Formalization of the User Centric SOA Approach*

Implementation and End User Satisfaction Evaluation

Meriem Benhaddi

, Karim Baïna

and El Hassan Abdelwahed

Faculty of Sciences Semlalia, Cadi Ayyad University, BP 2390-Marrakesh, Morocco

ENSIAS, Mohammed V University, BP 713 Agdal-Rabat, Morocco

Keywords: SOA, Mashup, Integration Patterns, End User Development, End User Satisfaction, Usability, Intuitiveness,

Cloud Computing.

Abstract: User-centric SOA is a new paradigm allowing unskilled end users to compose services to create new one.

Mashups represent new agile and quick ways to compose and integrate structured and unstructured

resources, from different types existing on the web. Mashups emerged as a new way to democratize the

SOA and realize the user-centric SOA; However, Mashups are emerging applications, and thus consist of

immature, non intuitive and non formalized area. In this paper, we formalize the user-centric SOA

development by proposing a new cloud-based architecture for user-centric SOA platforms, and by

introducing a new rich integration language based on the advanced Enterprise Integration Patterns (EIPS).

We also propose a new intuitive and self-explanatory semantic methodology and interaction model for end

users services integration. Through these contributions, we give the promise of realizing the user-centric

SOA.

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Problems and Limitations of SOA

The concepts behind the Service Oriented

Architecture - which consist of modulating

applications as interoperable services - has proved

that it is the best way to urbanize the enterprise

information system by promoting the reuse of

services to build more complexes ones, the

interoperability between different heterogeneous

system, and the standardized languages and

protocols (WSDL, SOAP, BPEL). Nevertheless,

enterprises that applied SOA didn’t get the great

promised added value, which has prevented the

installation of the global SOA, and has lowered the

percentage of companies planning the SOA

(Gartner, 2005).

In this section, we introduce the concept of "End

User", to signify the non-computer user, who has

very little computer knowledge. We will give a

further definition of this concept in the next section.

* This Work is partially financed by the research project EvA

(vulgarisation of Enterprise Architecture) \no 002/ENSIAS/2011

of Mohammed V Souissi University

The limitations of SOA could be summarized as:

 Exclusion of the end user from the hierarchy of

the SOA actors: users kept away and out of the

loop. In fact, the SOA technologies (WSDL,

SOAP, SCA, BPEL, etc) are hard to master and

require advanced knowledge (Nestler et al.,

2009; Zhao et al., 2009).

 Rigidity, heaviness and incompatibility of SOA

implementations with the real constraints of end

users:

o Lack of accessibility: UDDI registries are

dedicated to expert; therefore, end users have

to browse different web sites in order to use

services. (Hierro et al., 2008) states that SOA

was originally designed as an architecture

focused fundamentally on the B2B context,

and does not offer support for B2C

interactions.

o Lack of flexibility and scalability: SOA

technologies cannot support the services

composition on the fly: After composition

design, implementation, testing and

deployment, it becomes very difficult to

change the composition logic according to

the changing needs of users, as it involves a

long life cycle (Liu et al., 2007).

481

Benhaddi M., Baïna K. and Abdelwahed E..

Formalization of the User Centric SOA Approach - Implementation and End User Satisfaction Evaluation.

DOI: 10.5220/0004446304810488

In Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems (ICEIS-2013), pages 481-488

ISBN: 978-989-8565-60-0

 2013 SCITEPRESS (Science and Technology Publications, Lda.)

o Lack of mobility: SOA implementation

and integration technologies are very heavy

for devices with limited capabilities. WSDL

and SOAP are instances of complicated XML

documents, which makes the WS* services

very demanding in terms of computing

power, bandwidth and storage (Guinard and

Trifa, 2009).

1.2 End Users: Who are they? What

Do they Need?

A software end user is a person who interacts with

information systems solely as a final information

consumer. It’s a user with minimal technical

knowledge, and who uses the software in the context

of daily life or daily work for personal (business or

leisure) purposes, without having any intentions to

produce other systems (Cypher, 1993, Allison and

Kelly, 1992).

End users have many requirements that should

be respected by system designers and developers in

order to deliver systems satisfying end users. Based

on the work of (McCall et al., 1977) and (ISO/IEC

9126-12001), we have grouped into four criteria the

end users requirements, which are listed as follows:

 Functional richness is features requested to

execute different tasks. A limited set of offered

features could be a problem at this level.

 Usability & intuitiveness concern user interfaces,

interaction and dialogue mode. Lack of usability

results in lack of visibility, feedback,

consistency, non-destructive operations,

discoverability, scalability, reliability (Norman

and Nielsen, 2010).

 Efficiency, reliability, maintainability and

portability (ERMP) are difficulties that do not

refer directly to system features. Problems could

be lack of documentation, performance, security,

supportability.

 Personnalizability, customizability is the

capability of end user to tailor themselves their

systems. Not providing end users with this

capability results in useless systems that lack

many important features.

Based on this section, we define the user-centric

SOA as the expectation of end users, their future

hope, and the promise for better information

systems. A user-centric SOA offers:

 Empowerment of the end user: Easy and flexible

composition on the fly of services by all end

users.

 Openness of the Information System to the

public: the democratization of SOA and the

installation of the global SOA or the Internet of

Services (Schroth and Janner, 2007).

 More independence of SOA: the adoption of a

variety of interoperable technologies in order to

meet the great variety of the web.

 Lightweight SOA technologies: the support of

SOA technologies by all mobile devices.

2 STATE OF THE ART

2.1 Mashup Frameworks Limitations

Mashup is a new paradigm of the Web 2.0

(O’Reilly, 2005) – the new generation of the web -

that enables the user generation of services by

allowing end users to personalize and customize

their applications (Hoyer et al., 2009; López et al.,

2008; Bradley, 2007). Today, there are a big number

of Mashup frameworks on the web, which allow end

users to mix visually different heterogeneous

resources and thus create new applications called

mashups. Mashup frameworks have helped to bridge

the gap between end users and software

development, but they are still some technical gaps

(Benhaddi et al., 2010): Mashup frameworks use

lightweight resources (RSS, ATOM, REST services,

etc) (Roy, 2010; Nestler, 2008), they do not allow

the creation of business process mashups (Nestler,

2008), they do not provide stable applications

(Anjomshoaa et al., 2010) and finally they are still

outside the scope of end users (Nestler et al., 2009).

These critics show that the Mashup is at an early

stage and needs more research. In fact, there is a

lack of a powerful integration language, and

intuitive design process. Hence, in order to achieve

the user-centric SOA, there is a need to introduce

new elements consisting of patterns and models to

enhance the development of Mashup applications.

The next section introduces the Enterprise

Integration Patterns, and shows their contribution to

any integration solution.

2.2 Study: Mashup Frameworks

and the User-centric SOA

The Enterprise Integration Patterns (EIPs) collected

by (Hohpe and Woolf, 2003) describe a number of

design patterns for enterprise application integration

and message oriented middleware. The EIPs are

implemented by a set of sophisticated mediation bus,

such as Camel, Mule and Apache, in order to

achieve very complex integration scenarios.

Enterprise Integration Patterns propose the best and

ICEIS2013-15thInternationalConferenceonEnterpriseInformationSystems

482

common solutions to integration problems.

Therefore, when EIPs are used, they enhance the

quality of the integrated applications. EIPs consist of

six groups of patterns: messaging channels, message

construction, message routing, message

transformation, messaging endpoints and system

management. Based on the book of (Hohpe and

Woolf, 2003), we categorize these patterns groups

according to the four end user satisfaction criteria

that we defined and presented in section I.2.

The Enterprise Integration Patterns, when used

together, help achieving a high level of system

quality by ensuring the end user satisfaction criteria.

The use of EIPs is therefore considered as a proof of

the system quality. Hence, we had the idea of

studying different Mashup frameworks - Yahoo!

Pipes (Yahoo! Pipes, 2012), Jackbe Presto Wires

(Jackbe Presto Wire, 2012) and IBM Mashup Center

(IBM Mashup Center, 2012) - based on the EIPs.

Our study showed that the three Mashup frameworks

implement a limited set of the integration patterns,

which are very basic and simple; the three Mashup

frameworks fail to implement advanced and

sophisticated integration patterns.

According to this study, we deduced that the

three Mashup frameworks fail to totally ensure the

criteria of “Functional richness”, “Efficiency”,

“Reliability” and “Maintainability”.

We also studied these Mashup frameworks from

the usability & intuitiveness perspective. The study

showed also that Mashup frameworks lack ease of

use and intuitivity for inexperienced end users.

Unfortunately we could not introduce this study in

this paper because of the restricted number of pages.

Table 1 present the final result of our studies that

all showed that the Mashup frameworks are not

user-centric SOA solutions.

The next section gives a brief description of our

proposed new user-centric SOA solution, by

introducing new patterns and methodologies helping

to formalize the user-centric SOA development.

Table 1: Mashup frameworks and user-centric SOA

criteria.

User-Centric SOA

criteria/Mashup

Frameworks

Yahoo!

Pipes

Jackbe

Presto

Wires

IBM

Mashup

Center

Functional Richness 2 2 2

Personnalizability 3 3 3

Usability & Intuitiveness 2 2 2

Efficiency, Reliability,

Maintainability and

Portability

3 2 2

3=High, 2=Medium, 1=Low

3 USER-CENTRIC SOA

PROPOSAL

3.1 A Cloud-based Architecture

We presented the technical architecture of the user-

centric SOA in (Benhaddi et al., 2012). This

Architecture includes several services required by

Mashup platforms. These different services can be

homemade (developed internally), or accessible

through the Cloud Computing. Indeed, the Cloud

Computing can be considered as a new way to

retrieve and use IT-enabled services by customers.

According to (Buyya et al., 2008), the Cloud

Computing is an emerging paradigm that is based on

compute and storage virtualization to deliver reliable

services to customers. Customers can access data

and applications anywhere in the world on demand.

This way, Mashup platforms can rely on the

Cloud Computing services to ensure the operation of

each layer of the technical architecture. For example,

Enterprise Service Buses could be used for their

routing and translation capabilities, BPEL engines

could be used for their orchestration capability and

the CRUD services offer different services such as

identity management, persistent storage, resources

access, routing and translation.

As stated before in this paper, end users have

four requirements: functional richness, usability &&

intuitiveness, personalizability and infrastructure

requirements such as reliability, efficiency,

maintainability and portability. As Mashup

platforms were created to let end users personalize

their applications, we consider that the third

requirement is ensured. The fourth requirement is

out of the scope of this paper. We focus our work on

the first two requirements. The next section is

dedicated to the study of the first requirement -

functional richness – and provides a solution based

on the Enterprise Integration Patterns (EIPs).

3.2 First Requirement: Functional

Richness

As it was showed in section 2.2, the Enterprise

Integration Patterns enhance the system quality in

terms of the functional richness. Therefore, our

proposal is based on the Enterprise Integration

Patterns.

In order to achieve his task, the end user needs a

platform that encapsulates the following elements:

 Objects/resources to integrate: services spread

across the web that, together, offer a new

service with a new added value.

FormalizationoftheUserCentricSOAApproach-ImplementationandEndUserSatisfactionEvaluation

483

 Fields on interface allowing the entry of

intermediate data.

 Communication channels that allow binding

and forwarding the results between different

objects.

 Messages of different types which will be

carried by channels and sent by one object to

another. A message can be of different types: a

message representing a document, a message

representing an order, etc.

 Routing components whose role is to route the

results of an object to another.

 Translation components that transform the

results of an object before sending them to

another object.

We have identified the different basic elements

that will form our future language that we named

SOA4EU (SOA for End User). Table 2 lists these

elements.

We have realized the formalization of SOA4EU

language using Backus-Naur Form (BNF). Because

of the pages number restriction, we do not present it

in this paper.

The next section focuses on the second

requirement – usability & intuitiveness – and

presents a methodology helping end users to easily

compose services.

3.3 Second Requirement: Usability

and Intuitiveness

3.3.1 Goals Composition vs Services

Composition

When creating new applications, end users try to

achieve a new goal by composing existing sub-

goals. Each sub-goal is represented by a service. In

this way, when composing services, end users try to

resolve a problem whose solution does not exist yet

on the web. In fact, the answer exists in the form of

many subparts – services – dispersed on the web.

Therefore, the inexperienced end user faces many

challenges when trying to compose services in

response to a new goal:

 Determine the types of resources: what to do?

 Find resources that meet the end user criteria

(quality, price, etc.).

 Determine necessary actions for the use of

interfaces (selection problems): what and how

to use interfaces?

 Determine how to arrange and coordinate

resources (integration): how to coordinate the

elements?

 Determine the final interface of the integrated

resources.

Table 2: Constructs of SOA4EU language.

Construct Description

Task is the goal of the end user performing the

integration. Each task can have

frequency of execution.

Tag key words used to describe a task

Mashup A Mashup application represents the

realization of a task and includes a set o

integration taking place between several

resources.

Process Is the composition process of the Mashp

application resources and consists o

parallel or sequential integration flows.

Step Is a step in the integration process an

consists of a link between two or several

components.

Component Is the integration process node: resource,

input of the end user, router or translator.

EndUser Represents the interaction with end users

during the integration process.

Resource Represents the applications to integrate by

the Mashup. A resource is described by its

type, address and exchange format.

Expose

Resource

Represents an exposed resource with inpu

and output variables. The same resource

can be exposed many times within the

integration process.

Channel Allows communication between two

components and supports the single atomic

integration step.

Message is the entity transferring in a channel

between two components.

Router Is a node forwarding messages between

resources, end user fields or translators.

Translator Is the messages translation node.

System

Manager

Each Mashup application can have one o

several managers to improve reliability an

maintainability.

Transaction End users may want to synchronize actions

of components to realize a transaction.

The system has the role of helping end user to

answer these different questions, by suggesting

resources, providing guidelines for the coordination

of resources and providing feedback and

documentation for each selected action.

Faced with these design problems, the end user

will use the knowledge he possesses that describe

his goal and which consists of the objective or set of

operations that the goal task must accomplish, the

final result of the goal task (output of the process),

ICEIS2013-15thInternationalConferenceonEnterpriseInformationSystems

484

the frequency, the degree of importance and the

duration of the goal task execution.

This end-user knowledge represents the semantic

which, alone, should be involved in the interaction

between the end user and the user-centric SOA

platform. Indeed, the service-to-service interaction,

which is based on the syntax, is not valid at the

interface level. The interface provides gadgets that

represent a sub-goal, which is an abstraction of

services; therefore, the interaction and

communication way at the interface level should

also be an abstraction of the communication way

between services (Figure 1).

Figure 1: Interaction way on the service level and the

interface level.

The user centric SOA platform has to allow to

end users to link the various resources in a very

intuitive and self-explanatory way, requiring no

knowledge of how to map an output of a resource to

an input of another. To achieve this, the user centric

SOA platform has to provide the end user with a set

of goal prototypes or goals patterns, which have the

role of guiding the end user through the goals

composition process. The next section presents our

goals patterns-based suggestion system.

3.3.2 Goals Patterns-based Suggestion

System

3.3.2.1 What are the Goals patterns?

In the world of software development, design

patterns are solutions or best practices in response to

common problems in software design. For example,

the "Model-View-Controller" pattern help

organizing an application by splitting it into a data

model, an interface or a presentation and a controller

(control logic, event management and

synchronization).

Goals patterns represent common and repetitive

use cases, and can also be called end users

experience patterns. They provide answers to

questions like "How to automate the execution of

two consecutive tasks - eg. Turn on the light on the

entrance of the house and turn on the heating - in

response to a triggered event? - ex. presence of a

person detected by the sensor.

The following are examples of goals patterns:

 Booking airline ticket, hotel room and car for a

destination.

 Purchase order for a product whose quantity

reached a limit value.

 Turning on the room light and the coffeemaker

when the alarm clock goes off.

While software design patterns are derived from

the experience of the software developers, goals

patterns are created, improved and enriched by end

users themselves.

3.3.2.2 Suggestion System

The usefulness of the goals patterns is the suggestion

system. In fact, end users will be guided in the

process of services composition through the

database of goals patterns that contains the possible

links between the various gadgets. As gadgets

represent sub-goals, the database links represent also

relations between sub-goals. The system will utilize

this goals patterns database to suggest to the end

user links and components in order to build new

applications.

The suggestion system should be based on the

semantic information, as it is explained in section

3.3.1. In fact, the different links between

components should be represented by semantic

information as input/output matching.

The database of goals patterns being built

through the experience of end users, the system will

score the various components, depending on the

frequency of use, and thus offer to the end user the

best one - which has the highest score.

Our suggestion model is similar to e-mail

interfaces - ex. Gmail. When writing a new message,

and when the first recipient address is entered by the

user, other addresses are proposed and suggested at

the basis of the previous messages sent by this user.

The goals patterns database elements that

constitute also the components of the services

composition interface are managed by the following

description:

 An end-user profile is described by the age, the

types of goals (work, leisure or both) the end

user is interested in, the areas of interest, the

physical environment.

 A profile is a set of goals.

 A goal is described by its type, its physical

environment of execution, its objective, its

frequency and its degree of importance.

 The realization of a goal involves several

composition steps. A step represents a link from

a component to one or several components (one-

to-one or one-to-many).

FormalizationoftheUserCentricSOAApproach-ImplementationandEndUserSatisfactionEvaluation

485

 A component can be another application

participating in the composition as a sub-goal, a

user input or an operator (translator or router).

 In order to suggest to the end user the

appropriate actions, the database must store the

various possible relationships between

components. Thus, each composition step

possesses a relation.

 Each link between two components (composition

step) is described by a semantic data that

corresponds to the output of the message

transmitter and the input of the message receiver.

 The semantic data of a component can be

information, event, interface or nothing.

 The participating applications or sub-goals can

be synchronized in order to realize a transaction.

The object model of the goals patterns database

is represented by Figure 2.

4 IMPLEMENTATION AND

ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLE

4.1 Overview of SOA4EU Framework

Our new framework is characterized by being:

 Dynamic: the static services composition used by

existing Mashup frameworks does not meet end

users needs. In fact, in some situations, end users

do not have a clear understanding of how to

design the entire composite application;

displaying results step by step help end users

determine the future actions.

 Semantic: the interaction between end users and

our framework use the semantic layer offering an

intuitive way to link services and match inputs

and outputs.

 Suggestive: our framework helps end users faced

with many challenges while designing their

future applications. Suggestions ease and

accelerate the system learning.

All the framework integration (resources invocation,

transformation and routing) are done using the

Apache CAMEL integration framework (Ibsen et al.,

2011) which was realized based on the Enterprise

Integration patterns (Hohpe and Woolf, 2003).

4.2 Evaluation

4.2.1 Demonstration Scenario

To illustrate our new proposal, we choose an

example from the public health field. Our end user,

Figure 2: The object model of the goals patterns database.

Mark, got diabetes with kidney complications. Mark

lives in a small city, so he wants to plan a medical

consultation with a lower cost by comparing costs in

three different neighbouring cities. Then Mark

would like to search for kidney doctor addresses in

the city with the lower cost, and display the

addresses on a map. In order to watch his diet, Mark

would like also to have a list of diabetes products

that are sold in the supermarkets of the city with the

lower medical consultation cost, so he could both

visit a doctor and buy the diet products.

In the goals patterns database, there is a set of

gadgets that Mark could use and that the platform

could suggest to him. The gadgets are represented in

four sub-directories depending on their output type

(information, event, interface, none). Mark could use

semantic tag while searching for a specific gadget.

In order to link and adapt gadgets, Mark will also

use transformer and router operators: content filter,

content enricher, aggregator, content-based router,

etc.

4.2.2 End Users Satisfaction Evaluation

The platform-implementation of our model was

evaluated by analyzing end users reactions and

feedback. We invited twenty individuals to use and

test our framework, we then measured their

satisfaction against the criteria of integration

scenario richness and usability & intuitiveness.

4.2.2.1 Integration Scenarios Richness

The chosen scenario implements various integration

ICEIS2013-15thInternationalConferenceonEnterpriseInformationSystems

486

patterns: channel patterns (Point-to-Point, Publish-

Subscribe), message construction patterns

(command message, document message, event

message), message transformation patterns (content

filter, message enricher) and message routing

patterns (content-based router, message filter,

message aggregator).

We asked end users to realize this use case by

providing them with a description of the objective to

be achieved. We then collected their feedback and

reactions about the usefulness and appropriateness

of this use case compared to their daily activities. In

other words, we asked end users if they sense any

interest or gain by using our framework.

The majority of end users feedback was in favour

of the usefulness and adequacy of our framework.

4.2.2.2 Usability && Intuitiveness

The usability & intuitiveness criteria is composed of

several sub-criteria (Norman and Nielsen, 2010)

listed in the table below. We asked end users to

measure their satisfaction against these criteria; the

results are as follows.

Table 3: Evaluation of the usability & intuitiveness.

Criteria Description

Satisfaction

(%)

Visibility

Accessibility, system

learning

Feedback

Possibility of cancelling

the effect of previous

action

Consistency

Respect of interfaces

design standards

Non-destructive

operations

Undo operations 40

Discoverabi-lity

All operations can be

discovered by systematic

exploitation of menus

Scalability

The system should work

on all screen sizes.

---

Reliability

Operations should work,

events should not happen

randomly.

As shown in the table above, most end users

were satisfied with the main criteria of usability &&

intuitiveness. End users have particularly pointed the

usefulness of the suggestions, the use of semantic

and the dynamic execution of our framework

operations. Indeed, the suggestions can push and

accelerate the system learning, visibility and

discoverability, by guiding and accompanying the

end users in their choices and actions. The semantic

and dynamic interfaces facilitate also the system

learning and discoverability by hiding any

complexity and by giving immediately the result of

each performed action.

The feedback and non-destructive operations

criteria are a weakness element in our system that

we are improving.

We were not able to test our system regarding

the scalability criteria. In fact, the hardware we used

was a computer with characteristics (processor,

memory, screen size) equal or higher than that of a

laptop. Materials such as tablet or mobile phone

(smartphone) were not used.

5 CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE

WORK

In this paper, we presented the limitations of the

Service Oriented Architecture leading to the

emergence of the user-centric SOA concept. As a

technology allowing the end user SOA

implementation, the Mashup remains immature and

needs new patterns, failing thus to be user-centric

SOA solution. Our contribution aims at the

formalization of the end user service creation,

consisting of the proposal of a new Cloud-based

architecture, a new integration language based on

the advanced Enterprise Integrations Patterns and a

new intuitive and self-explanatory service creation

methodology. The tests that we conducted showed

end users satisfaction with integration richness and

usability & intuitiveness. Our future work consists

of enhancing and completing our user-centric SOA

framework.

REFERENCES

Allison, H and R. Kelly, R, 1992. ‘The Influence of

Individual Differences on Skill in End-User

Computing’. Journal of Management Information

Systems I Summer 1992, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 93-111.

(1992).

Anjomshoaa, A., Tjoa, A. M. and Hubmer, A., 2010.

‘Combining and integrating advanced IT-concepts

with semantic web technology, Mashup architecture

case study’. Paper presented at The 2nd Asian

Conference on Intelligent Information and Database

Systems, ACIIDS 2010, 24–26 March 2010, pp.13–22,

Hue City, Vietnam, Part I, LNAI 5990. (2010).

Benhaddi, M., Baïna, K. and Abdelwahed, E., 2010.

‘Towards an approach for a user centric SOA’. Paper

presented at The third International Conference on

Web & Information Technologies, Marrakech,

FormalizationoftheUserCentricSOAApproach-ImplementationandEndUserSatisfactionEvaluation

487

Morocco, April 2010. ISBN: 978-9954-9083-0-3.

Pages: 91-104.

Benhaddi, M., Baïna, K. and Abdelwahed, E., 2012. ‘A

user centric Mashuped SOA’. Int. Journal of Web

Science. Volume 1, Issue 3. DOI:

10.1504/IJWS.2012.045812

Bradley, A. (2007) Reference Architecture for Enterprise

Mashups, Gartner Research.

Buyya, R., Yeo, C. and Venugopal, S., 2008. ‘Market-

Oriented Cloud Computing: Vision, Hype, and Reality

for Delivering IT Services as Computing Utilities’.

Paper presented at The 10th IEEE International

Conference on High Performance Computing and

Communications (HPCC-08), pages 25{27, Los

Alamitos, CA, USA, 2008. IEEE

Cypher, A., 1993. Watch What I Do: Programming by

Demonstration. The MIT Press, Cambridge.

Gartner. 2005. Gartner Newsroom http://

www.gartner.com/it/page.jsp?id=790717. (2008).

(Accessed:10/06/2012).

Guinard, D. and Trifa, V., 2009. ‘Towards the Web of

Things: Web Mashups for Embedded Devices’. Paper

presented at The 18th Int World Wide Web

Conference, April, 2009, Madrid, Espagne.

Hohpe, G. and Woolf, B., 2003. Enterprise Integration

Patterns: Designing, Building, and Deploying

Messaging Solutions, Addison-Wesley Professional.

Hoyer, V., Janner, T., Schroth, C., Delchev, I. and

Urmetzer, F., 2009. ‘FAST Platform: A Concept for

user-centric, enterprise class Mashups’. Paper

presented at The 5th Conference of Professional

Knowledge Management, Poster Session, Solothurn,

Switzerland, 25-3-2009, pp.5-8.

IBM Mashup Center. [Online] http://www-

01.ibm.com/software/info/mashup-center/ (Accessed :

04 Mars 2012).

Ibsen, C., Anstey. J. and Zbarcea. H.(2011). Camel In

Action. Manning Publications.

ISO/IEC 9126-1. (2001) Software engineering – Product

quality - Part 1: Quality model. ISO.

Jackbe Presto Wire. [Online]. www.jackbe.com/

(Accessed : 04 Mars 2012).

J. Hierro, J., Janner, T., Lizcano, D., Reyes, M., Schroth,

C. et Soriano, J., 2008. ‘Enhancing User-Service

Interaction Through a Global User-Centric Approach

to SOA’. Paper presented at The Fourth International

Conference on Networking and Services IEEE

Computer Society, ICNS '08. Washington, DC, USA

(2008).

Liu, X., Hui, Y., Sun, W. and Liang, H., 2007. ‘Towards

service composition based on Mashup’. Paper

presented at The IEEE Congress on Services, 9–13

Juillet 2007, pp.332–339, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA.

López, J., Pan, A., Bellas, F., and Montoto, P., 2008.

‘Towards a Reference Architecture for Enterprise

Mashups’. Paper presented at The Jornadas de

Ingeniería del Software y Bases de Datos, 7-10

October 2008. Gijón, Spain.

McCall, J. A., Richards, P. K., and Walters, G. F., 1977.

Factors in Software Quality, RADC TR-77-369, 1977,

Vols I, II, III, US Rome Air Development Center

Reports. Italie. (1977).

Nestler, T., 2008. ‘Towards a Mashup-driven end-user

programming of SOA-based applications’. Paper

presented at The 10th International Conference on

Information Integration and Web-based Applications

& Services, iiWAS 2008, 24–26 November 2008,

pp.551–554, Linz, Austria.

Nestler, T., Dannecker, L. and Pursche, A., 2009. ‘User-

centric composition of service front-ends at the

presentation layer’. Paper presented at The 2009

International Conference on Service-oriented

Computing, ICSOC/ServiceWave, 24–27 November

2009. Stockholm, Sweden.

Norman, D. and Nielsen, J., 2010. ‘Gestural Interfaces: A

Step Backward In Usability’. Interactions' magazine,

Volume 17 Issue 5, September + October 2010 ACM

New York, NY, USA.

O’Reilly, T., 2005. ‘What is Web 2.0 – design patterns

and business models for the next generation of

software’, O’Reilly [Online] 30 September.

http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/200

5/09/30/what-is-web-20.html. (Accessed: 10

November 2011).

Roy, M., 2010. ‘Towards end-user enabled web service

consumption for Mashups. International conference on

software engineering’. Paper presented at The 32nd

ACM/IEEE International Conference on Software

Engineering, ICSE 2010, Vol. 2, pp.413–416, Cape

Town, South Africa.

Schroth, C. and Janner, T., 2007. ‘Web 2.0 and SOA:

converging concepts enabling the internet of services’.

Journal of IT Professional, Vol. 9, No. 3, pp.36–41.

(2007).

Yahoo! Pipes [Online]. http://pipes.yahoo.com/pipes/.

(Accessed: 04 Mars 2012).

Zhao, Z., Laga, N. and Crespi, N., 2009. ‘The Incoming

Trends of End-user driven Service Creation’. Paper

presented at Digital Business: the first International

ICST Conference, DigiBiz, London, UK, June 17-19,

2009 Springer (Ed.) (2010) 98-108.

ICEIS2013-15thInternationalConferenceonEnterpriseInformationSystems

488