ALIVE @IIWAS'2009

18/11/09 | 1

ALIVE EU FUNDED PROJECT

ESAW demo November 2009iiWAS, December 2009

Organizing Web Services to develop Dynamic, Flexible,

Distributed Systems

Frank DignumUtrecht University

“The ALIVE project”www.ist-alive.eu

18/11/09 | 1


ESAW demo November 2009 iiWAS, December 2009

18/11/09 | 2



Overview

• Motivation• From Services to Services in Context• The ALIVE approach• Semantic web services and matchmaking• Coordinating semantic web services• Organizing semantic web services• Putting it all together• Some use cases• Conclusions

18/11/09 | 3



Conclusions (preliminary)

There is no such thing as a freelunch

But we can help by structuring the payment in small installments

18/11/09 | 4



Web Services

Web based application

1 2

34

18/11/09 | 5



Example

FpMLFinancial Products Markup LanguagePoliced by ISDA

FpML isA set of documents that describe the structure of

how to encode financial products in XMLXMLSchema to enable validation of correct

message formatsThere are a set of sequence diagrams to govern

when to send what to whom

18/11/09 | 6



Example continued

Typical message:

18/11/09 | 7



Example continued

Typical flow:

18/11/09 | 8



The problem

How do we know what the context is for any FpML message

Is it NovationConsentGranted?

Is it NovationConsentRefused?

18/11/09 | 9



The solution

Hope and pray ….Add meta data around the FpML packageAgree meta data with your clients

NovationConsentGrantedAllocationId 9876

18/11/09 | 10



The problem was

Behavior first. Content second.

No agreement on meta data needed, because there are no fully defined processes

What makes a NovationConsentGranted a NovationConsentGranted is the process not the message. The message is a consequence.

18/11/09 | 11



The problem today

Sequence diagrams are not enough

18/11/09 | 12



Buyer, Seller, Credit Agency, Shipper.Buyer barters with the Seller to get a price Buyer accepts a price and places an orderSeller checks Buyers credit worthinessSeller requests delivery from ShipperShipper sends delivery details to Seller and to Buyer

How do we write this down?

An Example

18/11/09 | 13



Buyer Seller

Shipper

CreditAgency

An Example

18/11/09 | 14



Buyer Seller

• Buyer request a quote from the seller.

• Seller responds with a quote.

• Quotes may timeout.

• Buyer MAY update quote and request the update from the

seller.• Seller MAY respond with the

update quote.

• Buyer MAY accept the quote.

An Example

18/11/09 | 15



Buyer Seller

Shipper

CreditAgency

• Seller checks credit worthiness.

• Seller requests delivery from Shipper.• Shipper sends delivery details back to

Seller and to Buyer.

• If Buyer accepts the quote.

• If Credit worthiness is okay

An Example

18/11/09 | 16



Why Process?

All messages exist in a context.E.g. fpml:RequestAllocationConfirmation message will not be relevant in an

Affirmation (Trade) business process

It’s not what you do but the way that you do itDid I expect to get an fpml:AllocationConfirmed message after sending an

fpml:ConfirmAllocation?Ordering is important because it defines how you behave. Behaviour directly

impact interoperability. Can I work with Mega Bank?

Standardising the business processes increases STP rates and enables the market to grow.

The differentiator is the product being sold not how the back office deal with it.

18/11/09 | 17



Choreographed Web Services

18/11/09 | 18



Contexts?• How to manage workflows in environments, where

not all services are owned by the same organisation?• How to align the configurations and settings needed

by a service to operate with those of the operational environment?

• How is service execution affected by issues of trust, rights, obligations and prohibitions?

• What if critical applications simply cease to function if services provisioned from third parties disappear or malfunction?

• How to deal with knowledge representation, when connecting or binding together two or more actual entities or services using different ontologies?

18/11/09 | 19



MethodologyFrameworkCoordination level:

- coordination patterns- task allocation

- actor expectation

Organizational level:- norms and regulations

- organizational structure- communication ontology

- evaluation indicators

The ALIVE approach

WSWS

WS

WS

WS WS

Existing platformsExisting services

New servicesService interactions

SDSD

SD

SD

SD SDService level:

- semantic service description (SD)

- standards specification

actor

actor

actoractor

role

dynamic assignment

Functional instantiation

role role role

actual deploymentHOW?(available services)

WHAT?(possible actions, plans)

WHY?(motivations)

18/11/09 | 20



Framew

ork

Methodology

WSWS

WS

WS

WS

SDSD

SD

SD

SD

actor

actor

actor

role

role role role

WS

SD

actor


Organizational level

Coordination level

Service level

Methodology

Framew

ork

SDSD

SD

SD

SD

actor

actor

actoractor

role

role role role

SD

WS

WS

WS

WS

WS

WS

MODEL-DRIVENENGINEERING

The ALIVE approach

18/11/09 | 21



Architecture

18/11/09 | 22


ESAW demo November 2009iiWAS, December 2009ALIVE architecture

18/11/09 | 23



Overall StructureFramework

(applied to application)

Technology specific development

Off-line Architecture On-line Architecture

SupportingMethodology

DesignTools

Metamodels

ApplicationModelFiles

ApplicationDeployment

FacilitatorComponents

Execution,Monitoring,

MaintenanceTools

Set UpTools

18/11/09 | 24



ALIVE Framework

Coordination level

WSWS

WS

WS

WS WS

SDSD

SD

SD

SD SD

Service level

actor

actor

actoractor

role

role role role


Coordination level

WSWS

WS

WS

WS

WSWS

WS

WS

WS WS

SDSD

SD

SD

SD SDSD

Service level

actor

actor

actoractor

actor

actoractoractor

role

role rolerole role rolerole

Organizational level Concepts:

Organisational structure,objective, role, scene, landmark, norm

Concepts:

actor, agent, goal, task,state, plan

Concepts:

service, service adaptor,service template, service matchmaker

18/11/09 | 25



ALIVE Framework

Coordination level

WSWS

WS

WS

WS WS

SDSD

SD

SD

SD SD

Service level

actor

actor

actoractor

role

role role role


Coordination level

WSWS

WS

WS

WS

WSWS

WS

WS

WS WS

SDSD

SD

SD

SD SDSD

Service level

actor

actor

actoractor

actor

actoractoractor

role

role rolerole role rolerole

Organizational levelALIVE Organisational

Metamodel(‘OperA’ MOF)

ALIVE Coordination Metamodel

ALIVE Event Metamodel

ALIVE ServiceMetamodel

18/11/09 | 26



Advances over State of the Art

• Mapping human organisations to service-based solutions– models are defined at a level of abstraction that allows non-

expert end-users to support better the design and the maintenance of the system

• Provides an organisational context (such as, for instance, objectives, structures and regulations) that can be used to select, compose and invoke services dynamically.

• Multi-layer approach allows for:– Traceability (why is something done in this way on this level?)– Adaptivity (moving up in abstraction to solve problems at a

specific level)

18/11/09 | 27



Advances over State of the Art• 3 levels of adaptation:

– Changes in system functionalitiese.g., services that become unavailable or are not performing correctly Automatic selection/discovery of (new) services

– Changes in environmental conditionse.g., changes (sensed symptoms) that can lead to potential failure during

the achievement of objectives Generation of a new plan of action for the objective

– Changes in stakeholders needse.g., changes in laws and norms that regiment particular organisational

protocols and responsibilities Selection of (new) objective(s) to achieve

Service

Coordination

Organisation

18/11/09 | 28




18/11/09 | 29



Goal

Provide a stable high level description of the system that can be used to guide adaptations in the coordination and service levels

It provides both objectives for procedures (workflows) as well as constraints (norms) on them

It provides objectives and capabilities for the roles that agents should fulfill and norms on how to fulfill the role

18/11/09 | 30


ESAW demo November 2009

Organizational Model

ROLE

ROLE

rolerelation

objectivesnorms

Social structure Interaction structureSCENESCRIPT

SCENESCRIPT

player

landmarks

normsresults

constraints

scenetransition

OrganizationalOrganizational ModelModelNormative Normative Concrete Concrete LevelLevel

RoleNorms

SceneNorms Transition

Norms

Ontological Ontological Concrete Concrete LevelLevel

Ontologies

Communicationlanguages

Architectural Templates

RoleRules

SceneRules

TransitionRules

iiWAS, December 2009

18/11/09 | 31



Social StructureRole dependencies

ConferenceSociety

Organizer Author

PC-member Session-Chair

paper_reviewed session_organized

conference_organized paper_submitted

Presenter

paper_presented

PC-chair Local-chair

program-organized local-organized

18/11/09 | 32



Role example

Role: PC Member Objectives paper_reviewed(P, Rep)

Sub-objectives { read(P), report_written(P, Rep), review_received(Org, P, Rep) }

Rights access-confman-program(me)

Norms OBLIGED understand(English)

IF DONE assigned (P, me, Deadline)

THEN OBLIGED paper_reviewed(P, Rep) BEFORE Deadline

IF DONE paper_assigned(P,me, _) AND direct_colleague(author(P))

THEN OBLIGED review_refused(P) BEFORE TOMORROW

Type external


18/11/09 | 33



The Organizational Model

ROLE

ROLE

rolerelation

objectivesnorms

Social structure Interaction structureSCENESCRIPT

SCENESCRIPT

player

landmarks

normsresults

constraints

scenetransition

OrganizationalOrganizational ModelModelNormative Normative Concrete Concrete LevelLevel

RoleNorms

SceneNorms Transition

Norms

Ontological Ontological Concrete Concrete LevelLevel

Ontologies

Communicationlanguages

Architectural Templates

RoleRules

SceneRules

TransitionRules


18/11/09 | 34



Interaction structure

Send Call for Papers

Form PC

Send Call for Participation

Paper Submission

Review Process

Registration

Paper Acceptance

Conferenceon-site

registration

ConferenceSessions

M

start end

WorkshopsN


18/11/09 | 35



Scene example

Interaction Scene: Review ProcessRoles PC-Chair (1), PC-member (2..Max)

Results r1 = ∀ P ∈Papers, reviews_done(P, review1, review2)

r2 = ∀ p ∈Papers, decision_on_paper(paper, decision, review1, review2)

Interaction

Patterns

PATTERN(r1) ={ DONE(O, paper_assigned(P,PC1,DeadlineR) BEFORE DeadlineA), DONE(O, paper_assigned(P,PC2,DeadlineR), BEFORE DeadlineA),

DeadlineA BEFORE DeadlineR, DONE(PC1, paper_reviewed(P, Rev1) BEFORE DeadlineR),

DONE(PC2, paper_reviewed(P, Rev2) BEFORE DeadlineR) }Norms PERMITTED(O, paper_assigned(P, PC, DeadlineA) )

OBLIGED(PC, paper_reviewed(P, Rev) BEFORE DeadlineR)

OBLIGED (O, decision_on_paper(P, D, Rev1, Rev2) BEFORE DeadlineD)

landmarks

start

assign paperPC1

end

assign paperPC2

Assigndeadline

receive reviewPC1

receive reviewPC2

Reviewdeadline


18/11/09 | 36



OperettA Eclipse

18/11/09 | 36


Review February 2009 iiWAS, December 2009

18/11/09 | 37



OperettA Eclipse

18/11/09 | 37


Review February 2009 iiWAS, December 2009

18/11/09 | 38



Coordination level

18/11/09 | 39



Objectives• Operational model for coordination of dynamic workflow

services• Mechanisms for analysis of properties in model• Mechanisms for synthesis of components• Goal

– Bridge organisational and service levels

18/11/09 | 40



Coordination level: the big picture

18/11/09 | 41



Action Editor• Actions

– Special domain knowledge– Complement/depend on organisation spec.

• Represented in semantically rich format (OWL-S)– Pre- and post-conditions– Atomic and composite (with control constructs)

• Functionalities:– Create/edit actions– Visualise actions

18/11/09 | 42



Action Editor (Cont’d)Action meta-model

18/11/09 | 43



Action Editor (Cont’d)

18/11/09 | 44



Action Editor (Cont’d)Advancement of state-of-the-art:

• OWL-S used for general agent action description (not Web services)

• Extend OWL-S to represent adding/removing effects in post-conditions

• Development of OWL-S meta-model• Meta-modelling facilitated development (including

changes)

18/11/09 | 45



Task Editor• Task

– Problem description (incl. world state and objective)– Input to plan/workflow synthesis

• Functionalities– Visualise, create and edit tasks

18/11/09 | 46



Task Editor (Cont’d)Task meta-model

18/11/09 | 47



Task Editor (Cont’d)

18/11/09 | 48



Plan/Workflow Tool• Functionalities:

– Synthesis of workflows/plans– Visualise workflows– Manually create workflows and edit existing ones

• Eclipse plug-in• Invokes plan synthesis (web-) service

– Currently based on JSHOP2– Inputs: actions and a planning problem (task)– Generates (series of) workflow(s)

18/11/09 | 49



Plan/Workflow Tool (Cont’d)Workflow meta-model

18/11/09 | 50



Plan/Workflow Tool (Cont’d)

18/11/09 | 51



Plan/Workflow Tool (Cont’d)Planning process

Compound Action Atomic Action

18/11/09 | 52



Plan/Workflow Tool (Cont’d)

18/11/09 | 53



Plan/Workflow Tool (Cont’d)Advancement of state-of-the-art:

• Use extended OWL-S for general planning• Organisation-oriented planning• Modular architecture allows for different planners to be

used• Meta-modelling provided modularity to architecture

18/11/09 | 54



Agent ToolFunctionalities

– Visualise, create and edit agent specifications– Generation of agents, based on organisation– Allocation of actions to agents– Synthesis and injection of agents into platform (namely,

AgentScape)

18/11/09 | 55



Agent Tool (Cont’d)Agent meta-model

18/11/09 | 56



Agent Tool (Cont’d)Agent editor architecture

18/11/09 | 57



Agent Tool (Cont’d)

18/11/09 | 58



Agent Tool (Cont’d)Advancement of state-of-the-art:

– Organisation-oriented synthesis of software agents– Organisation-aware software agents dealing with

exceptions– Agent-based plan/workflow enactment (with re-planning)– Technologies: AgentScape, TAEMS

18/11/09 | 59



Event Analysis Tool• Workflows enactments provide event logs

– Log file: who performed what and when– Event meta-model with associated ontology– Events should be analysed w.r.t. workflow

• Functionalities– Throughput Time– Violated Norms– Social Network Analysis– Task Matrix– Quality of Service

18/11/09 | 60



Event Analysis Tool (Cont’d)Event meta-model

18/11/09 | 61



Event Analysis Tool (Cont’d)Model-driven workflow design & verification

18/11/09 | 62



Event Analysis Tool (Cont’d)Eclipse plug-in

1. Choose “analysis” option2. Choose “enactment” of workflows

3. Choose period of log

18/11/09 | 63



Event Analysis Tool (Cont’d)Task Matrix

Violated Norms

18/11/09 | 64



Event Analysis Tool (Cont’d)

Social Network Analysis

Throughput Time

Quality of Service

18/11/09 | 65



Service level

18/11/09 | 66



From coordination to services

Service ExecutionDisovery/Matchmaking

Service Selection

Coordination Level

DeployRequiredServices

WorkflowEnactment

Invoke task

Feed back performance &

metrics

Service Level

Task Query

search/query services

Service Handle

Return results

18/11/09 | 67



Services Layer Architecture

18/11/09 | 68



Matchmaking architecture

18/11/09 | 69



Matchmaker Demo

18/11/09 | 70



OWLSBuilder

18/11/09 | 71



Model Driven Approach

18/11/09 | 72



Methodology :: State of the Art

12/11/2009 | 72


Review November 2009

Core Characteristics

1. Level of Abstraction2. Automation3. Model based (Graphical)4. Tool Supported5. Adaptation

– Design-Time– Run-Time

6. Multi Layers– Holistic approach– Integrated

7. Monitoring8. Formalised


18/11/09 | 73



Methodology :: Model Driven

12/11/2009 | 73



• Raise level of Abstraction• Code Automation• Creation of Tools (Editors)• Consistency

• (validate rules)• Layer Integration


18/11/09 | 74



Methodology :: Multi Layers Integration

12/11/2009 | 74



• Based on 3 Integrated Conceptual Layers

Relations

Role

Actor

Task Service

Norm

Pre/Post condition


18/11/09 | 75



Development Life Cycle for an ALIVE application

• Design Time– Modelling/Metamodelling– Model Integration/Consistency

• Tools/Automations• Run Time

– Execution and Monitoring• Semantic Analysis and Selection• Adaptation

Methodology :: Development Process

12/11/2009 | 75



Adap

tatio

n

SemanticAnalysis Exe

cutio

n

& Monito

ring

Autom

ated

Creation

Design( Modelling)

DevelopmentProcess


18/11/09 | 76



Methodology :: Design Time

12/11/2009 | 76


Review November 2009iiWAS, December 2009

18/11/09 | 77



Methodology :: Run Time

12/11/2009 | 77


Review November 2009iiWAS, December 2009

18/11/09 | 78



Use cases

• Thales:– Focus on integration between Organization and

Coordination levels• Calico Jack:

– Focus on integration between Coordination and Service levels

• TMT:– Demonstrates integration of all three levels

18/11/09 | 79



Simulations of crises expensive and time consumingDistributed / Automated simulations seems to provide an

ideal solutionChallenges:

How to make the simulations realistic?What to simulate?How to feed results back into process?

Crisis Management Scenarios have organisation, co-ordination and services that can be independently assessed and modelled.

Thales Use Case Motivation

13/11/2009 | 79



18/11/09 | 80



Simulation Toolkit:Allow different scenarios to be rapidly modelled and

the results displayed for ease of evaluationServices represent the actions that are performed

by crisis management personnelCoordination between these tasks result in

changes to the enactment of the entire scenario.Organisational constraints determine the

coordination that can take place.

Outline of Use Case


13/11/2009 | 80 Alive Project Review Meeting iiWAS, December 2009

18/11/09 | 81



Flooding of two adjacent regions

Evacuation of these regions required

This entails evacuation of NietzelfredzamenHospitalsElderlyPrisoners

Scenario



18/11/09 | 82



Demo



18/11/09 | 83


ESAW demo November 2009iiWAS, December 200913/11/2009 | 83 Alive Project Review Meeting

Organisation Modeling

• Organisations are modelled using the OperettA tool• Social Structures define the roles and their

relationships• Interaction Structures model the landmarks and the

required steps to reach these landmarks• Norms are defined as both the social norms and

institutional norms.• Social Norm: Women & Children first• Institutional Norm: Buildings should not be re-

entered; Evacuation time <= 300 minutes


18/11/09 | 84



Specifies the organisational context of the domainInteraction Structure specifies the desired/required

interactions within the organisationSocial Structure specifies the important parties that

play a part in the organisation(Basic) Ontology support

Creating roles/objectives/etc. adds their name as concept to a generated ontology

Roles/objectives/… can be named by selecting a concept from an existing ontology

OperettA



18/11/09 | 85



OperettA.check adds model validation to the organisational model editorValidates organisational model based on defined

constraints to ensure model correctnessChecks vary from checking whether all roles have a

name…To checking whether landmark patterns are

connected and acyclic

Organisational Model Validation



18/11/09 | 86



Social Structure (Roles)

Organisation Modeling in OperettA



18/11/09 | 87



Basic Interactions:

Interaction Structures…



18/11/09 | 88



Evacuation of a Hospital requires planning for both Critical and non-critical patients.

Help must be sought if Norms (e.g. time required to evacuated greater than a limit) will be violated.

Organisational Structure guides how resources are used to fulfil action plans

…Leads to Action Plans



18/11/09 | 89



Initial Link to ServicesHelp define the workflow to allow landmarks to be

reached.

Action Modeling



18/11/09 | 90



Organisation Level – Coordination Level Model Transformation

13/11/2009 | 90 Alive Project Review Meeting

Organisation Level Coordination LevelOL::Scene CL::CompositeActionOL::LandmarkPattern CL::CompositeActionOL::Landmark CL::CompositeActionOL::Objective (with subObjectives)OL::Objective

CL::CompositeActionCL::AtomicAction

OL::PartialStateDescription CL::AtomicActionResultOL::Player CL::ParticipantOL:: ... CL:: ...

• Transformation Definition • Model2Model (QVTO)• result:: actions model


18/11/09 | 91



Actions



18/11/09 | 92



Actions (Evacuate Hospital Scene)



18/11/09 | 93



Modeling based approach brings particular advantages to the Crisis Management Simulations:Rapid development of new scenarios;Re-planning based on failures at run time.Visual Development of new Scenarios

Conclusions



18/11/09 | 94



• Communication in leisure domainsNeed to bridge different media: instant message, e-mail,

voice call, video, SMSManage changing roles and identities of usersCouple with online social networking resources

• Goal: Dynamic reconfiguration of communication pathways based on Availability of services Availability of user (what is appropriate when)

• Exploit existing social structuresRelationships on social network sites indicate appropriate

channels

Calico Jack

15/12/2009 | 94


2nd ReviewiiWAS, December 2009

18/11/09 | 95



Calico Jack – Organisational Model

15/12/2009 | 95



18/11/09 | 96



Calico Jack – Interaction Structure

15/12/2009 | 96



18/11/09 | 97



Calico Jack – Actions to handle message

15/12/2009 | 97



18/11/09 | 98



Calico Jack – Example Scene Plan

15/12/2009 | 98



18/11/09 | 99



• Innovative aspects of solution developedDesigning for robustness Abstract away from detailed engineeringSolutions that are more robust and more reliable

• Previously:pipeline of services single points of (potential) failure chained

together• With ALIVE:

Dynamic substitution in the face of failure

Calico Jack

15/12/2009 | 99



18/11/09 | 100



Need to upgrade urban information services

For people living in or visiting a city

Ubiquitous access

Context-awareness

Personalised interaction and content

Multimedia

TMT

15/12/2009 | 100



18/11/09 | 101



• Specific requirements

Dynamically compose high value services

Content providers

React and adapt to dynamic environments:coordination tasks to support services that come and

go;organisational norms to support dynamic selection of

coordination plans.

Filter to match user

TMT

15/12/2009 | 101



18/11/09 | 102



TMT – Knowledge representation

15/12/2009 | 102



18/11/09 | 103



TMT – Interaction Structure

15/12/2009 | 103



18/11/09 | 104



TMT – Organisational Model

15/12/2009 | 104 2nd ReviewiiWAS, December 2009

18/11/09 | 105



TMT – Content adaption workflow

15/12/2009 | 105



18/11/09 | 106



TMT – Tasks to gather user preferences

15/12/2009 | 106



18/11/09 | 107



TMT – Actions to adapt content

15/12/2009 | 107



18/11/09 | 108



TMT – Agent screen shot

15/12/2009 | 108



18/11/09 | 109



TMT – Context Web Service

15/12/2009 | 109


Obtaining local time

Obtaining user’s

location

Obtaining weather forecast


18/11/09 | 110



TMT – Legal broker Web Service

15/12/2009 | 110


Obtain age to be considered legally an adult for a specific

location.


18/11/09 | 111



TMT – User Modeller Web Service

15/12/2009 | 111


Obtaining user’s cinema

preferences

Obtaining user’s restaurant

preferences

Obtaining user’s requirements


18/11/09 | 112



TMT – Movie cinema suggestion Web Service

15/12/2009 | 112


Obtain a movie and cinema suggestion


18/11/09 | 113



TMT – Restaurant suggestion Web Service

15/12/2009 | 113


Obtain a restaurant suggestion


18/11/09 | 114



• Innovative aspects of solution developedSolutions that are more robust and reliable

Multiple levels gives robustnessPreviously:

Single points of (potential) failure chained togetherLack of dynamic consideration of all relevant factors

With ALIVE:Dynamic substitution in the face of failureConsideration of all factors:

Accessibility: people with functional diversityContext-awarenessPersonalised interaction and content

TMT

15/12/2009 | 114



18/11/09 | 115



Conclusions

18/11/09 | 116



Conclusions

• ALIVE provides a high level context for web services• This provides stability and robustness• The coordination level provides flexibility• The semantic web service level provides dynamic

matchmaking based on semantic and syntactic features

• Use cases indicate usefulness of the approach• For more info on ALIVE see: www.ist-alive.eu

18/11/09 | 117



Thanks to:

Javier Vázquez-SalcedaVirginia DignumJulian PadgetHuib AldewereldOwen CliffeDalia KhaderJuan Carlos NievesSergio Alvarez NapagaoSofia PanagiotidiDavid CorsarAlison ChorleyWamberto Vasconcelos

Luigi CeccaroniManel Palau RoigThomas QuillinanKees NieuwenhuisAthanasios StaikopoulosRazvan PopescuSiobhan ClarkeChris ReedPaul Sergeant


18/11/09 | 118



END

Business

ALIVE @IIWAS'2009