2009
DOI: 10.1016/j.datak.2009.04.003
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Interacting services: From specification to execution

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
31
0

Year Published

2011
2011
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 65 publications
(31 citation statements)
references
References 32 publications
(37 reference statements)
0
31
0
Order By: Relevance
“…For a distributed setup and enactment of a collaboration configuration, it is necessary to develop a reference architecture for supporting application systems. We are currently evaluating the BPEL4-Chor ecosystem [32] as runtime infrastructure. Another topic for future research is applying process matching to ontology languages like OWL-S.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…For a distributed setup and enactment of a collaboration configuration, it is necessary to develop a reference architecture for supporting application systems. We are currently evaluating the BPEL4-Chor ecosystem [32] as runtime infrastructure. Another topic for future research is applying process matching to ontology languages like OWL-S.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…11. These flows can be expressed in BPEL4Chor [32], which supports the specification of interacting BPEL processes.…”
Section: Bpel Examplementioning
confidence: 99%
“…In the CBP management we envision, the selection of participants is done at runtime; therefore, it must be ensured that the participants are made aware dynamically of the selection. To this end, we note that a drawback of WS-CDL and BPMN is that service selection is not fully supported [19] and is often left to engine-specific deployment configurations; BPEL4Chor, which is a BPEL extension for modeling service choreographies [19], includes a selects attribute for participant that can turn out useful in our case to implement the runtime binding, since it allows to specify which service selects which other services.…”
Section: Fig 1 Example Of Adaptation Policymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…To make clearer the meaning of the different elements of this CBP model, we propose in Tables 1 and 2 a mapping from these elements to the specific terminology of two well-known languages for CBP specifications, the Web Service Choreography Description Language (WS-CDL, [41]) and the OMG's Business Process Modeling Notation (BPMN, [31]), which is becoming the de-facto standard for modeling intra-organizational processes. For a comprehensive overview of business process modeling languages, we refer the reader to [27], while we refer to [19] for an identification of the key requirements of service choreography languages, along with their assessment. To be actually carried out, an abstract CBP must be mapped to a concrete CBP that implements it, consisting of:…”
Section: Collaborative Business Process Modelmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…There has been other language proposals, mostly developed in research projects. In [8] Decker et al introduce BPEL4Chor [7] and survey some other choreography language proposals as Let's Dance [20] or iBPMN [5], an extension of BPMN adapted to choreographies. But this concept is still far to be standardized and adopted by the industry.…”
Section: Overview Of the Approachmentioning
confidence: 99%