3 rd International Workshop on Principles for Engineering Service-Oriented Systems ICSE 2011 Hawaii, USA May 23-24, 2011

PESOS Keynote: Can Global Software Development and Service- Oriented Architectures Benefit From Each Other? Elisabetta DiNitto, Politécnico di Milano, Italy  How can SOA help GSD/GSE? Distributing/Outsourcing Service Development ○ Communication between teams through service interface definition ○ Coordination possibly reduced if composition logic is developed when services are already available ○ Use of standards can help overcome cultural differences ○ Service registries can be part of knowledge sharing mechanisms Service Provision ○ This form of adoption extends global service development to global service engineering due to the runtime aspect ○ SLAs play a big role in establishing and maintaining trust

PESOS Keynote: Can Global Software Development and Service-Oriented Architectures Benefit From Each Other? 2  How can SOA help GSD/GSE? (Continued …) Dynamic Adoption of External Services ○ More emphasis on runtime GSE activities such as monitoring and dynamic adaptation ○ Services evolve independently of their consumers and vice versa ○ Also a problem of trust ○ Advantages can arise not only from cooperation but also from competition Additional perspective: SaaS ○ Communication services, CM services, WFM services, deployment services  How can GSD/GSE help SOA? GSD processes  Summary Additional reasons for adoption ○ Availability of suitable and cost-effective services ○ Advantages in servicing existing components New issues ○ Runtime aspects, new stakeholders, evolution issues, SLAs, competition

PESOS Presentation: Tweetflows Martin Treiber, TU Vienna and ikangai solutions, Austria  Use of Twitter as underlying infrastructure for services — tweets for all service communication — dedicated Twitter syntax Had to model find/bind/execute as Twitter primitives ○ Service requests are forwarded to followers that in turn forward requests — use re-tweet structure ○ For binding they use the Twitter addressing mechanism — service could even return a signature to start negotiation and adaptation (future work) ○ Service results/completion are tweeted back to the requestor Possible to delegate or reject a service request Can also “concatenate” services using Tweetflow pipes (current work)

PESOS Presentation: Evaluating the Compatibility of Conversational Service Interactions Sam Guinea (Politecnico di Milano, Italy)  Motivation is that conversational services impose a specific interaction protocol (possibly stateful) and data types  Uses Interaction Sequence Charts (ISCs) to describe service interaction with the outside world  Uses compatibility evaluation algorithms to detect protocol and data type mismatches between services  Useful for selecting between candidate services (or execution paths) based on compatibility

PESOS Presentation: Towards Efficient Measuring of Web Services API Coverage Waldemar Hummer, Vienna University of Technology, Austria  Focus is on meaningful API coverage by reduction of value domains  Important pre-condition: Exact definitions are done using XSD Facets  Approach based on domain partitioning (domain partitions are user-defined for value and number of occurrences of each XML node) to reduce value domains  Tool support: TeCOS framework (Test Coverage for Service-Based Systems)

PESOS Presentation: Engineering Multi- Tenant Software-as-a-Service Systems Abhik Roychoudhury (National University of Singapore, Singapore)  Customization of SaaS to accommodate new tenants can be systematized using testing/debugging research  Towards a formal model for SaaS systems Variant management Cost model Tenant onboarding management  Test only changes introduced by a new tenant

PESOS Presentation: Architecture-Based Reliability Analysis of Web Services in Multilayer Environments Cobra Rahmani (University of Nebraska-Omaha, USA)  Focus is on reliability analysis of web services where some details of underlying layers and configuration settings are taken into account — gray boxes or gray layers  Uses static and dynamic analysis to form the architecture model  Forms a Petri net model based on the architectural model plus a set of parameters related to each layer (transition probability, time spent and failure probability)

PESOS Panel 1  Andrea Zisman Service consumer point of view ○ Technique to gather and infer consumer feedback ○ Market regulation — are SLAs enough? What about trust and reputation? Lack of real-world examples to test ideas — service interface definitions, case studies, benchmarks Composition adaptation — lots of work but still lots of problems — for example, adaptation of a set of dependant services as opposed to a single services

PESOS Panel 2  Elisabetta Di Nitto Lack of application of research results to industrial problems and/or not reporting those results — industry also often uses research and does not report on results Processes, techniques, best practices, metrics to accompany existing research Relationship between SOA and GSD/GSE Relationship between SOA and Cloud Computing

PESOS Panel 3  Liam O’Brien Engaging with industry — still difficult for researchers — they also unfortunately don’t keep any data Service orientation in tactical environments Service orientation for scientists to enable information sharing Service orientation and cloud computing — e.g. allocation of services to platform for optimal data processing

PESOS Panel 4  Marin Litoiu Intersection of SaaS and cloud computing ○ Elasticity — how do services use only the resources that they need? ○ Automation — full service setup without user intervention (self-serving services) ○ Business models ○ Software development life cycle ○ Application migration

PESOS Panel Discussion  How do companies measure the impact of services on their operations as well as their revenue? What is the business value of SOA adoption?  How do translate KPIs to IT operational metrics?  The complementary nature of service orientation and cloud is clear, but the challenges and risks are also very clear. How do we make them work together?

PESOS Principles of Engineering Service- Oriented Systems (So Far …)  Think globally Bound instead of control behavior Plan for diversity  Increase flexibility  Reduce complexity  Enable agility

PESOS Keynote: Selecting SOA Pilot Projects Liam O’Brien (CSIRO, Australia)  Criteria correspond to project characteristics that are analyzed to determine if a project would be a good SOA pilot project ○ Benefits: validates technologies, sustainable investment, pilot preparedness, builds SOA capability and capacity, validates architecture and IT operations ○ Risks: mismatch with SOA maturity, mismatch with governance maturity, riskiness, underlying system not SOA compatible ○ Represented on a Kiveat diagram — easy to visualize if the benefits outweigh the risks

PESOS Presentation: SMaRT: A Workbench for Reporting the Monitorability of Services from SLAs Howard Foster (City University London, UK)  Automation of service monitoring ○ Extract SLA terms ○ Select matching monitoring components (reasoners, sensors and effectors) ○ Produce an SLA monitorability assessment ○ Compose the monitoring components into a monitoring system configuration (MSC)  Eclipse-based tool support

PESOS Presentation: Identifying, Modifying, Creating, and Removing Monitor Rules for Service-Oriented Computing Andrea Zisman (City University London, UK)  Pattern-based HCI-aware monitor adaptation framework (MADap) Patterns and monitor rules expressed in event calculus (EC)  Semi-instantiated patterns are used to look for matching rules  Patterns are composed of monitor rules and assumptions about the service-based system  Prototype tool implemented

PESOS Presentation: Business Process Performance Prediction on a Tracked Simulation Model Marin Litoiu (York University, Canada)  Business processes need to adapt to satisfy SLAs — need better KPI prediction techniques  Uses predictive feedback loops to maintain KPIs close to the reference target and predict short-term change than can be use to guide business process adaptation

PESOS Invited Talk: An Architectural Blueprint for Service-Based Science in the Cloud Ian Gorton, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, USA  Systems Biology Knowledge Base (Kbase) Collaborative platform Data access platform Plug-and-play tool development platform  Need to account for large amounts of heterogeneity Distributed and diverse data stores, types and access mechanisms Ontologies Workflows Software tools Computation platforms  REST and Hadoop are a good match for the large amounts of parallel data processing that happens in scientific communities  Cloud hosting solutions are a good option for scientists that want to share their applications and data with their community  Metadata is the key to promote sharing and integration

PESOS Principles of Engineering Service- Oriented Systems  Think globally Bound instead of control behavior — runtime simulation, monitoring and adaptation Plan for diversity  Increase flexibility  Reduce complexity  Enable agility/compositionality — metadata is key  Reduce risk via pilot projects that weigh benefit against risk

PESOS Next Steps  We will add presentations to the PESOS web site in PDF format (with your permission)  Workshop summary will be published as ACM Software Engineering Notes (SEN)  We will submit a PESOS 2012 proposal and count on you for submissions and attendance!

PESOS MESOCA 2011  International Workshop on the Maintenance and Evolution of Service-Oriented and Cloud-Based Systems  Co-located event with the 27 th International Conference on Software Maintenance (ICSM 2011)  When and where? September 26, 2011 in Williamsburg, VA

PESOS Call for Chapters Migrating Legacy Applications: Challenges in Service-Oriented Architecture and Cloud Computing Environments Publisher: IGI Global Publication Date: 2012 IMPORTANT SUBMISSION DATES Abstracts: June 15, 2011 Full Chapters: September 15, 2011