Advertisement

The VLDB Journal

, Volume 14, Issue 1, pp 84–96 | Cite as

On automating Web services discovery

  • Boualem BenatallahEmail author
  • Mohand-Said Hacid
  • Alain Leger
  • Christophe Rey
  • Farouk Toumani
Regular Paper

Abstract.

One of the challenging problems that Web service technology faces is the ability to effectively discover services based on their capabilities. We present an approach to tackling this problem in the context of description logics (DLs). We formalize service discovery as a new instance of the problem of rewriting concepts using terminologies. We call this new instance the best covering problem. We provide a formalization of the best covering problem in the framework of DL-based ontologies and propose a hypergraph-based algorithm to effectively compute best covers of a given request. We propose a novel matchmaking algorithm that takes as input a service request (or query) Q and an ontology \(\mathcal{T}\) of services and finds a set of services called a “best cover” of Q whose descriptions contain as much common information with Q as possible and as little extra information with respect to Q as possible. We have implemented the proposed discovery technique and used the developed prototype in the context of the Multilingual Knowledge Based European Electronic Marketplace (MKBEEM) project.

Keywords:

Web services Discovery Semantic matchmaking Description logics Hypergraphs 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Baader F, Calvanese D, McGuinness D, Nardi D (2003) Patel-Schneider P (ed) The description logic handbook: theory, implementation and applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baader F, Küsters R, Molitor R (1999) Computing least common subsumer in description logics with existential restrictions. In: Dean T (ed) Proceedings of the 16th international joint conference on AI, Stockholm, Sweden, 31 July-6 August 1999, pp 96-103Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baader F, Küsters R, Molitor R (2000) Rewriting concepts using terminologies. In: Proceedings of the 7th international conference on principles of knowledge representation and reasoning (KR’2000), Colorado, April 2000, pp 297-308Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Beeri C, Levy AY, Rousset M-C (1997) Rewriting queries using views in description logics. In: Yuan L (ed) Proceedings of ACM PODS, April 1997, New York, pp 99-108Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Benatallah B, Hacid M-S, Rey C, Toumani F (2003a) Request rewriting-based Web service discovery. In: Fensel D, Sycara K, Mylopoulos J (eds) Proceedings of the international Semantic Web conference (ISWC 2003), Sanibel Island, FL, October 2003. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 2870. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 242-257Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Benatallah B, Hacid M-S, Rey C, Toumani F (2003b) Semantic reasoning for Web services discovery. In: Proceedings of the WWW workshop on e-services and the Semantic Web, Budapest, Hungary, May 2003Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Berge C (1989) Hypergraphs. In: North Holland Mathematical Library, vol 45. Elsevier, North-HollandGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bernstein A, Klein M (2002) Discovering services: towards high precision service retrieval. In: Proceedings of the CaiSE workshop on Web Services, e-business, and the Semantic Web: foundations, models, architecture, engineering and applications, Toronto, May 2002Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Casati F, Shan M-C, Georgakopoulos D (eds) (2001) J Very Large Databases Special Issue E-Serv 10(1):117Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Casati F, Shan M-C (2001) Dynamic and adaptive composition of e-services. Inf Sys 26(3):143-163Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chakraborty D, Perich F, Avancha S, Joshi A (2001) DReggie: semantic service discovery for M-Commerce applications. In: Proceedings of the workshop on reliable and secure applications in mobile environment, 20th symposium on reliable distributed systems, New Orleans, October 2001, pp 28-31Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    DAML Services. http://www.daml.org/services/Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    DAML Services Coalition (2002) DAML-S: Web service description for the Semantic Web. In: Proceedings of the 1st international Semantic Web conference (ISWC), Sardinia, Italy, June 2002, pp 348-363Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ding Y, Fensel D, Omelayenko B, Klein MCA (2002) The Semantic Web: yet another hip? Data Knowl Eng 6(2-3):205-227Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Donini F, Schaerf A, Lenzerini M, Nardi D (1996) Reasoning in description logics. In: Brewka G (ed) Foundation of knowledge representation. CSLI-Publications, Stanford, CA, pp 191-236Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Eiter T, Gottlob G (1995) Identifying the minimal transversals of a hypergraph and related problems. SIAM J Comput 24(6):1278-1304Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Fensel D, Bussler C, Ding Y, Omelayenko B (2002) The Web Service Modeling Framework WSMF. Electron Commerce Res Appl 1(2): 113-137Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Fensel D, Bussler C, Maedche A (2002) Semantic Web enabled Web services. In: Proceedings of the international Semantic Web conference, Sardinia, Italy, June 2002, pp 1-2Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Freidman ML, Khachiyan L (1996) On the complexity of dualization of monotone disjunctive normal forms. J Algorithms 21:618-628Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Goasdoué F, Rousset M-C, Lattés V (2000) The use of CARIN language and algorithms for information integration: the PICSEL system. Int J Cooper Inf Sys 9(4):383-401Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    González-Castillo J, Trastour D, Bartolini C (2001) Description logics for matchmaking of services. In: Proceedings of the KI-2001 workshop on applications of description logics, Vienna, Austria, September 2001. http://sunsite.informatik.rwth-aachen.de/Publications/CEUR-WS/Vol-44/Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hacid M-S, Leger A, Rey C, Toumani F (2002) Dynamic discovery of e-services: a description logics based approach. Report, LIMOS, Clemont-Ferrand, France. http://www.710.univ-lyon1.fr/~dbkrr/publications.htmGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Halevy AY (2001) Answering queries using views: a survey. J Very Large Databases 10(4):270-294Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hendler J, McGuinness DL (2000) The DARPA Agent Markup Language. IEEE Intell Sys 15(6):67-73Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Horrocks I (2002) DAML+OIL: a reasonable Web ontology language. In: Proceedings of EDBT’2002, Prague, Czech Republic, March 2002, pp 2-13Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Horrocks I, Patel-Schneider PF, van Harmelen F (2002) Reviewing the design of DAML+OIL: an ontology language for the Semantic Web. In: Proceedings of the 18th national conference on artificial intelligence (AAAI 2002), Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, 28 July-1 August 2002, pp 792-797Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Mannila A, Räihä K-J (1994) The design of relational databases. Addison-Wesley, Wokingham, UKGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    McIlraith S, Son TC, Zeng H (2001) Semantic Web services. IEEE Intell Sys Special Issue Semantic Web 16(2):46-53Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    MKBEEM (2002) http://www.mkbeem.comGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Molitor R (1998) Structural subsumption for \(\cal A\!L\!N\). LTCS-Report LTCS-98-03, LuFG Theoretical Computer Science, RWTH Aachen, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Paolucci M, Kawamura T, Payne TR, Sycara KP (2002) Semantic matching of Web services capabilities. In: Proceedings of the international Semantic Web conference, Sardinia, Italy, June 2002, pp 333-347Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Payne TR, Paolucci M, Sycara K (2001) Advertising and matching DAML-S service descriptions (position paper). In: Proceedings of the international Semantic Web working symposium, Stanford, CA, July 2001Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Rey C, Toumani F, Hacid M-S, Leger A (2003) An algorithm and a prototype for the dynamic discovery of e-services. Technical Report RR05-03, LIMOS, Clemont-Ferrand, France. http://www.isima.fr/limos/publications.htmGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Teege G (1994) Making the difference: a subtraction operation for description logics. In: Doyle J, Sandewall E, Torasso P (eds) Proceedings of KR’94, location, day month 1994. Morgan Kaufmann, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Weikum G (ed) (2001) Data Eng Bull Special Issue Infrastruct Adv E-Serv 24(1). IEEE Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    World Wide Web Consortium (2003) http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/webont/Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin/Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Boualem Benatallah
    • 1
    Email author
  • Mohand-Said Hacid
    • 2
  • Alain Leger
    • 3
  • Christophe Rey
    • 4
  • Farouk Toumani
    • 4
  1. 1.School of Computer Science and Engineering University of New South WalesSydneyAustralia
  2. 2.LIRISUniversité Lyon IFrance
  3. 3.France Telecom R&D France
  4. 4.LIMOSUniversité Blaise PascalFrance

Personalised recommendations