Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

BoSDL: An Approach to Describe the Business Logic of Software Services in Domain-Specific Terms

  • Research Paper
  • Published:
Business & Information Systems Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Modular SaaS platforms that can flexibly be configured with software services, microservices, and the advent of the API economy provide new opportunities to realize even highly customized solutions in the cloud. The success of such endeavors depends on the ability of consumers to discriminate between offered services and choose those best fulfilling the requirements, though. To facilitate the assessment of services against functional requirements, this article proposes the Business-Oriented Service Description Language (BoSDL). It consists of: (1) a meta-model with rules to describe the business logic, that is, the functionality of a software service from a business-oriented perspective; (2) a textual presentation format based on English natural language; (3) a graphical notation based on the UML. Findings from a controlled experiment indicate that, compared to the state of the art, the information provided with the BoSDL enhances the ability of consumers to judge if software services satisfy existing functional requirements.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

based on Peffers et al. (2007)

Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Akkiraju R, Farrell J, Miller J, Nagarajan M, Schmidt M-T, Sheth A, Verma K (2005) Web service semantics – WSDL-S, version 1.0. Technical report, World Wide Web Consortium

  • Anderson JR (1982) Acquisition of cognitive skill. Psychol Rev 89(4):369–406

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Atkinson B, Della-Libera G, Hada S, Hondo M, Hallam-Baker P, Klein J, LaMacchia B, Leach P, Manferdelli J, Maruyama H, Nadalin A, Nagaratnam N, Prafullchandra H, Shewchuk J, Simon D (2002) Web services security (WS-Security) version 1.0. Technical report, World Wide Web Consortium

  • Barros A, Oberle D (eds) (2012) Handbook on service description – USDL and its methods. Springer, Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  • Bodart F, Patel A, Sim M, Weber R (2001) Should optional properties be used in conceptual modelling: a theory and three empirical tests. Inf Syst Res 12(4):384–405

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Böhmann T, Leimeister JM, Möslein K (2014) Service systems engineering: a field for future information systems research. Bus Inf Syst Eng 6(2):73–79

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bunge M (1977) Treatise on basic philosophy: ontology I. The furniture of the world, vol 3. Reidel, Boston

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Cabrera F, Copeland G, Cox B, Freund T, Klein J, Storey T, Thatte S (2002) Web services transaction (WS-Transaction) version 1.0. Technical report, World Wide Web Consortium

  • Calder BJ, Phillips LW, Tybout AM (1982) The concept of external validity. J Consum Res 9(3):240–244

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chinnici R, Moreau J-J, Ryman A, Weerawarana S (2007) Web services description language (WSDL) version 2.0 part 1: core language. Technical report, World Wide Web Consortium

  • Davis R, Shrobe HE, Szolovits P (1993) What is a knowledge representation? AI Mag 14(1):17–33

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisa M, Younas M, Basu K, Zhu H (2016) Trends and directions in cloud service selection. In: IEEE symposium on service-oriented system engineering, IEEE, pp 423–432

  • Ferrario R, Guarino N, Trampus R, Laskey K, Hartman A, Gangadharan GR (2012) Service system approaches – conceptual modeling approaches for services science. In: Barros A, Oberle D (eds) Handbook of service description: USDL and its methods. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 75–109

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Frank U (2013) Domain-specific modeling languages: requirements analysis and design guidelines. In: Reinhartz-Berger I, Sturm A, Clark T, Cohen S, Bettin J (eds) Domain engineering: product lines, languages, and conceptual models. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 133–157

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Frank U (2014) Multi-perspective enterprise modeling: foundational concepts, prospects and future research challenges. Softw Syst Model 13(3):941–962

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frøkjær E, Hertzum M, Hornbæk K (2000) Measuring usability: Are effectiveness, efficiency, and satisfaction really correlated. In: SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp 345–352

  • Gehani N, McGettrick AT (1986) Software specification techniques. Addison-Wesley, Wokingham

    Google Scholar 

  • Gemino A, Wand Y (2004) A framework for empirical evaluation of conceptual modeling techniques. Requir Eng 9(3):248–260

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldkuhl G, Lind M, Seigerroth U (1998) Method integration: the need for a learning perspective. IEE Proc Softw 145(4):113–118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gómez-Pérez A, Fernández-López M, Corcho O (2004) Ontological engineering. Springer, Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodman N (1976) Languages of art: an approach to a theory of symbols. Hackett, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Graham S, Hull D, Murray B (2006) Web services base notification 1.3. Technical report, OASIS Standard

  • Gregor S, Hevner AR (2013) Positioning and presenting design science research for maximum impact. MIS Q 37(2):337–355

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hadar I, Soffer P (2006) Variations in conceptual modeling: classification and ontological analysis. J Assoc Inf Syst 7(8):569–593

    Google Scholar 

  • Herbert L, Parks S, O’Donnell G, Erickson J, Caputo M, Nagel B (2016) The ROI of software as a service. Technical report, Forrester

  • Hevner AR, March ST, Park J, Ram S (2004) Design science in information systems research. MIS Q 28(1):75–105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hrach C, Alt R (2018) Functional service description on service marketplaces. In: Multikonferenz Wirtschaftsinformatik

  • IBM (2014) Champions of software as a service: How SaaS is fueling powerful competitive advantage. Technical report, IBM Corporation

  • Iivari J (2007) A paradigmatic analysis of information systems as a design science. Scand J Inf Syst 19(2):39–63

    Google Scholar 

  • Iwasa K (2004) Web services reliable messaging. Technical report, OASIS Standard

  • Kalyuga S, Ayres P, Chang SK, Sweller J (2003) The expertise reversal effect. Educ Psychol 38(1):23–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kluge R, Hering T, Belter R, Franczyk B (2008) An approach for matching functional business requirements to standard application software packages via ontology. In: 32nd annual IEEE international computer software and applications conference, pp 1017–1022

  • Kontio J (1996) A case study in applying a systematic method for COTS selection. In: 18th international conference on software engineering, pp 201–209

  • Kutner MH, Nachtsheim CJ, Neter J, Li W (2005) Applied linear statistical models, 5th edn. The McGraw-Hill/Irwin series: operations and decision sciences. McGraw-Hill, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Land R, Blankers L, Chaudron MRV, Crnkovic I (2008) COTS selection best practices in literature and in industry. In: 10th international conference on software reuse, pp 100–111

  • Le L-S, Ghose A, Morrison E (2010) Definition of a description language for business service decomposition. In: 1st international conference on exploring services sciences

  • Ludwig H, Keller A, Dan A, King RP, Franck R (2003) Web service level agreement (WSLA) language specification. Technical report, IBM Corporation

  • Maglio PP, Vargo SL, Caswell N, Spohrer J (2009) The service system is the basic abstraction of service science. Inf Syst e-Bus Manag 7(4):395–406

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin D, Paolucci M, McIlraith S, Burstein M, McDermott D, McGuinness D, Parsia B, Payne T, Sabou M, Solanki M, Srinivasan N, Sycara K (2005) Bringing semantics to web services: the OWL-S approach. In: Cardoso J, Sheth AP (eds) Semantic web services and web process composition, vol 3387, San Diego, CA, USA. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 26–42

  • Moody DL (2009) The “physics” of notations: toward a scientific basis for constructing visual notations in software engineering. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 35(6):756–779

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mylopoulos J (1992) Conceptual modeling and telos. In: Loucopulos P, Zicari R (eds) Conceptual modeling, databases, and CASE: an integrated view of information systems development. Wiley, Cambridge, pp 49–68

    Google Scholar 

  • Oaks P, ter Hofstede AHM, Edmond D (2003) Capabilities: describing what services can do. In: First international conference on service-oriented computing, pp 1–16

  • Ortner E, Schienmann B (1996) Normative language approach – a framework for understanding. In: 15th international conference on conceptual modeling, pp 261–276

  • O’Sullivan J (2006) Towards a precise understanding of service properties. PhD thesis, Queensland University of Technology

  • Pautasso C, Zimmermann O, Amundsen M, Lewis J, Josuttis NM (2017) Microservices in practice, part 1: reality check and service design. IEEE Softw 34(1):91–98

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peffers K, Tuunanen T, Rothenberger MA, Chatterjee S (2007) A design science research methodology for information systems research. J Manag Inf Syst 24(3):45–77

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Platenius MC, Shaker A, Becker M, Huellermeier E, Schaefer W (2017) Imprecise matching of requirements specifications for software services using fuzzy logic. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 43(8):739–759

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pohl K (2010) Requirements engineering: fundamentals, principles, and techniques. Springer, Heidelberg

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Polyviou A, Pouloudi N, Rizou S (2014) Which factors affect software-as-a-service selection the most? A study from the customers and the vendors perspective. In: 47th Hawaii international conference on system sciences, pp 5059–5068

  • Repschlaeger J, Wind S, Zarnekow R, Turowski K (2012) Selection criteria for software as a service: an explorative analysis of provider requirements. In: Americas conference on information systems, Seattle

  • Roman D, Keller U, Lausen H, de Bruijn J, Lara R, Stollberg M, Polleres A, Feier C, Bussler C, Fensel D (2005) Web service modeling ontology. Appl Ontol 1(1):77–106

    Google Scholar 

  • Rowsell-Jones A, Lowendahl J-M, Howard C, Nielsen T (2016) The 2017 CIO agenda: seize the digital ecosystem opportunity. Technical report, Gartner Inc

  • Scheer AW (2000) ARIS – business process frameworks, 3rd edn. Springer, Heidelberg

  • Schlauderer S, Overhage S (2011) How perfect are markets for software services? An economic perspective on market deficiencies and desirable market features. In: European conference on information systems

  • Shanks G, Tansley E, Weber R (2003) Using ontology to validate conceptual models. Commun ACM 46(10):85–89

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sonnenberg C, vom Brocke J (2012) Evaluations in the science of the artificial-reconsidering the build-evaluate pattern in design science research. In: Information systems, advances in theory and practice

  • Sun L, Dong H, Hussain OK, Hussain FK, Chang E (2014) Cloud service selection: state-of-the-art and future research directions. J Netw Comput Appl 45:134–150

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Terzidis O, Oberle D, Friesen A, Janiesch C, Barros A (2012) The internet of services and usdl. In: Barros A, Oberle D (eds) Handbook of service description: USDL and its methods. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 1–16

    Google Scholar 

  • Topi H, Ramesh V (2002) Human factors research on data modeling: a review of prior research, an extended framework and future research directions. J Database Manag 13(2):3–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turner M, Budgen D, Brereton P (2003) Turning software into a service. IEEE Comput 36(10):38–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • UDDI Organization (2002) UDDI open draft specification. Technical report, UDDI Organization

  • Van der Aalst WMP, ter Hofstede AHM, Kiepuszewski B, Barros AP (2003) Workflow patterns. Distrib Parallel Databases 14(1):5–51

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vargo SL, Lusch RF (2004) Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. J Mark 68(1):1–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Venable J, Pries-Heje J, Baskerville R (2016) Feds: a framework for evaluation in design science research. Eur J Inf Syst 25(1):77–89

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vessey I, Conger SA (1994) Requirements specification: learning object, process, and data methodologies. Commun ACM 37(5):102–113

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vitharana P, Zahedi F, Jain H (2003) Knowledge-based repository scheme for storing and retrieving business components: a theoretical design and an empirical analysis. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 29(7):649–664

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vukovic M, Laredo J, Muthusamy V, Slominski A, Vaculin R, Tan W, Naik V, Silva-Lepe I, Kumar A, Srivastava B, Branch JW (2016) Riding and thriving on the API hype cycle. Commun ACM 59(3):35–37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wand Y, Weber R (1993) On the ontological expressiveness of information systems analysis and design grammars. J Inf Syst 3(4):217–237

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang X, Vitvar T, Kerrigan M, Toma I (2006) A QoS-aware selection model for semantic web services. In: Service-oriented computing ICSOC 2006, pp 390–401

  • Webster J, Watson RT (2002) Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: writing a literature review. MIS Q 26(2):xiii–xxiii

  • Weyuker EJ (2001) The trouble with testing components. In: Councill WT, Heineman GT (eds) Component-based software engineering: putting the pieces together. Addison-Wesley, Upper Saddle River, NJ, pp 499–512

  • Wohlin C, Runeson P, Höst M, Ohlsson MC, Regnell B, Wesslén A (2012) Experimentation in software engineering. Springer, Heidelberg

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Zowghi D, Coulin C (2005) Requirements elicitation: a survey of techniques, approaches, and tools. In: Engineering and managing software requirements, Springer, Heidelberg, pp 19–46

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Chair of Industrial Information Systems, University of Bamberg, An der Weberei 5, 96047, Bamberg, Germany

    Sebastian Schlauderer &  Sven Overhage

Authors
  1. Sebastian Schlauderer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sven Overhage
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sebastian Schlauderer.

Additional information

Accepted after two revisions by the editors of the special issue.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (pdf 1125 KB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Schlauderer, S., Overhage, S. BoSDL: An Approach to Describe the Business Logic of Software Services in Domain-Specific Terms. Bus Inf Syst Eng 60, 393–413 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-018-0554-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-018-0554-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation