1 / 26

Automated Composition of E-Services: Lookaheads

International Conference on Service Oriented Computing (ICSOC) , September, 2004, NY. Automated Composition of E-Services: Lookaheads. Çağdaş E . Gerede * , Richard Hull  , Oscar H. Ibarra * , Jianwen Su * University of California, Santa Barbara * & Bell Labs/Lucent Technologies .

elaine-moon
Télécharger la présentation

Automated Composition of E-Services: Lookaheads

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. International Conference on Service Oriented Computing (ICSOC), September, 2004, NY Automated Composition of E-Services: Lookaheads Çağdaş E. Gerede*, Richard Hull, Oscar H. Ibarra*, Jianwen Su* University of California, Santa Barbara* & Bell Labs/Lucent Technologies

  2. Service Composition • Among the key issues for web services[Tutorial by Hull-Su in SIGMOD ’04] • Automated composition: a holy grail problem [Tutorial by Giacomo-Mecella in ICSOC’04] • Planning [e.g., McIlraith ’02, Traverso ’03] • Workflow [e.g., van der Aalst ’99, Lu ’02] • Synthesis of conversations [e.g., Fu-Bultan-Su, CIAA’03, ICWS ’04, WWW’04] • . . . • This paper : • Restricted case of the “Roman Model” [Berardi et. al., WES’03, ICSOC’03, ICSOC04] where services are FSMs as in [ICSOC’03].

  3. Roman Model [Berardi et. al. , ICSOC’03] • E-service: software artifact interacting with its clients (human or other e-services) based on activities • Internal Service Schema: • Internal or Business Logic • External Service Schema • Published Service Behavior • Service Instance: • One occurrence of an e-service • Simple vs. Composite e-service • processing on its own vs. invoke others (delegate) • Our study focuses on external service schemas represented as Finite State Machines

  4. Travel Agency 1 Travel plans booking itinerary Travel Dept. Travel Agency 2 booking itinerary hotel flight bus train Travel Department of Corp. A: Can the Travel Dept. re-use the existing travel services? Travel Service

  5. Service Delegation Desired Service hotel bus (to Newark) Agency 1 flight bus hotel train flight train requests Agency 2 hotel Delegator bus flight train (to LAX) flight (to JFK) hotel (Hilton) request: User A 1 1 1 delegation: hotel (Westin) flight (to LAX) request: User B 2 2 2 delegation:

  6. bus/ 2 train/ 1 flight / 1 flight / 2 hotel/ 1 hotel/ 2 hotel flight bus train Service Delegation Desired Service Agency 1 hotel train flight Agency 2 requests hotel bus flight Delegator requests Delegator

  7. Can we construct such a delegator? • “Roman” Delegator: Delegation determined with immediate request • can be computed in EXPTIME [Berardi et. al., ICSOC’03]

  8. Different Scenario: No delegator? Corporation B Agency 3 train train flight hotel flight hotel bus Agency 4 requests bus flight hotel request: flight hotel train delegation: 3 3 3 ? • No Roman Delegator • What if the delegator could look ahead? • Broader notion of delegation to allow more re-use of existing services • How to Formulate ? • Decision Problems & Algorithms ?

  9. Main Contributions • Developed a notion of “lookahead” to enable richer re-use of existing services • Introduced a broader definition for a delegator that allows the study of lookahead: “functional delegator” • EXPSPACE decision/construction algorithm • Proved that if there is a k-lookahead functional delegator, then there is a k-lookahead FSM-based delegator • EXPTIME decision/construction algorithm • Roman delegator is 0-lookahead.

  10. Service Model • Service: • (Possibly nondetermistic) FSM • Alphabet, Initial state, Accepting states • Transitions: processing of activities • Execution model: focus on the interaction between user and service • Composition System: • a target service and set of available services (AT, <A1,…,Ar>) • Results will be presented for deterministic FSMs • Same techniques can be applied to Nondetermistic case (check the paper)

  11. Functional Delegators • f(w,i) = j : service j processes ith activity of w • a subsequence is assigned to each service • Actually, f(,) is a subset of {1, …, r}. • f(,) is a functional delegatorfor (AT, <A1,…,Ar>) if for every string w accepted by the target service, each service accepts the assigned (nonempty) subsequence. • How do we determine if there exist a functional delegator? w = a1 a2 ….. ai ….. a|w|-1a|w| j j j service j processes a2 ai a|w|-1

  12. A proof technique for decidability of functional delegators • Product Machine of a system of FSMs: (AT, <A1,…,Ar>) variant of standard product construction • FSM with outputs: each state is a configuration of the system • Initial State, Accepting States • Each transition produces an output • size: O(|| * 2r * sr * sT) • || : alphabet size • r, s : number and size of available services • sT : size of target service • L(product) = language of FSM (outputs are ignored) (AT, <A1, A2>) 000 a/1 a/1,2 a/2 b/2 110 101 111 b/1 b/1 … … …

  13. Complexity of Decidability • Lemma: There is a functional delegator for a system, iff L(product) = L(AT). • Complexity: O(||2 * 2r * sr * s2T) space (i.e., EXPSPACE) • language equivalence of two FSMs: polynomial space in size of FSMs • What if we put a bound on the amount of lookahead?

  14. Subclass: k-lookahead (functional) delegators • f(,): LAk (functional) delegator • Observation: • Roman delegator corresponds to an LA0 delegator. • How can we determine the existence of a k-lookahead delegator? w = a1 ... ai ai+1 … ai+k ai+k+1… a|w| x y z f(xyz, i) = f(xyz’, i) for all z, z’

  15. Decidability of functional LAk • Reduction of a problem with LAk to ||k problems with LA0 • Roman delegator (LA0) • can be determined in exponential time in the total size of the input (satisfiability of description logic formula) [Berardi et. al. ICSOC’03] • Why if we use FSMs directly? • We achieved a finer characterization of the complexity.

  16. Existence of functional LA0 • Theorem: For a system, there is an LA0 delegator iff there is a deterministic submachine S such that L(S) = L(AT) where AT is the target service. • Proof idea: • Existence of functional LA0 implies the existence of an FSM-based delegator. • Splicing argument

  17. … a/i a/p a/j a/m a/k … … … Algorithm: Existence of LA0 Exponential Linear • Algorithm: Existence Check & Construction • Construct the product • Remove “bad” configurations • Configurations that a delegator shouldn’t enter • Find a deterministic submachine (same language with target) • Pick one delegation arbitrarily, ignore others • Submachine is an LA0 delegator Which one is correct delegation? If none is bad, any choice is correct

  18. Analysis for LA0, LAk Checks • LA0 • Complexity: O(|| * 22r * sr * sT) - time - | | : alphabet size - r, s : number and size of available services - sT : size of target service • Details: • product machine construction: O(|| * 2r * sr * sT) time • submachine construction: polynomial in size of the product machine • LAk: • Complexity: use | |rk+k instead of | |

  19. Summary • Introduced a more general class of delegators: • functional delegators • Examined decision problems on functional delegators • decision algorithm: O(|2 * 2r * sr * s2T) space • subclass: k-lookahead delegators • Enables a richer form of delegation and broader re-use of existing services • decision/construction algorithm: O(||rk+r * 22r * sr * sT) time

  20. Current and Future Work • Extension to FSM model [Dang-Ibarra-Su, ISAAC’04] • FSMs augmented with restricted counters and stacks • decidability/undecidability results • Extension on delegation [submitted] • Cost function associated with each activity in each service • For a given word, computing the cheapest delegation minimizing the total cost is linear time in the length of the word.

  21. Thanks Questions and Comments

  22. Backup Slides

  23. Example of a functional delegator Corporation B Agency 3 train train flight hotel flight hotel bus Agency 4 • f(flight hotel train, 1) = 3 • f(flight hotel bus, 1) = 4 • f(flight hotel train flight hotel bus, 4) = 4 • f(flight hotel train flight hotel bus, 1) = 3 • f(flight hotel train flight hotel bus, 1) = 3 • … bus flight hotel

  24. Delayed delegation: How to represent? Corp. B Agency 3 Agency 4 train bus train FSM with outputs (Mealy) flight hotel flight hotel flight hotel bus flight / - hotel / - bus / 2 train / 1 flight / 1 # / 1 # / 2 flight / 2 hotel / 1 hotel / 2 # / 2 # / 1

  25. Functional Delegators • f(w,i) = j : service j processes ith activity of w • a subsequence is assigned to each service • Actually, f(,) is a subset of {1, …, r}. • f(,) is a functional delegatorfor (AT, <A1,…,Ar>) if for every string w accepted by the target service, each service accepts the assigned (nonempty) subsequence. • f has “full knowledge” of word w for each delegation decision. Does the amount of knowledge (lookahead) matter? w = a1 a2 ….. ai ….. a|w|-1a|w| j j j service j processes a2 ai a|w|-1

  26. Strict hierarchy on the amount of lookahead Services Desired Service • Required amount of lookahead: • 1-lookahead, (b) 2-lookahead, (c) unbounded (full-knowledge) • How do we determine if there is a functional delegator?

More Related