Structural and behavioural compatibility of graphical service specifications

Journal of Logic and Algebraic Programming

Volumn 70, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 15-33

  Heckel, R ^a   Cherchago, A ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LEICESTER   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF PADERBORN   (Germany)

Author keywords

Conditional parameterised rules; Graph transformation; Service specification matching; Substitutability; Web services

Indexed keywords

BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH; GRAPHIC METHODS; INFORMATION THEORY; SEMANTICS; SPECIFICATIONS; WORLD WIDE WEB;

CONDITIONAL PARAMETERISED RULES; GRAPH TRANSFORMATION; SERVICE SPECIFICATION MATCHING; SUBSTITUTABILITY;

TELECOMMUNICATION SERVICES;

EID: 33750431333     PISSN: 15678326     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jlap.2006.05.003     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Fensel D., and Bussler C. The web service modeling framework WSFM. Electron. Commerce Res. Appl. 1 2 (2002) 113-137
2. Cherchago A., and Heckel R. Specification matching of web services using conditional graph transformation rules. In: Ehrig H., Engels G., Parisi-Presicce F., and Rozenberg G. (Eds). Proc. 2nd Int. Conference on Graph Transformation (ICGT'04), Rome, Italy. LNCS vol. 3256 (2004), Springer-Verlag 304-318
3. R. Heckel, A. Cherchago, M. Lohmann, A formal approach to service specification and matching based on graph transformation, in: Proc. First International Workshop on Web Services and Formal Methods (WS-FM 2004) 23-24 February 2004, Pisa, Italy, 2004.
4. J.-H. Hausmann, R. Heckel, M. Lohmann, Model-based discovery of web services, in: Proc. 2004 IEEE International Conference on Web Services (ICWS 2004) 6-9 July 2004 San Diego, California, USA, 2004.
5. Ehrig H., Pfender M., and Schneider H. Graph grammars: an algebraic approach. 14th Annual IEEE Symposium on Switching and Automata Theory (1973), IEEE 167-180
6. R. Heckel, H. Ehrig, U. Wolter, A. Corradini, Double-pullback transitions and coalgebraic loose semantics for graph transformation systems, Applied Categorical Structures 9 (1), see also TR 97-07 at .
7. Habel A., Heckel R., and Taentzer G. Graph grammars with negative application conditions. Fund. Inform. 26 3,4 (1996) 287-313
8. Ehrig H., and Mahr B. Fundamentals of Algebraic Specification 2: Module Specifications and Constraints (1990), Springer-Verlag
9. TM Alliance Specification version 2005A. Available from: , June 2005.
10. Alonso G., Casati F., Kuno H., and Machiraju V. Web Services: Concepts, Architectures and Applications (2004), Springer-Verlag
11. Meyer B. Object-Oriented Software Construction. Second ed. (1997), Prentice-Hall
12. Fensel D. Ontologies: Silver Bullet for Knowledge Management and Electronic Commerce (2001), Springer-Verlag
13. Pahl C. An ontology for software component matching. In: Pezze M. (Ed). Fundamental Approaches to Software Engineering: 6th International Conference, FASE 2003. LNCS vol. 2621 (2003), Springer 6-21
14. A. Zaremski, J. Wing, Specification matching of software components, in: Proc. SIGSOFT95 Third ACM SIGSOFT Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering, vol. 20(4) of ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes, 1995, pp. 6-17, also CMU-CS-95-127, March, 1995.
15. Corradini A., Montanari U., and Rossi F. Graph processes. Fund. Inform. 26 3,4 (1996) 241-266
16. Corradini A., Montanari U., Rossi F., Ehrig H., Heckel R., and Löwe M. Algebraic approaches to graph transformation, Part I: Basic concepts and double pushout approach. In: Rozenberg G. (Ed). Handbook of Graph Grammars and Computing by Graph Transformation, Volume 1: Foundations (1997), World Scientific 163-245. preprint available as Tech. Rep. 96/17, Univ. of Pisa,
17. Ehrig H. Introduction to the algebraic theory of graph grammars. In: Claus V., Ehrig H., and Rozenberg G. (Eds). Proc. 1st Graph Grammar Workshop. LNCS vol. 73 (1979), Springer-Verlag 1-69
18. Grosse-Rhode M., Parisi-Presicce F., and Simeoni M. Refinements and modules for typed graph transformation systems. In: Fiadeiro J. (Ed). Proc. Workshop on Algebraic Development Techniques (WADT'98), at ETAPS'98, Lisbon, April 1998. LNCS vol. 1589 (1999), Springer-Verlag 138-151
19. Zaremski A., and Wing J. Signature matching: a tool for using software libraries. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology (TOSEM) 4 2 (1995) 146-170
20. D. E. Perry, S. S. Popovich, Inquire: Predicate-based use and reuse, in: Proc. 8th Knowledge-Based Software Engineering Conference, 1993, pp. 144-151.
21. J.-J. Jeng, B. H. C. Cheng, Specification matching for software reuse: a foundation, in: Proc. ACM SIGSOFT Symposium on Software Reusability (SSR'95), 1995, pp. 97-105.
22. Bracciali A., Brogi A., and Canal C. A formal approach to component adaptation. J. Syst. Softw. 74 1 (2005) 45-54
23. M. Paolucci, T. Kawmura, T. Payne, K. Sycara, Semantic matching of web services capabilities, in: Proc. First International Semantic Web Conference, 2002.
24. K. Sivashanmugam, K. Verma, A. Sheth, J. Miller, Adding semantics to web services standards, in: Proc. First International Conference on Web Services (ICWS03), 2003.
25. A. Zündorf, Eine Entwicklungsumgebung für programmierte graphersetzungssysteme (PROGRES), Ph.D. thesis, RWTH Aachen, 1995.
26. Taentzer G., and Rensink A. Ensuring structural constraints in graph-based models with type inheritance. In: Cerioli M. (Ed). FASE'05. Lecture Notes in Computer Science vol. 3442 (2005), Springer 64-79