Stefano Soi
Florian Daniel
Fabio Casati
Abstract
Despite the common claim by mashup platforms that they enable end-users to develop their own software, in practice end-users still don't develop their own mashups, as the highly technical or inexistent user bases of today's mashup platforms testify. The key shortcoming of current platforms is their general-purpose nature, that privileges expressive power over intuitiveness. In our prior work, we have demonstrated that a domain-specific mashup approach, which privileges intuitiveness over expressive power, has much more potential to enable end-user development (EUD). The problem is that developing mashup platforms—domain-specific or not—is complex and time consuming. In addition, domain-specific mashup platforms by their very nature target only a small user basis, that is, the experts of the target domain, which makes their development not sustainable if it is not adequately supported and automated.
With this article, we aim to make the development of custom, domain-specific mashup platforms cost-effective. We describe a mashup tool development kit (MDK) that is able to automatically generate a mashup platform (comprising custom mashup and component description languages and design-time and runtime environments) from a conceptual design and to provision it as a service. We equip the kit with a dedicated development methodology and demonstrate the applicability and viability of the approach with the help of two case studies.
- S. Aghaee and C. Pautasso. 2011. The mashup component description language. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Information Integration and Web-Based Applications and Services (iiWAS'11). ACM Press, New York, 311--316. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- L. Baresi and S. Guinea. 2010. Consumer mashups with mashlight. In Proceedings of the 3rd European Conference on ServiceWave (ServiceWave'10). Springer, 112--123.Google Scholar
- M. Blake, W. Tan, and F. Rosenberg. 2010. Composition as a service. IEEE Internet Comput. 14, 1, 78--82. Google ScholarDigital Library
- C. Cappiello, M. Matera, M. Picozzi, G. Sprega, D. Barbagallo, and C. Francalanci. 2011. DashMash: A mashup environment for end user development. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Web Engineering (ICWE'11). Springer, 152--166. Google ScholarDigital Library
- M. F. Costabile, D. Fogli, G. Fresta, P. Mussio, and A. Piccinno. 2004. Software environments for end-user development and tailoring. PsychNol. J. 2, 1, 99--122.Google Scholar
- F. Daniel, F. Casati, B. Benatallah, and M. Shan. 2009. Hosted universal composition: Models, languages and infrastructure in mashArt. In Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Conceptual Modeling (ER'09). Springer, 428--443. Google ScholarDigital Library
- F. Daniel, M. Imran, S. Soi, A. D. Angeli, C. R. Wilkinson, F. Casati, and M. Marchese. 2012. Developing mashup tools for end-users: On the importance of the application domain. Int. J. Next-Generat. Comput. 3, 2.Google Scholar
- F. Daniel and M. Matera. 2014. Mashups: Concepts, Models and Architectures. Springer.Google ScholarCross Ref
- F. Daniel, S. Soi, S. Tranquillini, F. Casati, C. Heng, and L. Yan. 2011. Distributed orchestration of user interfaces. Inf. Syst. 37, 6, 539--556. Google ScholarDigital Library
- A. De Ngeli, A. Battocchi, S. Roy Chowdhury, C. Rodriguez, F. Daniel, and F. Casati. 2011. End-user requirements for wisdom-aware EUD. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on End-User Development (IS-EUD'11). 245--250. Google ScholarDigital Library
- M. Feldmann, T. Nestler, U. Jugel, K. Muthmann, G. Hubsch, and A. Schill. 2009. Overview of an end user enabled model-driven development approach for interactive applications based on annotated services. In Proceedings of the 4th Workshop on Emerging Web Services Technology (WEWST'09). ACM Press, New York, 19--28. Google ScholarDigital Library
- R. France and B. Rumpe. 2005. Domain specific modeling. Softw. Syst. Model. 4, 1--3.Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. Gregorio and B. De Hora. 2007. The atom publishing protocol. http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5023.Google Scholar
- B. Hartmann, S. Doorley, and S. Klemmer. 2006. Hacking, mashing, gluing: A study of opportunistic design and development. Pervas. Comput. 7, 3, 46--54. Google ScholarDigital Library
- G. Hermosillo, L. Seinturier, and L. Duchien. 2012. Creating context-adaptive business processes. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Service-Oriented Computing (ICSOC'10). Springer, 228--242.Google Scholar
- K. Hoesch-Klohe and A. Ghose. 2010. Carbon-aware business process design in Abnoba. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Service-Oriented Computing (ICSOC'10). Springer, 551--556. Google ScholarDigital Library
- A. Ledeczi, A. Bakay, M. Maroti, P. Volgyesi, G. Nordstrom, J. Sprinkle, and G. Karsai. 2001. Composing domain-specific design environments. IEEE Comput. 34, 11, 44--51. Google ScholarDigital Library
- E. M. Maximilien, H. Wilkinson, N. Desai, and S. Tai. 2007. A domain-specific language for web APIS and services mashups. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Service-Oriented Computing (ICSOC'07). Springer, 13--26. Google ScholarDigital Library
- M. Mernik, J. Heering, and A. M. Sloane. 2005. When and how to develop domain-specific languages. ACM Comput. Surv. 37, 4, 316--344. Google ScholarDigital Library
- B. Mohabbati, D. Gasevic, M. Hatala, M. Asadi, E. Bagheri, and M. Boskovic. 2011. A quality aggregation model for service-oriented software product lines based on variability and composition patterns. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Service-Oriented Computing (ICSOC'11). Springer, 436--451. Google ScholarDigital Library
- B. Myers, D. C. Smith, and B. Horn. 1992. Chapter report of the ‘end-user programming’ working group. In Languages for Developing User Interfaces, Jones and Bartlett, Boston, 343--366. Google ScholarDigital Library
- A. Namoun, T. Nestler, and A. De Ngeli. 2010a. Conceptual and usability issues in the composable web of software services. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Current Trends in Web Engineering (ICWE'10). Springer, 396--407. Google ScholarDigital Library
- A. Namoun, T. Nestler, and A. De Ngeli. 2010b. Service composition for non programmers: Prospects, problems, and design recommendations. In Proceedings of the 8th IEEE European Conference on Web Services (ECOWS'10). 123--130. Google ScholarDigital Library
- M. Nottingham and R. Sayre. 2005. The atom syndication format. http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4287.txt.Google Scholar
- Open Ashup Alliance. 2012. Enterprise mashup markup language (EMML). http://www.openmashup.org/omadocs/v1.0/index.html.Google Scholar
- S. Pietschmann, M. Voigt, A. Rumpel, and K. Meissner. 2009. CRUISe: Composition of rich user interface services. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Current Trends in Web Engineering (ICWE'09). Springer, 473--476. Google ScholarDigital Library
- S. Roy Chowdhury, F. Daniel, and F. Casati. 2011. Efficient, interactive recommendation of mashup composition knowledge. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Service Oriented Computing (ICSOC'11). Springer, 374--388. Google ScholarDigital Library
- S. Roy Chowdhury, C. Rodriguez, F. Daniel, and F. Casati. 2012. Baya: Assisted mashup development as a service. In Proceedings of the 21st International Conference Companion on World Wide Web (WWW'12Companion). ACM Press, New York, 409--412. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Rss Dvisory Board. 2009. RSS 2.0 specification. http://www.rssboard.org/rss-specification.Google Scholar
- S. Soi, F. Daniel, and F. Casati. 2014. Conceptual design of sound, custom composition languages. In Web Services Foundations. Springer, 53--79.Google Scholar
- I. Trummer and B. Faltings. 2011. Dynamically selecting composition algorithms for economical composition as a service. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Service-Oriented Computing (ICSOC'11). Springer, 513--522. Google ScholarDigital Library
- R. Tuchinda, C. A. Knoblock, and P. A. Szekely. 2011. Building mashups by demonstration. ACM Trans. Web 5, 3, 16. Google ScholarDigital Library
- W3C. 2011. Widget packaging and configuration. W3C working draft. http://www.w3.org/TR/widgets/.Google Scholar
- W3C. 2013. The websocket API. http://dev.w3.org/html5/websockets/.Google Scholar
- J. Yu, B. Benatallah, F. Casati, and F. Daniel. 2008. Understanding mashup development. IEEE Internet Comput. 12, 44--52. Google ScholarDigital Library
Index Terms
- Conceptual Development of Custom, Domain-Specific Mashup Platforms
Recommendations
Developing domain-specific mashup tools for end users
WWW '12 Companion: Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on World Wide WebThe recent emergence of mashup tools has refueled research on end user development, i.e., on enabling end users without programming skills to compose own applications. Yet, similar to what happened with analogous promises in web service composition and ...
Understanding Mashup Development
Web mashups are Web applications developed using contents and services available online. Despite rapidly increasing interest in mashups over the past two years, comprehensive development tools and frameworks are lacking, and in most cases mashing up a ...
A customizable recommender system for mashup platforms
iiWAS '17: Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Information Integration and Web-based Applications & ServicesWhen developing composite web applications, non-programmers have to be assisted by recommendations. In the light of ad-hoc mashup development, users' heterogeneous skills and approaches, as well as different focus of mashup platforms, a variety of ...
Comments