Extending the compatibility notion for abstract WS-BPEL processes

WS-BPEL defines a standard for executable processes. Executable processes are business processes which can be automated through an IT infrastructure. The WS-BPEL specification also introduces the concept of abstract processes: In contrast to their executable siblings, abstract processes are not executable and can have parts where business logic is disguised. Nevertheless, the WS-BPEL specification introduces a notion of compatibility between such an under-specified abstract process and a fully specified executable one. Basically, this compatibility notion defines a set of syntactical rules that can be augmented or restricted by profiles. So far, there exist two of such profiles: the Abstract Process Profile for Observable Behavior and the Abstract Process Profile for Templates. None of these profiles defines a concept of behavioral equivalence. Therefore, both profiles are too strict with respect to the rules they impose when deciding whether an executable process is compatible to an abstract one. In this paper, we propose a novel profile that extends the existing Abstract Process Profile for Observable Behavior by defining a behavioral relationship. We also show that our novel profile allows for more flexibility when deciding whether an executable and an abstract process are compatible.

[1]  Mario Bravetti,et al.  A Theory for Strong Service Compliance , 2007, COORDINATION.

[2]  Fabio Casati,et al.  Service-Oriented Computing - ICSOC 2005, Third International Conference, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, December 12-15, 2005, Proceedings , 2005, ICSOC.

[3]  Antonio Brogi,et al.  A behavioural congruence for web services , 2007, FSEN'07.

[4]  Wil M. P. van der Aalst,et al.  Multiparty Contracts: Agreeing and Implementing Interorganizational Processes , 2010, Comput. J..

[5]  Wil M. P. van der Aalst,et al.  From Public Views to Private Views - Correctness-by-Design for Services , 2007, WS-FM.

[6]  Massimo Mecella,et al.  When are Two Web Services Compatible? , 2004, TES.

[7]  Niels Lohmann,et al.  A Feature-Complete Petri Net Semantics for WS-BPEL 2.0 , 2007, WS-FM.

[8]  Wolfgang Reisig,et al.  Analyzing BPEL4Chor: Verification and Participant Synthesis , 2007, WS-FM.

[9]  Niels Lohmann,et al.  Analyzing Interacting BPEL Processes , 2006, Business Process Management.

[10]  Nobuko Yoshida,et al.  A Calculus of Global Interaction based on Session Types , 2007, DCM@ICALP.

[11]  Thomas A. Henzinger,et al.  Web service interfaces , 2005, WWW '05.

[12]  Wil M. P. van der Aalst,et al.  Inheritance of behavior , 2001, J. Log. Algebraic Methods Program..

[13]  Francisco Curbera,et al.  Web Services Business Process Execution Language Version 2.0 , 2007 .

[14]  Simon Moser,et al.  A Hybrid Approach for Generating Compatible WS-BPEL Partner Processes , 2006, Business Process Management.

[15]  Ming-Chien Shan,et al.  Technologies for E-Services, 5th International Workshop, TES 2004, Toronto, Canada, August 29-30, 2004, Revised Selected Papers , 2005, TES.

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

[17]  Roberto Gorrieri,et al.  Choreography and Orchestration: A Synergic Approach for System Design , 2005, ICSOC.

[18]  C. A. R. Hoare,et al.  Stuck-Free Conformance , 2004, CAV.

[19]  Mario Bravetti,et al.  Contract based multi-party service composition , 2007, FSEN'07.

[20]  Niels Lohmann,et al.  Operating Guidelines for Finite-State Services , 2007, ICATPN.

[21]  Karsten Schmidt LoLA: a low level analyser , 2000 .

[22]  Mathias Weske,et al.  BPEL4Chor: Extending BPEL for Modeling Choreographies , 2007, IEEE International Conference on Web Services (ICWS 2007).