MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2526915519 · doi:10.1109/tsc.2015.2449850

Using π-calculus for Formal Modeling and Verification of WS-CDL Choreographies

2015· article· en· W2526915519 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Services Computing · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicService-Oriented Architecture and Web Services
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Health Economics
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCorrectnessComputer scienceChoreographyProgramming languageWorkflowOrchestrationWeb serviceFormal verificationPromelaModel checkingSoftware engineeringFormal methodsModeling languageProcess calculusFormal specificationDatabaseSoftware

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Service-Oriented applications are realized by composing and aggregating existing web services. Orchestration and Choreography are two interaction models for building SOA applications and several standards exist to capture and describe such interactions. The Web Service Choreography Description Language (WS-CDL) is a standard for modeling choreographies. In this paper, we propose a calculus (Chor-calculus) for formal modeling of WS-CDL and we use this language for generating WS-CDL programs. This approach enables the static verification of choreographies using existing pi-calculus model-checker tools and sets the ground for enabling the runtime monitoring of choreographies for behavioral correctness. We validate the calculus for its expressiveness by evaluating the language support for representing workflow, and service interaction, patterns. We demonstrate the use of the HAL toolkit to verify the correctness properties of choreographies.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.501
Threshold uncertainty score0.795

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.049
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.234 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it