Adaptive workflows in smart environments: combining imperative and declarative models
Pages 1171 - 1174
Abstract
Specifying interaction between users and smart environments is an important topic in pervasive computing. Both imperative and declarative languages have been investigated in this context. Declarative approaches require more abstract thinking and higher modeling effort but enable greater flexibility. A survey of related work suggests, however, that the high modeling effort of declarative approaches is prohibitive to their practical application. In contrast, imperative approaches lead to static control-flow and over-specification. Still, they are used, mainly due to their simplicity. Our approach supports a systematic transformation process from imperative models to declarative ones. Our method comprises an imperative, workflow-based language that we extended with novel declarative constructs and an algorithm for converting imperative models into declarative ones. Our approach requires only a modest level of declarative specification literacy for reaching a degree of flexibility that formerly only expert designers could achieve with hand-crafted declarative models.
References
[1]
M. Adams, A. ter Hofstede, D. Edmond, and W. van der Aalst. Worklets: A service-oriented implementation of dynamic flexibility in workflows. In On the Move to Meaningful Internet Systems: CoopIS, DOA, GADA, and ODBASE. Springer, 2006.
[2]
J. Bidot, C. Goumopoulos, and I. Calemis. Using AI Planning and Late Binding for Managing Service Workflows in Intelligent Environments. In Proceedings of PerCom, 2011.
[3]
B. Brumitt, B. Meyers, J. Krumm, A. Kern, and S. A. Shafer. Easyliving: Technologies for intelligent environments. In Proceedings of HUC. Springer, 2000.
[4]
M. Dowson and C. Fernström. Towards requirements for enactment mechanisms. In European Workshop on Software Process Technology, 1994.
[5]
W. Edwards and R. Grinter. At home with ubiquitous computing: Seven challenges. In Proceedings of Ubicomp. 2001.
[6]
D. Fahland, D. Lübke, J. Mendling, H. A. Reijers, B. Weber, M. Weidlich, and S. Zugal. Declarative versus imperative process modeling languages: The issue of understandability. In BMMDS/EMMSAD, 2009.
[7]
M. Hellenschmidt and T. Kirste. Sodapop: a software infrastructure supporting self-organization in intelligent environments. In Proceedings of Industrial Informatics, 2004.
[8]
V. Issarny, D. Sacchetti, F. Tartanoglu, F. Sailhan, R. Chibout, N. Lévy, and A. Talamona. Developing ambient intelligence systems: A solution based on web services. Autom. Softw. Eng., 12(1), 2005.
[9]
T. Kirste, T. Herfet, and M. Schnaider. Embassi: multimodal assistance for universal access to infotainment and service infrastructures. In Proceedings of WUAUC. ACM, 2001.
[10]
C. P. Kunze, S. Zaplata, and W. Lamersdorf. Mobile process description and execution. In Proceedings of DAIS. Springer, 2006.
[11]
J. Mendling. Metrics for Process Models: Empirical Foundations of Verification, Error Prediction, and Guidelines for Correctness, volume 6 of Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing. Springer, 2008.
[12]
M. Román, C. Hess, R. Cerqueira, A. Ranganathan, R. H. Campbell, and K. Nahrstedt. A middleware infrastructure for active spaces. IEEE Pervasive Computing, 1(4), Oct. 2002.
[13]
B. Schattenberg. Hybrid planning & scheduling. PhD thesis, University of Ulm, 2009.
[14]
M. Schneider. The semantic cookbook: sharing cooking experiences in the smart kitchen. In Intelligent Environments, 2007.
[15]
A. Tate, B. Drabble, and R. Kirby. O-Plan2: an open architecture for command, planning and control. Intelligent Scheduling, 1:213--239, 1994.
[16]
M. Vallée, F. Ramparany, and L. Vercouter. Flexible composition of smart device services. In L. T. Yang, J. Ma, M. Takizawa, and T. K. Shih, editors, PSC, pages 165--171. CSREA Press, 2005.
[17]
G. Vanderhulst, K. Luyten, and K. Coninx. Rewire: Creating interactive pervasive systems that cope with changing environments by rewiring. In Intelligent Environments, 2008.
[18]
P. Webster, V. Uren, and M. Ständer. Shaken not Stirred: Mixing Semantics into XPDL. In I'nal Workshop on Semantic Business Process Mgmt., 2010.
[19]
M. Wieland, D. Nicklas, and F. Leymann. Managing technical processes using smart workflows. In Proceedings of ServiceWave. Springer, 2008.
Index Terms
- Adaptive workflows in smart environments: combining imperative and declarative models
Recommendations
BXtendDSL: A layered framework for bidirectional model transformations combining a declarative and an imperative language
AbstractModel-driven software development (MDSD) heavily relies on model transformations. While in a strict forward engineering process unidirectional transformations are used, bidirectional transformations are crucial as soon as roundtrip ...
Highlights- Combination of a declarative and imperative language for bidirectional incremental model transformations.
Pure and declarative syntax definition: paradise lost and regained
OOPSLA '10Syntax definitions are pervasive in modern software systems, and serve as the basis for language processing tools like parsers and compilers. Mainstream parser generators pose restrictions on syntax definitions that follow from their implementation ...
The denotational semantics of programming languages
This paper is a tutorial introduction to the theory of programming language semantics developed by D. Scott and C. Strachey. The application of the theory to formal language specification is demonstrated and other applications are surveyed. The first ...
Comments
Information & Contributors
Information
Published In
September 2012
1268 pages
ISBN:9781450312240
DOI:10.1145/2370216
- General Chair:
- Anind K. Dey,
- Program Chairs:
- Hao-Hua Chu,
- Gillian Hayes
Copyright © 2012 ACM.
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]
Sponsors
In-Cooperation
Publisher
Association for Computing Machinery
New York, NY, United States
Publication History
Published: 05 September 2012
Check for updates
Author Tags
Qualifiers
- Research-article
Conference
Ubicomp '12: The 2012 ACM Conference on Ubiquitous Computing
September 5 - 8, 2012
Pennsylvania, Pittsburgh
Acceptance Rates
UbiComp '12 Paper Acceptance Rate 58 of 301 submissions, 19%;
Overall Acceptance Rate 764 of 2,912 submissions, 26%
Contributors
Other Metrics
Bibliometrics & Citations
Bibliometrics
Article Metrics
- 0Total Citations
- 173Total Downloads
- Downloads (Last 12 months)2
- Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
Reflects downloads up to 05 Mar 2025
Other Metrics
Citations
View Options
Login options
Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.
Sign in