Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A distributed architecture for efficient Web service discovery

  • Original Research Paper
  • Published:
Service Oriented Computing and Applications Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Although the definition of service-oriented architecture (SOA) included the presence of a service registry from the beginning, the first implementations (e.g., UDDI) did not really succeed mainly because of security and governance issues. This article tackles the problem by introducing DREAM (Distributed Registry by ExAMple): a publish/subscribe-based solution to integrate existing, different registries, along with a match-making approach to ease the publication and retrieval of services. DREAM fosters the interoperability among registry technologies and supports UDDI, ebXML Registry, and other registries. The publish/subscribe paradigm allows service providers to decide the services they want to publish, and requestors to be informed of the services that satisfy their interests. As for the match-making, DREAM supports different ways to evaluate the matching between published and required services. Besides presenting the architecture of DREAM and the different match-making opportunities, the article also describes the experiments conducted to evaluate proposed solutions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. http://www.programmableweb.com.

  2. https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/regrep/201201/msg00011.html.

  3. http://www.secse-project.eu/.

  4. http://www.xmethods.net.

  5. For the sake of simplicity, in the example, we use only the WSDL facets, even if it is possible to apply the XPath and R-XPath match-making to any XML-based document.

  6. For the sake of simplicity, we use the terms \(t_i\) for both the original and stemmed versions.

  7. A hyponym is a word that conveys a more specific meaning than a general term applicable to it. For example, spoon is a hyponym of cutlery.

  8. See http://marimba.d.umn.edu/cgi-bin/similarity.cgi.

  9. http://projects.semwebcentral.org/projects/sawsdl-tc/.

  10. Precision and recall are calculated by using the SME2 Evaluation tool (projects.semwebcentral.org/projects/sme2/).

References

  1. Papazoglou MP, Georgakopolous G (2003) Service oriented computing: introduction. Commun ACM 46(10):1–5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. The UDDI Web site, http://uddi.xml.org

  3. Clark M (2001) http://www.webservicesarchitect.com/content/articles/clark04.asp

  4. ebXML: Electronic business using eXtensible markup language, http://www.ebxml.org/

  5. Baresi L, Miraz M (2006) A distributed approach for the federation of heterogeneous registries. In: Dan A, Lamersdorf W (eds.) Service-oriented computing - ICSOC 2006, vol 4294 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer Berlin/Heidelberg, pp 240–251, doi:10.1007/11948148_20

  6. Plebani P, Pernici B (2009) URBE: Web service retrieval based on similarity evaluation. IEEE Trans Knowl Data Eng 21(11):1629–1642. doi:10.1109/TKDE.2009.35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Sawyer P (2006) Specification language definition. Technical Report, A1.D2.3, EC SeCSE Project

  8. Baresi L, Miraz M, Plebani P (2008) A flexible and semantic-aware publication infrastructure for web services. In: Advanced information systems engineering, 20th International Conference, CAiSE 2008, Montpellier, France, June 16–20, 2008, Proceedings, vol 5074 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp 435–449. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-69534-9_33

  9. Clement L, Hately A, von Riegen C TR (eds.) (2004) Universal description, discovery and integration version 3.0.2. http://uddi.org/pubs/uddi_v3.htm

  10. Verma K, Sivashanmugam K, Sheth A, Patil A, Oundhakar S, Miller J (2005) METEOR-S WSDI: a scalable p2p infrastructure of registries for semantic publication and discovery of web services. Inf Technol Manag 6:17–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Pilioura T, Kapos G, Tsalgatidou A (2004) PYRAMID-S: A scalable infrastructure for semantic web services publication and discovery, In: RIDE-DGS 2004 14th Int’l Workshop on Research Issues on Data Engineering, In: conjunction with the IEEE Conf. on Data Engineering (ICDE 2004), (March 2004)

  12. Cugola G, Picco GP (2006) REDS: a reconfigurable dispatching system. In: SEM, pp 9–16

  13. Carzaniga A, Rosenblum DS, Wolf AL (2001) Design and evaluation of a wide-area event notification service. ACM Trans Comput Syst 19(3):332–383

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Jini. http://www.jini.org/

  15. Lennon M, Pierce D, Tarry B, Willett P (1988) An evaluation of some conflation algorithms for information retrieval. J Inf Sci 8(3):99–105

    Google Scholar 

  16. Pedersen T, Patwardhan S, Michelizzi J (2004) WordNet::Similarity—measuring the relatedness of concepts. In: Proceedings of National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, July 25–29, San Jose, CA, USA, pp 1024–1025

  17. Seco N, Veale T, Hayes J (2004) An intrinsic information content metric for semantic similarity in Wordnet. In: Proceedings of European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI’04), Valencia, Spain, August 22–27, IOS Press, pp 1089–1090

  18. Farrel J, Lausen H (2007) Semantic annotations for WSDL and XML schema. http://www.w3.org/TR/sawsdl/

  19. Baeza-Yates R, Ribeiro-Neto B (1999) Modern information retrieval. ACM Press/Addison-Wesley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  20. Klusch M et al (2013) Performance evaluation of semantic service matchmakers. In: 5th International semantic service selection contest

  21. Sellami M, Bouchaala O, Gaaloul W, Tata S (2013) Communities of web service registries: construction and management. J Syst Softw 86(3):835–853. doi:10.1016/j.jss.2012.11.019. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0164121212003123

  22. Sapkota B, Roman D, Kruk SR, Fensel D (2006) Distributed web service discovery architecture. In: Proceedings of AICT-ICIW ’06. International Conference on Internet and Web Applications and Services/Advanced International Conference on Telecommunications, pp.36–136. doi:10.1109/AICT-ICIW.2006.85

  23. Dustdar S, Treiber M (2006) View based integration of heterogeneous web service registries—the case of VISR. World Wide Web 9(4):457–483

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Sellami M, Gaaloul W, Tata S (2010) Functionality-driven clustering of web service registries. In: IEEE SCC, pp 631–634. doi:10.1109/SCC.2010.70

  25. Aschenbrenner A, Blanke T, Küster MW, Pempe W (2010) Towards an open repository environment. J Digit Inf 11(1)

  26. Bernstein A, Klein M (2002) Towards high-precision service retrieval. In: Proceedings of International Semantic Web Conference, ISWC’02

  27. Damiani E, Fugini MG, Bellettini C (1999) A hierarchy-aware approach to faceted classification of objected-oriented components. ACM Trans Softw Eng Methodol 8(3):215–262. doi:10.1145/310663.310665

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Zaremski A, Wing J (1995) Signature matching: a tool for using software libraries. ACM Trans Softw Eng Methodol 4(2):146–170. doi:10.1145/210134.210179

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Zaremski A, Wing J (1997) Specification matching of software components. ACM Trans Softw Eng Methodol 6(4):333–369. doi:10.1145/261640.261641

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Zisman A, Spanoudakis G, Dooley J (2008) A framework for dynamic service discovery. In: 23rd IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering, L’Aquila, pp 158–167. doi:10.1109/ASE.2008.26

  31. Stroulia E, Wang Y (2005) Structural and semantic matching for assessing Web-service similarity. Int J Coop Inf Syst 14(4):407–438. doi:10.1142/S0218843005001213

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Sellami S, Boucelma O (2011) Web services discovery and composition: a schema matching approach. In: Web Services (ICWS), 2011 IEEE International Conference on, pp 706 –707. doi:10.1109/ICWS.2011.105

  33. Liu F, Shi Y, Yu J, Wang T, Wu J (2010) Measuring similarity of web services based on wsdl. In: Web Services (ICWS), 2010 IEEE International Conference on, pp 155 –162. doi:10.1109/ICWS.2010.67

  34. Agarwal S, Studer R (2006) Automatic matchmaking of web services. In: International Conference on Web Services (ICWS’06), pp 45–54. doi:10.1109/ICWS.2006.35

  35. Bianchini D, De Antonellis V, Melchiori M (2006) Hybrid ontology-based matchmaking for service discovery. In: Proceedings of the ACM symposium on Applied computing (SAC’06), ACM Press, Dijon, France, pp 1707–1708. doi:10.1145/1141277.1141681

  36. Benatallah B, Hacid M, Leger A, Rey C, Toumani F (2005) On automating Web services discovery. VLDB J 14(1):84–96. doi:10.1007/s00778-003-0117-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Klusch M, Fries B, Sycara K (2006) Automated semantic web service discovery with OWLS-MX. In: Proceedings of International Conference on Autonomous agents and multiagent systems (AAMAS’06), ACM Press, New York, NY, USA, pp 915–922. doi:10.1145/1160633.1160796

  38. Sycara K, Widoff S, Klusch M, Lu J (2002) Larks: dynamic matchmaking among heterogeneous software agents in cyberspace. In: Autonomous agents and multi-agent systems, vol 5, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Hingham, MA, USA, pp 173–203. doi:10.1023/A:1014897210525

  39. Paolucci M, Kawamura T, Payne T, Sycara K (2002) Semantic matching of Web services capabilities, In: Proceedings of International Semantic Web Conference on The Semantic Web (ISWC’02), Springer, London, UK, pp 333–347

  40. Amorim R, Claro D, Lopes D, Albers P, Andrade A (2011) Improving web service discovery by a functional and structural approach. In: Web Services (ICWS), 2011 IEEE International Conference on, pp 411 –418. doi:10.1109/ICWS.2011.14

  41. Martin D (ed.) (2004) OWL-S: semantic markup for web services. W3C Submission. http://www.w3.org/Submission/2004/SUBM-OWL-S-20041122/

  42. WSMO Working Group. Web service modeling ontology. http://www.wsmo.org

  43. Dong H, Hussain FK, Chang E (2013) Semantic web service matchmakers: state of the art and challenges. Concurr Comput Pract Exp 25(7):961–988. doi:10.1002/cpe.2886

  44. Prud’hommeaux E, Seaborne A (2007) SPARQL query language for RDF. http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-sparql-query/ (W3C Candidate Recommendation)

  45. Beckett D (ed.) (2004) RDF/XML Syntax Specification (Revised). W3C Recommendation. http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-syntax-grammar/

  46. Lamparter S, Ankolekar A (2007) Automated selection of configurable Web services. In: 8. International Tagung Wirtschaftsinformatik, Universittsverlag Karlsruhe, Germany

  47. Uckelmann D, Harrison M, Michahelles F (eds) (2011) Architecting the internet of things. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Dipartimento di Elettronica, Informazione e Bioingegneria, Politecnico di Milano, Piazza Leonardo da Vinci, 32, 20133, Milan, Italy

    Luciano Baresi, Matteo Miraz & Pierluigi Plebani

Authors
  1. Luciano Baresi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Matteo Miraz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Pierluigi Plebani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pierluigi Plebani.

Appendix: Validation queries

Appendix: Validation queries

These are the queries in benchmark SAWSDL-TC1 that have been used to validate the approach presented in this paper. As discussed in Sect. 5, since these queries are meaningful for the WSDL similarity algorithm, to ensure a fair comparison, queries for XPath and R-XPath have been adapted from them.

figure b

To ensure an independent evaluation of our approach, we used the queries adopted by the creators of the benchmark. For each query, they also define the relevance sets, useful for computing precision and recall.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Baresi, L., Miraz, M. & Plebani, P. A distributed architecture for efficient Web service discovery. SOCA 10, 1–17 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11761-015-0184-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11761-015-0184-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation