Interaction Choreography Model
by
Benedikt Liegener
—
last modified
Jan 15, 2010 08:57
—
filed under:
KnowledgeModel
Definitions
| Term: Interaction Choreography Model |
Domain: Cross-cutting issues | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Engineering and Design (KM-ED) |
Adaptation and Monitoring (KM-AM) |
Quality Definition, Negotiation and
Assurance (KM-QA) |
Generic (domain independent) |
||
| D o m a i n : L a y e r s |
Business Process Management (KM-BPM) |
The Business Process Design should be deduced from the
Interaction Choreography model. The Interaction Choreography model
states "What" the business process must do and not "How" it must do it.
The business process design may either be manually or automatically
deduced from the interaction choreography model. For instance, if the
interaction choreography model is a set of declarative constraints
about what a business process must achieve then solving the set of
constraints results in a business process that satisfies the
interaction choreography. |
Adaptation and monitoring are continually required in
a business process to satisfy the global requirements in the
interaction choreography model.Adaptation of the design must take place
when monitoring shows that the requirements in the interaction
choreography model are unsatisfied. |
The interaction choreography model may specify
constraints on the QoS aspects of the business process. These
constraints need to be satisfied by the business process in order to
conform to the interaction choreography model. |
|
| Service Composition and
Coordination (KM-SC) |
Interaction between atomic services in a composite
service must satisfy the requirements of the interaction choreography
model. Unlike an orchestration where the interaction between atomic
services is specified, the interaction between services must be derived
and may change over time in order to conform to the global interaction
choreography model. The local atomic service interactions must realize
the global interaction choreography model. |
Local interactions between atomic services must result
in emergent global properties defined in the interaction choreography
model. Adaptation consists of determination of these local interactions
that will, perhaps over time, give rise to a required global
interaction. A monitoring service must gather information that will
help the adaptation service guide the emergence in the right direction
by selecting appropriate local interactions. |
Interaction Choreography Model is a choreography model that starts
from the global point of view, by combining elementary interaction
blocks (request-response, one-way communication, etc.) towards higher
levels of complexity[PO-JRA-2.2.1], [Decker et al, 2008].
Data and control flow are defined globally, therefore the
interaction choreography approaches allow to model locally
unenforceable interactions: additional synchronization messages are
needed to construct a locally enforceable collaboration model. Examples
of interaction modelling choreography languages: Let’s Dance [Zaha et
al, 2006], WS-CDL [Kavantzas et al, 2005] {SYN: Interaction
Model} {GEN: Service Choreography} |
||
| Service Infrastructure (KM-SI) |
|||||
| Generic (domain independent) |
|||||
Competencies
- USTUTT: Service Choreography; http://www.iaas.uni-stuttgart.de/indexE.php;
Frank Leymann, Oliver Kopp
Scenarios
TBD
References
- [PO-JRA-2.2.1] Overview of the State of the Art in Composition and Coordination of Services
- [Decker et al, 2008] G. Decker, O. Kopp, and A. Barros, “An
Introduction to Service Choreographies,” Information
Technology, vol. 50, no. 2, pp. 122–127, Februar 2008. - [Zaha et al, 2006] J. M. Zaha, A. Barros, M. Dumas, and A. ter
Hofstede, “A Language for Service Behavior
Modeling,” in CoopIS, Montpellier, France, Nov 2006.
- [Kavantzas et al, 2005] N. Kavantzas, D. Burdett, G. Ritzinger, and
Y. Lafon, “Web Services Choreography Description
Language Version 1.0, W3C Candidate Recommendation,” Tech. Rep., November 2005, http://www.w3.org/TR/ws-cdl-10.
