Lecture #10 (F10) 30 March 2006 Service-oriented ... · SOA and Web services • SOA is the blueprint for IT infrastructure of the future. • SOA extends the Web services value proposition

1

Based on material developed in ATHENA (IST-507849), INTEROP (IST-508011) and MODELWARE (IST-511731)

Lecture #10 (F10)30 March 2006

–

Service-oriented architecture (SOA), COMET architecture

modelling method, PIM4SOABrian Elvesæter, SINTEF ICT [email protected]

Based on material developed in ATHENA (IST-507849 ), INTEROP (IST-508011) and MODELWARE (IST-511731) 2

Outline

• Service-oriented architecture (SOA)– SOA and Web service architectures

• COMET (service) architecture modelling method• ATHENA service-oriented interoperability (SOI)

framework– Rapid prototyping framework for SOA– Baseline modelling methodology for SOA– Platform independent model for SOA (PIM4SOA)– Modelling tools and services

• Case study– AIDIMA e-procurement scenario

• References

2


Service-Oriented Architecture (SOA)


SOA definition

• Service-oriented architecture (SOA)– “A set of components which can be invoked, and

whose interface descriptions can be published, discovered and invoked over a network.” (W3C)

• http://www.w3.org/

• Evolution of architectural styles to designing software systems– Data-orientation– Procedure-orientation– Object-orientation– Component- and message-orientation– Service-orientation

3


Service-oriented model

• Service provider: A service provider is the party that provides software applications for specific needs as services. Service providers publish, unpublish and update their services so that they are available on the Internet.

• Service requester: A requester is the party that has a need that can be fulfilled by a service available on the Internet. A requester could be a human user accessing the service through a desktop or a wireless browser; it could be an application program; or it could be another service. A requester finds the required services via a service broker and binds to services via the service provider.

• Service broker: A service broker provides a searchable repository of service descriptions where service providers publish their services and service requesters find services and obtain binding information for these services. Examples of service brokers are UDDI (Universal Description, Discovery, and Integration) and XMethods. In many cases the role of the service broker is not explicitly needed. Services can be discovered by marketing channels or by referrals.


Motivation

Enterprise• Challenges

– Business agility– Flexibility and adaptability

• Enterprise architecture frameworks+ Holistic approach+ Different views of an enterprise as

related (visual) knowledge models- Current enterprise architectures are only

blueprints

ICT• Challenges

– Inflexible and difficult to adapt– Enterprise application integration (EAI)

• Service-oriented architecture (SOA)+ Loosely coupled systems+ Horizontal integration between different

business domains+ Use case oriented service composition+/- Web services (enabling technology)- Discussion about architectural style

RequirementsEnterprises require operational enterprise architecturesICT solutions must be designed to be inherently interoperable

4


Business and technology alignment

• Business – Services can be seen as

business capabilities that support the enterprise.

– Services usually represent a business function or domain.

– Services provide the ‘units of business’ that represent value propositions within a value chain or within business processes.

– Traceability between the service as a business capability and its technical implementation.

– Services will improve delivery methods that are an integral part of the business product.

• Technology– Modular design– Compositions and granularity– Services are loosely coupled– From compile-time and

deployment-time dependencies to run-time dependencies

– Dynamic discovery and binding– Services are standardized

(“platform independent”)– Standard Internet and Web

protocols as the common “glue” to provide “syntactical interoperability”

Based on material developed in ATHENA (IST-507849 ), INTEROP (IST-508011) and MODELWARE (IST-511731) 8System A System DSystem CSystem B

From isolated application systemsto service-oriented systems

• “A set of components which can be invoked, and whose interface descriptions can be published and discovered.”

• “A Web service is a software system designed to support interoperable machine-to-machine interaction over a network. It has an interface described in a machine-processable format (specifically WSDL). Other systems interact with the Web service in a manner prescribed by its description using SOAP-messages, typically conveyed using HTTP with an XML serialization in conjunction with other Web-related standards.”

- W3C Web Services Glossary, http://www.w3.org/TR/ws-gloss/

SOA(architectural style)

Web service (enablingtechnology)

5


SOA and Web services

• SOA is the blueprint for IT infrastructure of the future.

• SOA extends the Web services value proposition by providing guidance on how enterprise IT infrastructures should be designed using services.

• Four step migration process.1. Implementing individual Web services: Creating

services from tasks contained in new or existing applications

2. Service-oriented integration of business functions3. Enterprise-wide IT transformation4. On-demand business transformations


New mode of collaboration

?

Privateview

Publicview

Business services

Internal services

Enterprise Service Bus

?

Enterprise A

Enterprise X Enterprise Y

Knowledge model

Service

Collaboration space

Composed business services

Shared business model

6


8 SOA challenges

1. Service identification. What is a service? What is the business functionality to be provided by a given service? What is the optimal granularity of the service?

2. Service location. Where should a service be located within the enterprise?

3. Service domain definition. How should services be grouped together into logical domains?

4. Service packaging. How is existing functionality within legacy mainframe systems to be re-engineered or wrapped into reusable services?

5. Service orchestration. How are composite services to be orchestrated? 6. Service routing. How are requests from service consumers to be routed

to the appropriate service and/or service domain? 7. Service governance. How will the enterprise exercise governance

processes to administer and maintain services? 8. Service messaging standards adoption. How will the enterprise adopt a

given standard consistently?


COMET (service) architecture modelling method

7



4+2 tier reference architecture

User ServiceTierUser ResourceService Tier LS

Legacy

BusinessServiceTier

ResourceServiceTier

Presentation Tier

User Dialog Tier Com

ponentInfrastructure

Key

Component

Inter-componentcommunication

UserS

erviceD

omain

Business Service

Dom

ain

UserInterfaceTier

LS

Resource AdapterRARA

LA

RA

LA Local Adapter

Local Storage

Database

ToolApplication

8


System boundary model


Architecture model (1/2)

• The architecture model describes the overall architecture of the system and its partitioning into components– The collaborations of components are described in terms of

component interactions, component interfaces and protocols.

• The architecture model describes two aspects of the system; the static (structure) and dynamic (behaviour).– The structural model describes the components, their

dependencies, and internal component design– the dynamic model describes the component interfaces,

interactions and protocols.

• The architecture model is a platform independent system specification.– To keep platform independence there is a need to be able to also

specify the data types in a platform independent way.

9


Architecture model (2/2)

• Component Structure and Internal Designdescribes the static aspect of the system.– It includes the overall architecture and the partitioning

into components as well as the internal design of the components.

• Interface and Interaction Specification describes the dynamic aspect of the system.– It specifies the interfaces and related protocols as well

as defining the interactions between sets of components necessary to provide the required services.

– The abstract object model provided through an interface are also described

• PIM data types contains the platform independent data-types used in the architecture model.


Component structure metamodel

10


Survey booking model structure


Architecture model template in RSM

11

Based on material developed in ATHENA (IST-507849), INTEROP (IST-508011) and MODELWARE (IST-511731)

Reference Architecture Analysis


Reference architecture analysis

• Recall the Reference Architecture with associated tiers and component types.

• Analyse the System Boundary part of the Use Case Model with regards to the Reference Architecture.

– The System Boundary correspond to the boundaries of the component of concern for the actual project, typically an Application Component.

• After the identification of this "main" component the next step is to analyze the System Boundary Model with respect to its set of use cases and actors.

• Divide the System Boundary Model into a set of subsystems.

– Each subsystem will cover a collection of the System Boundary use cases.

– The subsystems are non-exclusive, implying that a use case might be part of more than one subsystem.

– The result of this task is a functional decomposition of the main component, with reiterated versions of the use cases.

12


Subsystem grouping


Component identification

Component Infrastructure

BookingEditor BookingViewer

BookingService

ActivityInfo

SubscriptionService

SubscriptionEditor

SubscriptionInfo

13


Component structure and internal design

• Use the reference architecture to define components.• The following factors might be considered when dividing into

components:– Functionality and usage Technology. This includes for instance

network, component infrastructure, reference architecture, distribution mechanisms, operating system, data storage frameworks and standards that should be followed.

– Organization. This might be how the development team is organized or how the end users are organized.

– Distribution. This includes distribution of people, equipment and systems; both at build time (development environment) and run time (end user environment).

– Use case actors. Grouping of functionality based on the actors of the use cases.

– Physical nodes. What nodes are available, and where are the locations.– Parallel work. How to subdivide to maximize parallel work, this might be

during in build time and/or run time.– Non-functional requirements such as availability, performance,

security, scalability etc.


Application component (AC) structure

BookingEditor BookingViewer SubscriptionEditor

SubscriptionService

ISubscription

SubscriptionInfo

ISubscriptionInfo

EmailBrowser

BookingService

IBookingService

ActivityInfo

IActivityInfo

INotifyEmailServer

SMTP

POP

Survey Booking AC Subscription Management AC

Existing Email Service

14


Component model in RSM


Booking editor tool in RSM

15


Interface and interaction specification

• Goals– Capture and describe component interface and interactions.– The behaviours of the architectural elements should be

understood and described, i.e. how components collaborate.• Methods and techniques

– Inputs are the Business Model the Requirements Model (including the Reference Architecture Analysis and the work element analysis).

– In addition the Component Structure and Internal Design defines the component structure and interface dependencies and is obviously an important input to this model.

– Vice versa the Interface and Interaction Specification is key input to the Component Structure and Internal design as these models forms different viewpoints of the same part of the full model and thus, have to be fully consistent.


Booking editor tool: Component structure

16


Booking editor tool:Business resource analysis

• Identify the business resources that should be available through the tool by:– Examining the

use casesfor the tool

– Examining the screen-mockups (developed for the prototype)

Old GUI Prototype GUI


Booking editor tool:Business resource analysis result

17


Booking editor tool:User service interface specification

IU serServ ice

+O PERA T ION _A : integer=1

+createSchedule(In subRegionsList [*] string ,In vesselList [*] st ring ,In startT ime:D ate ,In endT ime:D ate):P roject

+imp ortSchedule(In schedule:Project ,In subregionList [*] string ,In vesselList [*] string ,In includeOw nA ctivit ies:boolean ,In includeComp etitorA ctivit ies:boolean):Exp ortResult

+startBrow ser(In scheduleData:Project )+login(In username:string ,In p assword:string ,In url:U RL):LoginStatus+exit ()+hasA ccessRights(In op erat ion:integer):boolean

+getUsername(In loginStatus:LoginStatus):string+isN ew (In scheduleD ata:Project):boolean+isM odified(In scheduleD ata:Project)+checkD irectory (In dir:string):st ring+getScheduleBufferN ames(): [*] string+getScheduleFileNames(): [*] st ring+getScheduleFileNames(In directory :string): [*] string+getSchedule(In name:string):Project+closeSchedule(In scheduleD ata:Project )+getScheduleD irectory (In scheduleD ata:P roject):string+getScheduleFileName(In scheduleD ata:Project):string+op enSchedule(In directory :string):Project+saveSchedule(In directory :string ,In filename:st ring ,In stealLock:boolean):boolean

+mergeSchedule(In schedule:Project ,In data:Exp ortResult ,In localID s [*] string):Project+exp ortSchedule(In schedule:Project ,In localID [*] st ring ,In force:boolean):Exp ortResult

+getCountry List (): [*] O rgU nit+getRegions(): [*] O rgU nit+getCorp orat ionCodes(): [*] OrgU nit+getComp anies(In only Comp etitors:boolean): [*] O rgU nit+getOw nComp any ():O rgUnit+getAllVessels(): [*] OrgU nit+getVessels(In comp any N ame:string): [*] OrgU nit

+createO rgU nit (In scheduleD ata:P roject ,In ty p e:string ,In name:st ring):O rgU nit+createProject(In scheduleD ata:P roject ,In ty p e:string ,In name:string):Project

+getVessels(In comp any N ames [*] string): [*] OrgU nit+createPreferences():ParameterSet+getPreferences():ParameterSet+savePreferences(In data:ParameterSet):boolean

+O PERA T ION _A : integer=1

+createSchedule(In subRegionsList [*] string ,In vesselList [*] st ring ,In startT ime:D ate ,In endT ime:D ate):P roject

+imp ortSchedule(In schedule:Project ,In subregionList [*] string ,In vesselList [*] string ,In includeOw nA ctivit ies:boolean ,In includeComp etitorA ctivit ies:boolean):Exp ortResult

+getVessels(In comp any N ame:string): [*] OrgU nit+getVessels(In comp any N ames [*] string): [*] OrgU nit

+startBrow ser(In scheduleData:Project )+login(In username:string ,In p assword:string ,In url:U RL):LoginStatus+exit ()+hasA ccessRights(In op erat ion:integer):boolean

+getUsername(In loginStatus:LoginStatus):string+isN ew (In scheduleD ata:Project):boolean+isM odified(In scheduleD ata:Project)+checkD irectory (In dir:string):st ring+getScheduleBufferN ames(): [*] string+getScheduleFileNames(): [*] st ring+getScheduleFileNames(In directory :string): [*] string+getSchedule(In name:string):Project+closeSchedule(In scheduleD ata:Project )+getScheduleD irectory (In scheduleD ata:P roject):string+getScheduleFileName(In scheduleD ata:Project):string+op enSchedule(In directory :string):Project+saveSchedule(In directory :string ,In filename:st ring ,In stealLock:boolean):boolean

+mergeSchedule(In schedule:Project ,In data:Exp ortResult ,In localID s [*] string):Project+exp ortSchedule(In schedule:Project ,In localID [*] st ring ,In force:boolean):Exp ortResult

+getCountry List (): [*] O rgU nit+getRegions(): [*] O rgU nit+getCorp orat ionCodes(): [*] OrgU nit+getComp anies(In only Comp etitors:boolean): [*] O rgU nit+getOw nComp any ():O rgUnit+getAllVessels(): [*] OrgU nit

+createO rgU nit (In scheduleD ata:P roject ,In ty p e:string ,In name:st ring):O rgU nit+createProject(In scheduleD ata:P roject ,In ty p e:string ,In name:string):Project

+createPreferences():ParameterSet+getPreferences():ParameterSet+savePreferences(In data:ParameterSet):boolean


Booking service business service: Component structure

BookingService

IBookingService

IActivityInfo

ISubscription

INotify

18


Booking service business service:Interface specification

IBookingService

+userName : string+userEMailAddress : string

+importSchedule(In subregionList [*] List(string) ,In vesselList:List(string) ,In startTime:Date ,In endTime:Date ,In existingGlobalIds:Vector ,In companyFilter:CompanyEnum):ExportResult+exportSchedule(In _scheduleProperties:Vector ,In _force:boolean):ExportResult

+userName : string+userEMailAddress : string

+importSchedule(In subregionList [*] List(string) ,In vesselList:List(string) ,In startTime:Date ,In endTime:Date ,In existingGlobalIds:Vector ,In companyFilter:CompanyEnum):ExportResult+exportSchedule(In _scheduleProperties:Vector ,In _force:boolean):ExportResult

<<CompositeData>>ExportResult

GLOBAL_ID : stringLOCAL_ID : stringLAST_UPDATED : stringscheduleProperties : VectorconflictProperties : Vector

GLOBAL_ID : stringLOCAL_ID : stringLAST_UPDATED : stringscheduleProperties : VectorconflictProperties : Vector


ATHENA Service-Oriented Interoperability (SOI)

Framework

19


Rapid prototyping framework for SOA

PIM4SOA

MDD FrameworkWSDL Documents BDI Teams

WSDL Analyzer

External WSDL Documents

Lyndon

Johnson Jack«invoke» «invoke»

• Johnson and Lyndon provide enactment of all the roles found in an SOA (consumer, provider, intermediary) and flexible communication between Web services through an intuitive user interface• The WSDL Analyzer tool detected syntactical mismatches between service descriptions and provides a basis for runtime mediation of Web service messages

• The Web service extensions to the JACK autonomous agents platform allow SOAs to use agents for brokering, mediation and negotiation between Web services• BDI teams provide a flexible and composablealternative to traditional approaches to Web service composition

• The ATHENA baseline methodology for SOA provides guidelines for developing platform independent models for SOA (PIM4SOA).• Provides a set of modelling tools and services for mapping between PIM4SOA and platform specific models (Web services and BDI agents)

AgentsServices

Modelling

SemanticSpace

Service-OrientedArchitecture Model

Web ServiceExecution Artefacts

AgentExecution Artefacts

BPELExecution Artefacts

P2PExecution Artefacts

Web ServiceSpecification Model

Agent SpecificationModel

BPEL SpecificationModel

P2P SpecificationModel

Model Transformation

UML Profile for Web ServicesUML Profile for AgentsUML Profile for BPELUML Profile for P2P

Model Transformation

Architecture Specification

ATHENA IntegratedExecution Infrastructure

RegistryRepository

Service Wrappers (Enterprise A)

Evaluation & Negotiation of Available Functionality

Enhanced Service Interconnection Bus

Cross-org.

Intra-org.

Existing Enterprise Applications

PublicInfrastructure Services

Service Wrappers(Enterprise X)

Service Wrappers(Enterprise Y)

InternalInfrastructure Services

Process Execution Platform(BPEL)

Goal-orientedAdaptive ExecutionPlatform(Agents)

Goal-orientedAdaptive ExecutionPlatform(Agents)

ActiveModel Platform(AKMii)

ActiveModel Platform(AKMii)

Legend

Message-OrientedPlatform(MQSeries)

Message-OrientedPlatform(MQSeries)

Server-side Component Platform(.NET, J2EE)

Server-side Component Platform(.NET, J2EE)

ComposedWebServicePlatform(WebServices)

Business Process/Agent

Active (Business) Model

Web/Server Component

Middleware Process/Agent

Middleware Component

Adaptive Distributed Resource Mgt Platform (P2P)

Deployment

UML Profile for SOA• Information• Service• Process• QoSR

efer

ence

Ont

olog

y

annotated with

Model to Model Transformation

Model to TextTransformation

OWLOntology

annotatedwith

annotatedwith

EnterpriseModel

UML Profile for POP*• Process• Organisation• Product• …

Model to ModelTransformation

Business Requirements

Analysis

annotated with

ATHENA baseline methodology for SOA (overview)

20

Method chunks for SOA andWeb Service Interoperability

ReferenceOntology

annotatedwith

WSDLDocument

OWL-SDocument

BPELDocument

BDIPlan

XSDDocument

WS-?Document

ATHENA Web ServiceExecutionInfrastructure

Model Registry (A6)

Other Com

pany

Internal Service Interconnection Bus

Wrappers

Legacy Applications

Execution

Service

Service

Composition

Nehem

iah (A2)

JACK

Mediation

ARES (A3)

Evaluation

ServiceModels

PlatformModels

ContractModels

Compo-sition

Models

Negotiation

ExternalRegistry

Publishing

Interaction

...

Brokering

Brokering Tool (A5)

OWLOntology

annotatedwith

UML Profile for POP*• Process• Organisation• Product• …En

terp

rise

Mod

el

ProcessView

OrganisationView

ProductView

…View

1

1


Business Requirements

Analysis

SOA

Mod

elInformation

ViewService

ViewProcess

ViewQoSView

UML Profile for SOA• Information• Service• Process• QoS

annotatedwith

XMLMessage

ServiceDescription

ProcessExecution

QoSDescriptionW

eb S

ervi

ceM

odel

UML Profile for Web Services• XML Message (XSD)• Service Description (WSDL)• Process Execution (BPEL)• QoS


1

1..*

Model to TextTransformation

Web

Ser

vice

Doc

umen

ts

1..*

1..*

ATHENA baselinemethodology for SOA (detailed)


ATHENA Platform Independent Model for SOA (PIM4SOA)

21


PIM4SOA objectives

• Platform independent model for specifying service-oriented architectures– Represent SOA solutions in a platform independent

way– Integrate and define mappings to Web services,

agents, peer-to-peer (P2P) and Grid execution platforms.

– Bridging the gap between the enterprise layer and the technical layer

– Establishing relationships between layers through model-based transformations

– Two-way transformations supporting both• model-driven development (MDD); and• architecture-driven modernisation (ADM)


PIM4SOA requirements

Depending on the source of requirements• From the enterprise or business viewpoint

– Process, Organisation, Product and System (POPS) dimensions

– Mapping enterprise and business model elements to PIM4SOA

• From the platform point of view– What are the necessary PSM elements to be

represented at PIM level?– How do we identify these elements?– We need identify overlapping elements amongst

platforms

22


Metamodel and profile development

1. MetamodelScope,

concepts, style

3. TestEvaluate in

user scenarios

2. UML profileMap

metamodel concepts to

UML

4. FeedbackAdd, remove, and modify concepts

Understanding of SOA concepts and interoperability issues• Initial (interoperability) requirements• SOA concepts• Partitioning of the metamodel into structures• Architectural style for developing interoperable software systems• Document the metamodel in RSM (.uml2) and develop it in EMF (.ecore)

Define how SOA models should be specified using UML• Map metamodel concepts to

UML types• Define UML stereotypes and

tagged values• Define new visual symbols• Define model views• Define validation rules• Implement UML profile in RSM

Evaluate and test UML profile in user scenarios• Four ATHENA use cases (pilots)

Feedback• Iterative development• Modifications according

to test and evaluation


PIM4SOAMetamodel

Web ServicesMetamodel

Agent Metamodel(AgentMM)

P2PMetamodel

GridMetamodel

PIM

PSM

s

Symbols

Metamodel

Concept

RelationshipCorrespondence

PIM4SOA → platform specific models

23


Metamodel for (software) services Metamodel for (automated software) processes

Metamodel for information Metamodel for quality of service (QoS)

PIM4SOA addresses four system aspects

Services are an abstraction and an encapsulation of the functionality provided by an autonomous entity. Service architectures are composed of functions provided by a system or a set of systems to achieve a shared goal.

Web Services Architecture as proposed by W3C (W3C 2004)UML Profile for Enterprise Distributed Object Computing (OMG 2002)

Information is related to the messages or structures exchanged, processed and stored by software systems or software components.

Structural constructs for class modelling in UML 2.0 (OMG 2003)UML Profile for Enterprise Distributed Object Computing (OMG 2002)

Processes describe sequencing of work in terms of actions, control flows, information flows, interactions, protocols, etc.

Business Process Definition Metamodel(BPDM) (IBM et al. 2004)UML Profile for Enterprise Distributed Object Computing (OMG 2002)

Extra-functional qualities that can be applied to services, information and processes.

UML Profile for Modeling Quality of Service and Fault Tolerance Characteristics and Mechanisms (OMG 2004)


Metamodel for (software) services

Collaboration– Collaboration represents a pattern of

interaction between participating roles– A binary collaboration specifies a

service

CollaborationUse– The model element to represent a usage

of a service

Role– The model element to represent a usage

of a service

RoleBinding– Relates a role with a usage of a service.

RoleType– In a service oriented domain two are the

RoleTypes identified: the requester and the provider

Behaviour– An abstract class for the specification of

messages sequence within a service

ServiceProvider– Specify an entity describing and specifying

in its turn services, roles and constraints

ProviderType– The ServiceProviers can have to types:

Abstract ore Executable

EndPoint– Represents an address identifying a

service

Registry– A Registry model element is based on

index approach containing addressable services

RegistryItem– Represents a service and an end point.

24


Process elements

Process aspect

Scope– Scope is an abstract container for

individual behavioral steps

Step– Step is a single node in a process, such

as making a decision or calling an external service. The ‘everyday’ specialization of Step is Task

Process– Implements a behaviour for a service

provider, as a set of tasks and decisions (Steps) linked by control flows (Flows), optionally including detail on the exchanged messages / items.

StructuredTask– A composite task consisting of a collection

of Steps related to a specific subsection of a Process

Task– The low level ‘building blocks’ of a process

• calls to another service • require manual intervention

Task– Defines an interface for input or output

flows on a Step

Pin– Input or output for a specific item type

when a flow connects to a Step in the Process

Flow– Provide the links between Steps (tasks

etc.) in the behavior. A flow may be associated with a message type being transported.

ItemFlow– A flow between specific pins on

interactions to show precise relationships between output from one Step/Interaction and input on another

JoinSpecification– Defines convergence behaviour when two

flows provide input to a single Step/Interaction

GuardSpecification– Defines conditions (e.g. in terms of Pin

contents) under which an output flow is or is not activated

Metamodel for (automated software) processes


Item– Defines the set of elements that a role

manages.

ItemType– Represents simple types: string, integer

and boolean.

Role– is imported from the service metamodel.

PackageableElement– Extracted from the UML2.0 specification.

Association– Represents the association between two

entities. – It is used to describe complex types

Package– Extracted from the UML2.0 specification.

Document– Represents an object with a specific

structure and composed by entities.

TypeLibrary– defines a packaging structure containing

some types of the application

BusinessTypeLibraryEntity– represents a structure element of

information

AttributeNameElement– extracted from the UML2.0 specification.

Element– extracted from the UML2.0 specification.

Metamodel for information

25


NFA– Represents Non-Functional Aspects for a

specific usage of a service. • defined in Collaboration and

ServiceProvider specification• related with CollaborationUse element

All Others– Defined in the OMG standard for

specifying quality of service

Metamodel for QoS


PIM for SOAInformation Service Process QoS

CBP

XSD WSDL BPEL WS-?BRMF Jack

ARIS POP*

UML Profile for SOA

UML*

Maestro

Model 2 Model

Model 2 Text

Import / ExportModel 2 Model

Export + XML 2 Model

CBP: Collaborative Business ProcessPIM: Platform Independent ModelSOA: Service-Oriented ArchitectureXSD: XML Schema Definition

BRMF: Business Resource Management FrameworkWSDL: Web Service Description LanguageBPEL: Business Process Execution Language

Tools and services (overview)

26


PIM4SOA model (.uml2)

WS-* model (.uml2)

UML profile for Web services

Web service artefacts

EMF EcoreMetamodels/Models

RSMUML Models and Profiles

XSD

WSDL

BPEL

XSD

WSDL

BPEL

M2M

M2M

UML profilefor PIM4SOA

PIM4SOA model (. ecore)

WS-* models (.ecore)

M2MM2T

M2M

1

2

3 4

X

Eclipse/RSM modelling environment

1. Build your PIM4SOA (.uml2) model in RSM using the UML profile for PIM4SOA and transform it to a PIM4SOA (.ecore) model in EMF.

2. Transform the PIM4SOA (.ecore) model to Web service (.ecore) models.

3. Transform the Web service (.ecore) models to Web service artefacts.

4. Model transformation for UML profiles for Web services

• Eclipse Modelling Framework (EMF)

• Rational Software Modeler (RSM)


UML extensions for service modelling

Item represents the data managed by a roleParameterItem

The message concept is related with a role through an interface.

OperationMessage

Registry Item is an entity to relate a collaboration and an address

Class, PartRegistryItem

Registry represents a container to know where the services are placed

PackageRegistry

An endpoint represent the address for a servicePropertyEndPoint

A role represents a structural part in a collaborationPartRole

This element represent the service provider ClassServiceProvider

This is not a mandatory feature. It is used to connect two roles in the structural part of a class or collaboration

DependencyRoleBinding

A collaboration use represents the usage of a service. This service must to be defined previously. CollaborationUse specification must be encapsulated in a composition structure. This structure is provided by a collaboration definition or by a service provider.

CollaborationUse(sometimes called

CollaborationOccurence)

CollaborationUse

This element represents the definition of a service. Each service description is viewed as a collaboration between roles

CollaborationCollaboration

DescriptionBase ClassStereotype

27


UML extensions for process modelling

This dependency relates a “structuredTask”(source) with a collaboration use (target). This relationship contains a parameter indicating the order of containment.

DependencyColaborationUsePath

This flow relates two interactions.TagDefinition: GuardSpecification:String

ControlFlowFlow

An interaction represents a reference to a message. It also contains a reference to an input pin or an output pinTagDefinition:JoinSpecification:string

Interaction,Call behaviorAction

Interaction

A structured task is related with a collaboration use. This element contains a set of interactions

Structured Activity Node Task

A process represents an activity diagram. This activity diagram is contained by a service provider or collaboration

ActivityProcess



UML extensions for information modelling

Assigned to package. Indicates packaging of a reusable type library.

Package<<TypeLibrary>>

Assigned to class. Represents elements used to describe complex types

Class<<Entity>>

Assigned to package. Indicates the business logic

Package<<BusinessTypeLibrary>>

Assigned to class or package. Indicates root and packaging of a business document information model as a reusable asset.

Class, Package<<Document>>


28


RSM and UML profile for PIM4SOA


Case study: AIDIMA e-procurement scenario

29


Introduction to business scenario

• Scenario is based on the current situation of the furniture SMEs regarding the procurement issues

• Value in the furniture industry is concentrated in design, manufacturing, sales and marketing– Clear benefit from the adoption of e-commerce initiatives

• Initiatives in the field of e-procurement of raw and semi-finished materials in the coming years– Significant benefits to be achieved in terms of cost reduction and

efficiency • Distribution in the furniture industry is structured in a

complex way– Extranets and Internet-enabled supply-chain automation should

optimize the relationships• Order management and logistics with e-commerce

implementations– Beneficial to the furniture industry

R3. Order

R1. Request for QuotationR2. Quotation

R4. Order Confirmation

Interior Decoration

Project

M2. Quotation

M1. Request for Quotation

M3. OrderM4. Order Confirmation

MANUFACTURER

RETAILERPROVIDER

● Retailer-Manufacturer● 1. RFQ● 2. Quote● 3. Order

● Manufacturer-Supplier● 1. RFQ● 2. Quote● 3. Order● 4. Order Confirmation

● Retailer-Manufacturer● 4. Order Confirmation

30


Selling process: Customer-oriented scenario

Delivery

R5. Delivery NoteR6. Packing List R7. Invoice

Customer communication

R3. Order

R1. Request for QuotationR2. Quotation

R4. Order Confirmation

Interior Decoration Project

Looks for furniture

Invoice

Delivery

MANUFACTURER

RETAILER


Procurement process: Supplier-oriented scenario

M2. Quotation

M6. Invoice

M1. Request for Quotation

M3. OrderM4. Order Confirmation

MANUFACTURER

PROVIDER

M5. Delivery Note

Delivery

31


5 main problems

1. Repetitive manual process for regular bulk orders– Much of the manufactured products are generic and this involves

repeated periodic processing of similar or identical orders2. Confusion resulting from poor product descriptions

– Clients very often order the wrong products!3. Missing information (both from supplier and buyer!)

– Permasa have 3 people employed on the client site and 1 person employed on the supplier side to ensure the integrity of orders and RFQs

4. Lag time from product order to delivery could be shorter.– Shortening time from ordering to receiving raw materials from the

supplier has a direct effect on the delivery date of the finished product5. Time spent rating supplier

– Permasa conducts tri-monthly reviews of their suppliers to ensure that standards are kept


5 main expectations

1. Major reduction in false/incorrect orders2. Dramatic shortening of time from order to

delivery3. Dramatic reduction in surplus stock in

warehouse4. Ability to search new providers and apply

Permasa criteria to rate those providers5. Better integration between internal systems. (i.e.

Stock, purchasing, manufacturing, invoicing sub-systems)

32


Possible solution

Database (OS400)

Sales Mgmt. (ILE)

Manufacturing (ILE)

Purchasing (ILE)

Web Services Layer

Customer Order processing Procurement

Logistics(ILE)

Client Supplier

Design(AutoCAD)

Integration Layer


Data exchange in e-procurement

RetailerFrontEndSystem

(OMS – Order Management System)

ManufacturerFrontEndSystem

(ERP – Enterprise Resource Planning)

Send RFQ

Respond RFQQuotation

Approve QuotationSend Order

Confirm Order

Change Order

Send Goods & Delivery Note

Return Delivery Note signed

Send Invoice

Confirm Order Changed

33


Enterprise model: e-procurement process


PIM4SOA: Order process

34


PIM4SOA: Services interfaces


PIM4SOA: Delivery and invoicing collaborations

35


PIM4SOA: Obtain quotation collaboration


PIM4SOA: Furniture procurement collaboration

• Three roles – “Retailer”,– ”Manufacturer”– “Supplier”

• Two usage of collaboration – “Goods Supply”– “Materials Supply”

• Relationshipsbetween role and collaboration use – “RoleBinding”

36


PIM4SOA: Goods supply collaboration


PIM4SOA: Documents and type libraries

Documents andtype libraries

Type library

37


Model of anorder document

PIM4SOA: Order document


References

38


References (ATHENA deliverables)

[ATHENA] ATHENA, "ATHENA Public Web Site", ATHENA Integrated Project (IST-507849). http://www.athena-ip.org/

[ATHENA A5 2005] ATHENA A5, "D.A5.1: Perspectives on Service-Oriented Architecturesand there application in environments that require solutions to be planned and customisable", ATHENA IP, Deliverable D.A5.1, 2005.

[ATHENA A5 2005] ATHENA A5, "D.A5.2: Model and Specification of Service Descriptions and Usage as well as Advanced Concepts", ATHENA IP, DeliverableD.A5.2, 2005.

[ATHENA A5 2006] ATHENA A5, "D.A5.3: Architecture of SOA Platforms", ATHENA IP, Deliverable D.A5.3, 2006.

[ATHENA A5 2006] ATHENA A5, "D.A5.4: Execution Framework(s) for Planned and Customisable Service-Oriented Architectures", ATHENA IP, Deliverable D.A5.4, 2006.

[ATHENA A5 2006] ATHENA A5, "D.A5.5: Validation of Research Results", ATHENA IP, Deliverable D.A5.5, 2006.

[ATHENA A6 2005] ATHENA A6, "D.A6.1: Specification of a Basic Architecture Reference Model", ATHENA IP, Deliverable D.A6.1, 2005.

[ATHENA A6 2006] ATHENA A6, "D.A6.2: Enhanced Registry/Repository Infrastructure", ATHENA IP, Deliverable D.A6.2, 2006.

[ATHENA A6 2006] ATHENA A6, "D.A6.3: Model-driven and Adaptable Interoperability Framework", ATHENA IP, Deliverable D.A6.3, 2006.

[ATHENA A6 2006] ATHENA A6, "D.A6.4: Model-driven and Adaptable Interoperability Infrastructure", ATHENA IP, Deliverable D.A6.4, 2006.


References (Papers)

[Benguria, et al. 2006] G. Benguria, X. Larrucea, B. Elvesæter, T. Neple, A. Beardsmore, and M. Friess, ”A Platform Independent Model for Service Oriented Architectures”, presented at the 2nd International Conference on Interoperability of EnterpriseSoftware and Applications (I-ESA 2006), Bordeaux, France, 2006.

[Elvesæter, et al. 2005] B. Elvesæter, A. Hahn, A.-J. Berre, and T. Neple, "Towards an Interoperability Framework for Model-Driven Development of Software Systems", in Proc. of the 1st International Conference on Interoperability of Enterprise Software and Applications (INTEROP-ESA 2005), Geneva, Switzerland, 2005.

[Elvesæter, et al. 2005] B. Elvesæter, R. K. Rolfsen, F. Lillehagen, and D. Karlsen, "Integrated Enterprise Service Architecture", in Proc. of the 12th ISPE International Conference on Concurrent Engineering (CE 2005), Fort Worth, Texas, USA, 2005, M. Sobolewski and P. Ghodous (Eds.), International Society for Productivity Enhancement, Inc., NY, USA, pp. 129-134.

[Lillehagen, et al. 2005] F. Lillehagen, D. Karlsen, H. G. Solheim, H. D. Jørgensen, H. Smith-Meyer, B. Elvesæter, and R. K. Rolfsen, "Enterprise Architecture - from Blueprints to Design Services", in Proc. of the 12th ISPE International Conference on Concurrent Engineering (CE 2005), Fort Worth, Texas, USA, 2005, M. Sobolewski and P. Ghodous (Eds.), International Society for Productivity Enhancement, Inc., NY, USA, pp. 121-128.

[Fischer, et al. 2006] K. Fischer, B. Elvesæter, A.-J. Berre, C. Hahn, C. Madrigal-Mora, and I. Zinnikus, ”Model-Driven Design of Interoperable Agents”, presented at the 2nd Workshop on Web Services Interoperability (WSI 2006), Bordeaux, France, 2006.

[Vayssière, et al. 2006] J. Vayssière, G. Benguria, B. Elvesæter, K. Fischer, and I. Zinnikus, "Rapid Prototyping for Service-Oriented Architectures", presented at the 2nd Workshop on Web Services Interoperability (WSI 2006), Bordeaux, France, 2006.