We use proprietary and third party's cookies to improve your experience and our services, identifying your Internet Browsing preferences on our website; develop analytic activities and display advertising based on your preferences. If you keep browsing, you accept its use. You can get more information on our Cookie Policy
Cookies Policy
USDL Service Description - FIWARE Forge Wiki

USDL Service Description

From FIWARE Forge Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Target usage

The Unified Service Description Language (USDL) is a platform-neutral language for describing services. It was consolidated from SAP Research projects concerning services-related research as an enabler for wide leverage of services on the Internet. With the rise of commoditized, on-demand services, the stage is set for the acceleration of and access to services on an Internet scale. It is provided by major investments through public co-funded projects, under the Internet of Services theme, where services from various domains including cloud computing, service marketplaces and business networks, have been investigated for access, repurposing and trading in large settings (e.g., FAST, RESERVOIR, MASTER, ServFace, SHAPE, SLA@SOI, SOA4ALL), and the Australian Smart Services CRC.)

The kinds of services targeted for coverage through USDL include: purely human/professional (e.g. project management and consultancy), transactional (e.g. purchase order requisition), informational (e.g. spatial and demography look-ups), software component (e.g. software widgets for download), digital media (e.g. video & audio clips), platform (e.g. middleware services such as message store-forward), security and infrastructure (e.g. CPU and storage services).

User roles

  • Service providers are describing all aspects of the service from their business point of view.
  • Brokers search and use the USDL information for filtering, aggregation and bundling of services.
  • Consumers can search and read information from USDL descriptions indirectly via the marketplace user interface.
  • Shop owners to specify their offerings on the marketplace.
  • Marketplace owner to do a comparison of service offerings.

A generic service description language for domains as diverse and complex as banking/financials, healthcare, manufacturing and supply chains, is difficult to use and therefore not sufficient. First of all, not all aspects of USDL apply to all domains. Rather, USDL needs to be configured for the particular needs of applications where some concepts are removed or adapted while new and unforeseen ones are introduced. A particular consideration of this is allowing specialized, domain-specific classifications such as those available through vertical industry standards to be leveraged through USDL. In addition to this, the way in which USDL is applied for deployment considerations, e.g., the way lifecycle versioning applies, needs to be managed without compromising the fundamental concepts of USDL. In other words, USDL needs to be applied through a framework which allows separation of concerns for how it is applied and tailored to concrete applications. This need has led to the USDL framework where the concepts of the USDL meta-model as a core are specialized through the USDL Application meta-model. A non-normative specialization of the USDL meta-model with the USDL framework is provided to illustrate how a service directory of a specific Service Delivery Framework (proposed by SAP Research) can be conceptualized through USDL. In this way, an insight is available for an application of USDL.

To make FI applications and services more widely available for such composition and consumption, a uniform standardized way of describing and referencing them is required. A variety of service description efforts has been proposed in the past. However, many of these approaches (e.g. UDDI, WSMO, or OWL-S) only prescribe tiny schemata and leave the modelling of service description concepts such as a generic schema for defining a price model or licenses to the service developer.

  1. Roles of participants in the Internet of Services Ecosystem

GE description

The FI-Ware approach will allow comprehensive service descriptions by employing the Unified Service Description Language (USDL) in its registry and repository. USDL builds on standards for the technical description of services, such as WSDL, but adds business and operational information on top. With its ability to describe both human and IT-supported services that not only implement business processes, but also tie in assets linked to contents and the Internet of Things, USDL is set apart from many of the related approaches mentioned above.

USDL is modularized to describe various aspects of services:

  • Foundational Module: This module provides a common set of concepts and properties, such as time, location, organization, etc. that are used in all modules.
  • Service Module: Describes the general information about the service type, nature, titles, taxonomy and descriptions.
  • Participant Module: This module describes the participating organizations, contact persons and their role within the service fulfilment.
  • Functional Module: This module contains information about the specific capabilities of a service, input/output parameters and constraints.
  • Interaction Module: A module that describes the points of interaction and the responsible participants or participant roles in course of the service fulfilment.
  • Technical Module: Describes how functions (capabilities) of a service are mapped to technical realizations of the service (e.g. WSDL operations, parameters, faults, etc.)
  • Pricing Module: Contains information about price plans, price components, fences, etc. for a service.
  • Service Level Module: The module which specifies service level agreements, such as time schedules, locations, and other constraints.

Legal Module: Contains information about the terms and conditions, IPR, licenses, and rights of use for the participating parties.

  1. USDL modules and relationships

Necessary extensions to USDL for business, operational and technical perspective of supported front-end mashups and backend composite services will be identified and defined in the context of FI-WARE project. Furthermore, USDL extensions for artefacts from the chapters listed below will be considered:

  • Internet of Things Service Enablement

Applications and services may have specific requirements of handling access to and management of sensor data and things within the “real” world. In many application scenarios, such as logistics, retail, or manufacturing, these capabilities will have an impaction even on business, as well as operational aspects. It will be necessary to investigate the extension of USDL according to aspects of the service lifecycle, which allows describing the relevant properties and capabilities of the Internet of Things in respect to accessing data as well as managing resources.

  • Security, Privacy, Trust

The future internet platform will heavily depend on security, privacy and trust in any business relevant activity. Especially crowd-sourcing, flexible composition and mashups require adequate mechanisms to maintain security related characteristics. At the business framework level it is necessary to make security-specific information transparent. USDL needs to be extended by modules that allow describing the security related qualities and requirements of services and applications.

  • Cloud Hosting (XaaS monetization)

Many services/apps will rely on specific hosting and cloud services, which will have technical as well as business relevant implications. The service description needs to contain the relevant information on hosting in order to cover these implications. Therefore XaaS description modules for describing various hosting modules need to be provided.

  • Data/Context Management Services

For security monitoring and analytics of activities in the platform it will be necessary to emit and collect events and data for real-time or post-mortem analysis. For the various stakeholders it need to made transparent, when, how, and which data will be collected for which purpose and to whom. So the service description needs to be enriched by data and context information accordingly.

USDL will provide the means for integration of all these areas, FI-Ware generic enablers and the respective platform products. It allows tracing information and processes across the whole service lifecycle.

Critical product attributes

  • rely on Web standards such as HTML, XML, RDF, …
  • openness integrate into different contexts
  • extensibility for addressing unforeseen or domain specific aspects
  • flexibility to adapt to different domains via module variants
  • harmonized with other information descriptions on the Web (existing schemas)
  • ability to link-up with other information on the Web
  • simplicity, easy to understand
  • expressive power to specify at an appropriate level
  • graceful degradation, keep the platform operational with partially incomplete and inconsistent descriptions

Existing products

There exists a plethora of existing service description efforts that can be grouped into different strands. Each of the strands has its own motivation and representation needs for capturing service information. The individual efforts can be attributed to the following criteria: (i) whether the scope of the effort lies in capturing IT or business aspects of services or the whole service system. (ii) the purpose of the corresponding effort, e.g., enabling of normative data exchange, facilitation of software engineering, or acting as reference model. (iii) Whether the effort is able to capture business network relationships between services. (iv) Whether the effort is standardized.

The first strand of service description efforts is the field of Service-oriented Architectures (SOA). SOA is a way of thinking about IT assets as service components, i.e., functions in a large application are factorized in stand-alone services that can be accessed separately. Because of their IT focus, most approaches limit their attention to the field of software architecture. Originally, several standards bodies specified roughly two dozens of different aspects which are collectively known as WS-* (incl. WSDL, WS-Policy, Ws-Security, etc.). Since one of the key components of a SOA is a service registry, the OASIS standards body introduced the concept of Universal Description, Discovery and Integration (UDDI), i.e., a specification for a platform-independent registry. UDDI services shall be discovered according to information such as address, contact, known identifiers, or industrial categorizations based on standard taxonomies. However, UDDI does hardly prescribe any schema for such information. As the concept of SOA matured, calls for support in software and service engineering increased. Hence, the OMG standards body dedicated its focus to software engineering for SOA, and, subsequently defined the Service-oriented architecture Modeling Language (SoaML). Finally, the multitude of description efforts and different definitions of SOA led to a Reference Model for Service Oriented Architecture (SOA-RM) from OASIS. Similarly, The Open Group drafts an alternative reference model in form of an ontology for Service-Oriented Architectures (SOA Ontology).

A second strand consists mainly of ontologies in the field of Semantic Web Services. The main goal of Semantic Web Services approaches is automation of discovery, composition, and invocation of services in a SOA by ontology reasoners and planning algorithms. The most prominent efforts are OWL-S and WSMO. Many similar efforts have surfaced in literature. With the many approaches around came the need to specify a reference model for semantic SOAs. Consequently, the OASIS is also about to specify a Reference Ontology for Semantic Service Oriented Architectures (RO-SOA).

The third strand is rooted in the rise of on-demand applications that led to the notion of software-as-a-service (SaaS), covering software applications (e.g., CRM on-demand) and business process outsourcing (e.g., gross-to-payroll processing, insurance claims processing) to cloud and platform services. The emphasis of service here implies that the consumer gets the designated functionality he/she requested together with hosting through a pay-per-use model. Thus, software-as-a-service is not synonymous with SOA. This difference triggered the Software-as-a-Service Description Language (SaaS-DL). SaaS-DL builds on WS-* to capture SaaS specificities in order to support model-driven engineering. The strand of SaaS also contains a standard, namely, the W3C recommendation called SML (Service Modelling Language). One anticipated use for SML is to define a consistent way to express how computer networks, applications, servers, and other IT resources are described or modelled so businesses can more easily manage the services that are built on these resources.

The fourth strand is driven by schools of business administration and focuses on capturing the purely economic aspects of services regardless of their nature (with less or no focus on IT services and software architectures). The German standard DIN PAS 1018 essentially prescribes a form for the description of services for tendering. The structure is specified in a non-machine-readable way by introducing mandatory and optional, non-functional attributes specified in natural language, such as, classification, resources, location, etc. The PhD thesis of (O’Sullivan) adopts a wider scope and contributes a domain independent taxonomy that is capable of representing the non-functional properties of conventional, electronic and web services. The work compiles the non-functional properties into a series of 80 conceptual models that are categorized according to availability (both temporal and locative), payment, price, discounts, obligations, rights, penalties, trust, security, and quality.

The fifth strand is also economic but draws attention mainly to describing Service Networks, i.e., the ecosystem and value chain relationships between services of economic value. The e3Service ontology models services from the perspective of the user needs. This offers constructs for service marketing, but in a computational way, such that automated reasoning support can be developed to match consumer needs with IT-services. The main focus of this work is to generate service bundles under the consideration of customer needs. The Service Network Notation (SNN) captures similar aspects to the e³Service ontology. However, SNN is an UML model that can be analyzed for measurements of added value for each single participant as well as for the whole network optimization of value flows.

Finally, there are overarching efforts that concentrate on the bigger picture of service systems or service science also taking into account socio-economic aspects. Stephen Alter was one of the first to realize that the concept of a service system is not well articulated in the service literature. Therefore, he contributes three informal frameworks as a first attempt to define the fundamentals of service systems. The work of Ferrario and Guarino can be seen as a continuation and formalization of Alter’s approach. Although differing in its main notions, they present a reference ontology for ontological foundations of service science which is founded on the basic principles of ontological analysis. In turn, this reference ontology forms the core part of the TEXO Service Ontology which extends it by ontology modules for pricing, legal, innovation, or rating information.

USDL is the only effort which covers IT and Business aspects, serves both a reference and exchange purpose, considers business network related information and is about to be standardized.

Personal tools
Create a book