Advertisement

World Wide Web

, Volume 10, Issue 3, pp 243–277 | Cite as

Bringing Semantics to Web Services with OWL-S

  • David Martin
  • Mark Burstein
  • Drew McDermott
  • Sheila McIlraith
  • Massimo Paolucci
  • Katia Sycara
  • Deborah L. McGuinness
  • Evren Sirin
  • Naveen Srinivasan
Open Access
Article

Abstract

Current industry standards for describing Web Services focus on ensuring interoperability across diverse platforms, but do not provide a good foundation for automating the use of Web Services. Representational techniques being developed for the Semantic Web can be used to augment these standards. The resulting Web Service specifications enable the development of software programs that can interpret descriptions of unfamiliar Web Services and then employ those services to satisfy user goals. OWL-S (“OWL for Services”) is a set of notations for expressing such specifications, based on the Semantic Web ontology language OWL. It consists of three interrelated parts: a profile ontology, used to describe what the service does; a process ontology and corresponding presentation syntax, used to describe how the service is used; and a grounding ontology, used to describe how to interact with the service. OWL-S can be used to automate a variety of service-related activities involving service discovery, interoperation, and composition. A large body of research on OWL-S has led to the creation of many open-source tools for developing, reasoning about, and dynamically utilizing Web Services.

Keywords

Web Services Semantic Web Semantic Web Services OWL OWL-S service discovery service composition 

References

  1. 1.
    Akkiraju, R., Farrell, J., Miller, J., et al.: Web Service Semantics—WSDL-S. Technical Note, Version 1.0, April, 2005. Available at: http://lsdis.cs.uga.edu/library/download/WSDL-S-V1.html
  2. 2.
    Akkiraju, R., Goodwin, R., Doshi, P., et al.: A method for semantically enhancing the service discovery capabilities of UDDI. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Information Integration on the Web (IIWeb) at the 18th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI). Acapulco, Mexico, August 2003Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ankolekar, A., Huch, F., Sycara, K.: Concurrent execution semantics of DAML-S with subtypes. In: Proceedings of the 1st International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC). Sardinia, Italy, June 2002Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Arkin, A., Askary, S., Bloch, B., et al. (eds.): Web Services Business Process Execution Language Version 2.0. Committee Draft, September 2005. Available at: http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/14616/wsbpel-specification-draft.htm
  5. 5.
    Baader, F., Calvanese, D., McGuinness, D., et al.: The description logic handbook; theory, implementation, and applications. Cambridge University Press (2003)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Balke, W.T., Wagner, M.: Towards personalized selection of web services. In: Proceedings of the 12th International World Wide Web Conference (WWW). Budapest, Hungary, May 2003Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Battle, S., Bernstein, A., et al.: Semantic Web services framework (SWSF) overview. W3C Member Submission, September 2005. Available at http://www.daml.org/services/swsf/1.0/
  8. 8.
    Benatallah, B., Hacid, M., Rey, C., et al.: Request rewriting-based web service discovery. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC), pp. 335–350. Sanibel Island, FL, USA, October 2003Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Berners-Lee, T.: Primer: Getting into RDF and the semantic web using N3. 2000. Available at: http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/Primer.html
  10. 10.
    Berners-Lee, T., Hendler, J., Lassila, O.: The semantic Web. Scientific American, May 2001Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Booth, D., Haas, H., McCabe, F., et al. (eds.): Web services architecture. W3C Working Group Note, 11 February 2004. Available at: http://www.w3.org/TR/ws-arch/
  12. 12.
    Box, D., Ehnebuske, D., Kakivaya, G., et al. (eds.): Simple object access protocol (SOAP) 1.1, W3C Note, 8 May 2000. Available at: http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/NOTE-SOAP-20000508/
  13. 13.
    Breininger, K., Chiusano, J.M., Damodaran, S., et al. (eds.): Registry information model v2.0. Available at: http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/regrep/documents/2.0/specs/ebRIM.pdf
  14. 14.
    Cardoso, J., Sheth, A.: Semantic E-workflow composition. J. Intell. Inf. Syst. 21(3), 191–225 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Christensen, E., Curbera, F., Meredith, G., et al.: Web services description language (WSDL) 1.1, W3C Note, 15 March 2001. Available at: http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/NOTE-wsdl-20010315
  16. 16.
    Clark, J. (ed.): XSL transformations (XSLT), W3C recommendation, 16 November 1999. Available at: http://www.w3.org/TR/xslt
  17. 17.
    Clement, L., Hately, A., von Riegen, C., et al. (eds.): The universal description, discovery and integration (UDDI) Version 3.0.2 Specification, October 2004. Available at: http://www.uddi.org/
  18. 18.
    Constantinescu, I., Faltings, B., Binder, W.: Large scale, type-compatible service composition. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Web Services (ICWS). San Diego, CA, USA, July 2004Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    D’Anjou, J., Fairbrother, S., Kehn, D., et al.: The Java developer’s guide to eclipse. Addison-Wesley (2005)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    De Bruijn, J., Lausen, H., Polleres, A., et al.: The Web service modeling language WSML: an overview, DERI technical report 2005-06-16, June 2005. Available at: http://www.wsmo.org/wsml/wsml-resources/deri-tr-2005-06-16.pdf
  21. 21.
    Dean, M., Schreiber, G. (eds.): OWL Web ontology language reference, W3C Recommendation, 10 February 2004. Available at: http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-owl-ref-20040210/
  22. 22.
    Denker, G., Kagal, L., Finin, T., et al.: Security for DAML web services: annotation and matchmaking. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC), pp. 335-350. Sanibel Island, FL, USA, October 2003Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Di Noia, T., Di Sciacio, E., Donini, F.M., et al.: Semantic matchmaking in a P-2-P electronic marketplace. In: Proceedings of the 18th Annual ACM Symposium on Applied Computing (SAC), pp. 582–586. Melbourne, FL, USA, March 2003Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Elenius, D., Ingmarsson, M.: Ontology-based service discovery in P2P networks. In: Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Peer-to-Peer Knowledge Management (P2PKM) at the 1st Annual International Conference on Mobile and Ubiquitous Systems: Networking and Services (MobiQuitous). Boston, MA, USA, August 2004Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Elenius, D., Denker, G., Martin, D., et al.: The OWL-S Editor—A development tool for semantic web services. In: Proceedings of the 2nd European Semantic Web Conference (ESWC). Heraklion, Greece, May 2005Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Enderton, H.: A Mathematical introduction to logic, 2nd edn. Academic Press (2000), DecemberGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Gibbins, N., Harris, S., Shadbolt, N.: Agent-based semantic web services. In: Proceedings of the 12th International World Wide Web Conference (WWW). Budapest, Hungary, May 2003Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Gruninger, M.: Applications of PSL to semantic web services. In: Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Semantic Web and Databases (SWDB) at the 29th International Conference on Very Large Data Bases (VLDB). Berlin, Germany, September 2003Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Gruninger, M., Menzel, C.: Process specification language: Theory and applications. AI Mag. 24, 63–74 (2003)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Haller, A., Cimpian, E., Mocan, A., et al.: WSMX—a semantic service-oriented architecture. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Web Services (ICWS). Orlando, FL, USA, July 2005Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Heß, A., Johnston, E., Kushmerick, N.: ASSAM: A tool for semi-automatically annotating semantic web services. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC). Hiroshima, Japan, November 2004Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Horrocks, I., Patel-Schneider, P.F., Boley, H., et al.: SWRL: A semantic web rule language combining oWL and ruleML. W3C Member Submission, 21 May 2004. Available at: http://www.w3.org/Submission/2004/SUBM-SWRL-20040521/
  33. 33.
    Horstmann, K.: Big Java, 2nd edn. Wiley (2005)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Integrated Learning research program. Home page: http://www.darpa.mil/IPTO/Programs/il/index.htm
  35. 35.
    Kagal, L., Paoucci, M., Srinivasan, N., et al.: Authorization and privacy for semantic Web services. IEEE Intell. Syst. 19(4), 50–56 (2004), JulyCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Kagal, L., Finin, T., Joshi, A.: A policy based approach to security on the semantic web. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC). Sanibel Island, FL, USA, October 2003Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Klein, M., König-Ries, B.: A process and a tool for creating service descriptions based on DAML-S. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on Technologies for E-Services (TES) at the 29th International Conference on Very Large Data Bases (VLDB). Berlin, Germany, September 2003Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Knublauch, H., Fergerson, R.W., Noy, N.F., et al.: The Protégé OWL plugin: An open development environment for semantic web applications. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC), Hiroshima, Japan, November 2004Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Kuter, U., Sirin, E., Nau, D., et al.: Information gathering during planning for web service composition. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC). Hiroshima, Japan, November 2004Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Levine, P., Clark, J., Casanave, C., et al.: ebXML Business Process Specification Schema. Available at: http://www.ebxml.org/specs/index.htm
  41. 41.
    Li, L., Horrocks, I.: A software framework for matchmaking based on semantic web technology. In: Proceedings of the 12th International World Wide Web Conference (WWW), pp. 331–339. Budapest, Hungary, May 2003Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Liberty, J.: Programming C#, 4th edn. O’Reilly (2005)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Mandell, D., McIlraith, S.: Adapting BPEL4WS for the semantic web: The bottom-up approach to web service interoperation. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC), pp. 227–241. Sanibel Island, FL, USA, October 2003. Code for the working system is available at: http://projects.semwebcentral.org/
  44. 44.
    Martin, D., Cheyer, A., Moran, D.: The open agent architecture: A framework for building distributed software systems. Appl. Artif. Intell. 13(1–2), 91–128 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Martin, D., Burstein, M., Lassila, O., et al.: Describing web services using OWL-S and WSDL. in Release 1.2 of OWL-S, available at: http://www.daml.org/services/owl-s/1.2/owl-s-wsdl.html
  46. 46.
    Martin, D., Burstein, M., McDermott, D., et al.: OWL-S 1.2 Release. Available at: http://www.daml.org/services/owl-s/1.2/
  47. 47.
    Masuoka, R., Labrou, Y., Parsia, B., et al.: Ontology-enabled pervasive computing applications. IEEE Intell. Syst. 18(10), 68–72 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Masuoka, R., Parsia, B., Labrou, Y.: Task computing—the semantic web meets pervasive computing. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC). Sanibel Island, FL, USA, October 2003Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    McDermott, D.: Estimated-regression planning for interactions with web services. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence Planning Systems (AIPS). Toulouse, France, April 2002Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    McGuinness, D.L., Mandell, D., Mcllraith, S., et al.: Explainable semantic discovery services. Stanford Networking Research Center Project Review, Stanford. CA, USA, February 2005Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    McGuinness, D.L.: Ontologies come of age. In: Fensel, D., Hendler, J., Lieberman, H., et al. (eds.) Spinning the Semantic Web: Bringing the World Wide Web to Its Full Potential. MIT Press (2003)Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    McGuinness, D.L., van Harmelen, F.: OWL Web Ontology Language Overview. W3C Recommendation, 10 February 2004. Available at: http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-owl-features-20040210/
  53. 53.
    McGuinness, D.L., da Silva, P.P.: Explaining answers from the semantic web: The inference web approach. Journal of Web Semantics 1(4), 397–413 (2004), OctoberGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    McIlraith, S., Fadel, R.: Planning with complex actions. In: Proceedings of the 9th International Workshop on Non-Monotonic Reasoning (NMR) at the 8th International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR), pp. 356–364. Toulouse, France, April 2002Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    McIlraith, S., Son, T.: Adapting golog for composition of semantic web services. In: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR), pp. 482–493. Toulouse, France, April 2002Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    McIlraith, S., Son, T.C., Zeng, H.: Semantic web services. IEEE Intell. Syst. 16(2), 46–53 (2001), March–AprilCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Narayanan, S., McIlraith, S.: Simulation, verification and automated composition of web services. In: Proceedings of the 11th International World Wide Web Conference (WWW). Honolulu, HI, USA, May 2002Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Nau, D., Au, T.C., Ilghami, O., et al.: SHOP2: An HTN planning system. J. Artif. Intell. Res. 20, 379–404 (2003)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    North American Industry Classification System. Home page: http://www.census.gov/epcd/www/naics.html
  60. 60.
    Nwana, H.: Software agents: An overview. Knowl. Eng. Rev. 11(2), 205–244 (1995)Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    OWL-S Coalition. Home page: http://www.daml.org/services/owl-s/
  62. 62.
    Paolucci, M., Ankolekar, A., Srinivasan, N., et al.: The DAML-S virtual machine. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC), pp. 335–350. Sanibel Island, FL, USA, October 2003Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Paolucci, M., Srinivasan, N., Sycara, K., et al.: Toward a semantic choreography of web services: From WSDL to DAML-S. In: Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Web Services (ICWS). Las Vegas, NV, USA, June 2003Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Paolucci, M., Kawamura, T., Payne, T.R., et al.: Semantic matching of web services capabilities. In Proceedings of the 1st International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC), Sardinia, Italy, June 2002Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Paolucci, M., Kawamura, T., Payne, T.R., Sycara, K.: Importing the semantic web in UDDI. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Web Services, E-Business and the Semantic Web (WSeBT) at the 14th International Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering (CaiSE). Toronto, Ontario, Canada, May 2002Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Paolucci, M., Sycara, K., Kawamura, T.: Delivering semantic web services. In: Proceedings of the 12th International World Wide Web Conference (WWW), pp. 111–118. Budapest, Hungary, May 2003Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Paolucci, M., Sycara, K., Nishimura, T., et al.: Using DAML-S for P2P discovery. In: Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Web Services (ICWS), pp. 203–207. Las Vegas, NV, USA, June 2003Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Paolucci, M., Soudry, J., Srinivasan, N., et al.: A broker for OWL-S web services. In: Proceedings of the 1st International Semantic Web Services Symposium, 2004 AAAI Spring Symposium Series, Stanford, CA, USA, March 2004. Available at: http://www.daml.ecs.soton.ac.uk/SSS-SWS04/40.pdf
  69. 69.
    Paolucci, M., Srinivasan, N., Sycara, K.: Expressing WSMO Mediators in OWL-S. In: Proceedings of the Semantic Web Services Workshop (SWS) at the 3rd International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC), Hiroshima, Japan, November 2004. CEUR Workshop Proceedings, Vol. 119, paper 10. Available at: http://sunsite.informatik.rwth-aachen.de/Publications/CEUR-WS/Vol-119/
  70. 70.
    Patel-Schneider, P.F.: A Proposal for a SWRL Extension Towards First-order Logic. W3C Member Submission, 11 April 2005. Available at: http://www.w3.org/Submission/2005/SUBM-SWRL-FOL-20050411/
  71. 71.
    Patel-Schneider, P., Hayes, P., Horrocks, I. (eds.): OWL Web Ontology Language: Semantics and Abstract Syntax. W3C Recommendation, 10 February 2004. Available at: http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-owl-semantics-20040210/
  72. 72.
    Pinheiro da Silva, P., McGuinness, D.L., Fikes, R.: A proof markup language for semantic Web services. Inf. Syst. 31(4–5), 381–395 (2006), June–JulyCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Prud’hommeaux, E., Seaborne, A.: SPARQL Query Language for RDF. W3C Working Draft, 4 October 2006. Available at: http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-rdf-sparql-query-20061004/
  74. 74.
    Reiter, R.: Knowledge in Action: Logical Foundations for Specifying and Implementing Dynamical Systems. MIT Press (2001)Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Russell, S., Norvig, P.: Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach, 2nd edn. Prentice Hall (2002)Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    Scicluna, J., Abela, C., Montebello, M.: Visual modelling of OWL-S services. In: Proceedings of the IADIS WWW/Internet 2004 Conference (ICWI). Madrid, Spain, October 2004Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    Semantic Web Central Repository. Home page: http://www.semwebcentral.org
  78. 78.
    Sheshagiri, M., desJardins, M., Finin, T.: A planner for composing services described in DAML-S. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Web Services and Agent-Based Engineering (WSABE) at the 2nd International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS). Melbourne, Australia, July 2003Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    Sirin, E., Parsia, B.: The OWL-S Java API. Poster. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC). Hiroshima, Japan, November 2004Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    Sirin, E., Parsia, B., Wu, D., et al.: HTN Planning for Web Service Composition using SHOP2. Journal of Web Semantics 1(4), 377–396 (2004)Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    Sirin, E., Parsia, B., Hendler, J.: Filtering and selecting semantic web services with interactive composition techniques. IEEE Intell. Syst. 19(4), 42–49 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Srinivasan, N., Paolucci, M., Sycara, K.: An efficient algorithm for OWL-S based semantic search in UDDI. In: Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Semantic Web Services and Web Process Composition (SWSWPC) at the 2nd International Conference on Web Services (ICWS), pp. 96–110. San Diego, CA, USA, July 2004Google Scholar
  83. 83.
    Srinivasan, N., Paolucci, M., Sycara, K.: CODE: A Development Environment for OWL-S Web Services. Technical Report CMU-RI-TR-05-48, Robotics Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, October 2005. Available at: http://www.ri.cmu.edu/pubs/pub_5159.html
  84. 84.
    Sycara, K., Paolucci, M., Ankolekar, A., et al.: Automated discovery, interaction and composition of semantic web services. Journal of Web Semantics 1, (1), 27–46 (2003), DecemberGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    The Rule Markup Initiative. Home page: http://www.dfki.uni-kl.de/ruleml/
  86. 86.
    UPnP Forum.: UPnP Device Architecture, Version 1.0. June 2000. Available at: http://www.upnp.org/download/UPnPDA10_20000613.htm
  87. 87.
    Uszok, A., Bradshaw, J.M., Johnson, M., et al.: KAoS policy management for semantic web services. IEEE Intell. Syst. 19(4), 32–41 (2004), JulyCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Web Service Modeling Ontology (WSMO). Home page: http://www.wsmo.org/
  89. 89.
    Wroe, C., Stevens, R., Goble, C., et al.: A suite of DAML+OIL ontologies to describe bioinformatics web services and data. Int. J. Coop. Inf. Syst. 12(2), 197–224 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • David Martin
    • 1
  • Mark Burstein
    • 2
  • Drew McDermott
    • 3
  • Sheila McIlraith
    • 4
  • Massimo Paolucci
    • 5
  • Katia Sycara
    • 6
  • Deborah L. McGuinness
    • 7
  • Evren Sirin
    • 8
  • Naveen Srinivasan
    • 9
  1. 1.Artificial Intelligence Center, SRI InternationalMenlo ParkUSA
  2. 2.Intelligent Distributed Computing DepartmentBBN TechnologiesCambridgeUSA
  3. 3.Computer Science DepartmentYale UniversityNew HavenUSA
  4. 4.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada
  5. 5.DoCoMo Communications Laboratories EuropeMunichGermany
  6. 6.Robotics InstituteCarnegie Mellon UniversityPittsburghUSA
  7. 7.Knowledge Systems, Artificial Intelligence LaboratoryStanford UniversityStanfordUSA
  8. 8.Clark+Parsia, LLCArlingtonUSA
  9. 9.webMethods, Inc.FairfaxUSA

Personalised recommendations