Interaction Choreography Model
by
Benedikt Liegener
—
last modified
Apr 26, 2012 22:23
—
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
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.