Advertisement

Multimedia Tools and Applications

, Volume 64, Issue 2, pp 365–387 | Cite as

Capturing the functionality of Web services with functional descriptions

  • Ruben Verborgh
  • Thomas Steiner
  • Davy Van Deursen
  • Jos De Roo
  • Rik Van de Walle
  • Joaquim Gabarró Vallés
Article

Abstract

Many have left their footprints on the field of semantic RESTful Web service description. Albeit some of the propositions are even W3C Recommendations, none of the proposed standards could gain significant adoption with Web service providers. Some approaches were supposedly too complex and verbose, others were considered not RESTful, and some failed to reach a significant majority of API providers for a combination of the reasons above. While we neither have the silver bullet for universal Web service description, with this paper, we want to suggest a lightweight approach called RESTdesc. It expresses the semantics of Web services by pre- and postconditions in simple N3 rules, and integrates existing standards and conventions such as Link headers, HTTP OPTIONS, and URI templates for discovery and interaction. This approach keeps the complexity to a minimum, yet still enables service descriptions with full semantic expressiveness. A sample implementation on the topic of multimedia Web services verifies the effectiveness of our approach.

Keywords

Semantic Web Service description Service discovery 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank Niklas Lindström for his help with the CoIN vocabulary and Mark Nottingham for his suggestion on HTTP header line folding.

The research activities as described in this paper were funded by Ghent University, the Interdisciplinary Institute for Broadband Technology (IBBT), the Institute for the Promotion of Innovation by Science and Technology in Flanders (IWT), the Fund for Scientific Research Flanders (FWO Flanders), and the European Union.

This work was partially supported by the European Commission under Grant No. 248296 FP7 I-SEARCH project. Joaquim Gabarró is partially supported by TIN-2007-66523 (FORMALISM), and SGR 2009-2015 (ALBCOM).

References

  1. 1.
    Alarcón R, Wilde E (2010) Linking data from RESTful services. In: Proceedings of the 3rd international workshop on linked data on the WebGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Atrey P, Hossain M, El Saddik A, Kankanhalli MS (2010) Multimodal fusion for multimedia analysis: a survey. In: Multimedia systems. http://www.springerlink.com/index/E31M71152774R630.pdf
  3. 3.
    Ballinger K, Brittenham P, Malhotra A, Nagy WA, Pharies S (2001) Web services inspection language (WS-Inspection) 1.0. http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/webservices/library/ws-wsilspec.html
  4. 4.
    Bellwood T, Capell S, Clement L, Colgrave J, Dovey MJ, Feygin D, Hately A, Kochman R, Macias P, Novotny M, Paolucci M, von Riegen C, Rogers T, Sycara K, Wenzel P, Wu Z (2004) UDDI version 3.0.2. http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/uddi-spec/doc/spec/v3/uddi-v3.0.2-20041019.htm
  5. 5.
    Berners-Lee T, Connolly D (2011) Notation3 (N3): a readable RDF syntax. W3C Team Submission. http://www.w3.org/TeamSubmission/n3/
  6. 6.
    Berners-Lee T, Hendler J, Lassila O (2001) The Semantic Web. Sci. Am. 284(5):34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Berners-Lee T, Connolly D, Kagal L, Scharf Y, Hendler J (2008) N3Logic: a logical framework for the World Wide Web. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 8(3):249–269MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Brickley D, Miller L (2010) FOAF vocabulary specification 0.97. Namespace document. http://xmlns.com/foaf/spec/20100101.html
  9. 9.
    Chinnici R, Moreau J-J, Ryman A, Weerawarana S (2007) Web Services Description Language (WSDL) version 2.0 part 1: core language. W3C Recommendation. http://xml.coverpages.org/wsdl20000929.html
  10. 10.
    Christensen E, Curbera F, Meredith G, Weerawarana S (2000) Web Services Description Language (WSDL) 1.0. http://xml.coverpages.org/wsdl20000929.html
  11. 11.
    Clinton D (2007) OpenSearch specification 1.1 draft 3. http://www.opensearch.org/Specifications/OpenSearch/1.1
  12. 12.
    De Roo J (2012) Euler proof mechanism. http://eulersharp.sourceforge.net/
  13. 13.
    Fielding RT, Taylor RN (2002) Principled design of the modern Web architecture. ACM Trans on Int Tech 2(2):115–150. doi: 10.1145/514183.514185 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fielding R, Gettys J, Mogul J, Frystyk H, Masinter L, Leach P, Berners-Lee T (1999) Hypertext transfer protocol—HTTP/1.1. Request for comments: 2616. http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2616.txt
  15. 15.
    Gao S, Sperberg-McQueen CM, Thompson HS, Mendelsohn N, Beech D, Maloney M (2008) W3C XML Schema Definition Language (XSD) 1.1 part 1: structures. World Wide Web consortium, working draft WD-xmlschema11-1-20080620.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Generereth MR (1998) Knowledge interchange format. Draft Proposed American National Standard. http://logic.stanford.edu/kif/dpans.html
  17. 17.
    Gonzalez JL, Marcelnez R (2011) Phoenix: fault-tolerant distributed Web storage based on URLs. JoC 2(1):79–86Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gregorio J, Fielding R, Hadley M, Notthingham M (2010) URI template. http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gregorio-uritemplate-04
  19. 19.
    Gregorio J (2007) Do we need WADL?. http://bitworking.org/news/193/Do-we-need-WADL
  20. 20.
    Gudgin M, Hadley M, Mendelsohn N, Moreau J-J (2007) SOAP version 1.2 part 1: messaging framework, 2nd edn. W3C recommendation. http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/REC-soap12-part1-20070427/
  21. 21.
    Hadley M (2009) Web Application Description Language. W3C Member Submission. http://www.w3.org/Submission/wadl/
  22. 22.
    Horrocks I, Patel-Schneider PF, Boley H, Tabet S (2004) Swrl: a Semantic Web rule language combining OWL and RuleML. W3C Member Submission. http://www.w3.org/Submission/SWRL/
  23. 23.
    Klyne G, Carrol JJ (2004) Resource Description Framework (RDF): concepts and abstract syntax. W3C Recommendation. http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-concepts-20040210/
  24. 24.
    Klyuev V, Oleshchuk V (2011) Semantic retrieval: an approach to representing, searching and summarising text documents. IJITCC 1(2):221–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Koch J, Velasco CA (2009) HTTP vocabulary in RDF 1.0. W3C working draft. http://www.w3.org/TR/HTTP-in-RDF10/
  26. 26.
    Kopecký J, Vitvar T, Bournez C, Farrell J (2007) SAWSDL: semantic annotations for WSDL and XML Schema. IEEE Internet Comput 11:60–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Krill P (2005) Microsoft, IBM, SAP discontinue UDDI registry effort. InfoWorld. http://www.infoworld.com/d/architecture/microsoft-ibm-sap-discontinue-uddi-registry-effort-777
  28. 28.
    Krummenacher R, Norton B, Marte A (2010) Towards linked open services and processes. In: Proceedings of FIS’2010, pp 68–77Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lafon Y (2009) Team comment on the “Web Application Description Language” Submission. http://www.w3.org/Submission/2009/03/Comment
  30. 30.
    Lindström N (2011). The CoIN vocabulary. http://court.googlecode.com/hg/resources/docs/coin/spec.html
  31. 31.
    Martin D, Burstein M, Hobbs J, Lassila O (2004) OWL-S: semantic markup for Web services. W3C Member Submission. http://www.w3.org/Submission/OWL-S/
  32. 32.
    McDermott D (2004) DRS: a set of conventions for representing logical languages in RDF. http://cs-www.cs.yale.edu/homes/dvm/daml/DRSguide.pdf
  33. 33.
    Mcdermott D, Dou D (2002) Representing disjunction and quantifiers in RDF. In: Proceedings of international Semantic Web conference 2002, pp 250–263Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    McGuinness DL, van Harmelen F (2004) OWL Web ontology language overview. W3C Recommendation. http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-owl-features-20040210/
  35. 35.
  36. 36.
    Peterson D, Gao S, Malhotra A, Sperberg-McQueen CM, Thompson HS (2008) W3C XML Schema Definition Language (XSD) 1.1 part 2: datatypes. In: World Wide Web Consortium, working draft WD-xmlschema11-2-20080620.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Prud’hommeaux E, Seaborne A (2008) SPARQL query language for RDF. W3C Recommendation. http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-sparql-query/
  38. 38.
    Pyshkin E, Kuznetsov A (2011) Approaches for Web search user interfaces: how to improve the search quality for various types of information. JoC 1(1):1–8Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Sathappan OL, Chitra P, Venkatesh P, Prabhu M (2011) Modified genetic algorithm for multiobjective task scheduling on heterogeneous computing system. IJITCC 1(2):146–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Steiner T, Algermissen J (2011) Fulfilling the hypermedia constraint via HTTP OPTIONS, the HTTP vocabulary In RDF, and link headers. In: Proceedings of the second international workshop on RESTful designGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Verborgh R, Van Deursen D, De Roo J, Mannens E, Van de Walle R (2010) SPARQL endpoints as front-end for multimedia processing algorithms. In: Proceedings of the fourth international workshop on service matchmaking and resource retrieval in the Semantic WebGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Verborgh R, Van Deursen D, Mannens E, Poppe C, Van de Walle R (2011) Enabling context-aware multimedia annotation by a novel generic semantic problem-solving platform. Multimedia Tools and Applications special issue on Multimedia and Semantic Technologies for Future Computing Environments. doi: 10.1007/s11042-010-0709-6

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ruben Verborgh
    • 1
  • Thomas Steiner
    • 2
  • Davy Van Deursen
    • 1
  • Jos De Roo
    • 3
  • Rik Van de Walle
    • 1
  • Joaquim Gabarró Vallés
    • 2
  1. 1.ELIS – Multimedia LabGhent University – IBBTLedeberg-GhentBelgium
  2. 2.Universitat Politécnica de Catalunya – Department LSIBarcelonaSpain
  3. 3.Agfa HealthcareGentBelgium

Personalised recommendations