Abraham Bernstein University of Zurich Toward High-Precision Service Retrieval , 2022 .

[41]  Tony Andrews.  Business Process Execution Language for Web Services Version 1.1 , 2003 .