Ranked Matching for Service Descriptions Using OWL-S

  • Michael C. Jaeger
  • Gregor Rojec-Goldmann
  • Christoph Liebetruth
  • Gero Mühl
  • Kurt Geihs
Part of the Informatik aktuell book series (INFORMAT)


Semantic Web services envision the automated discovery and selection of Web services. This can be realised by adding semantic information to advertised services and service requirements. The discovery and selection process finds matches between requirements and advertisements according to their semantic description. Based on the Web Ontology Language (OWL) an ontology for Web services (OWL-S) was introduced to standardise their semantic description. There are already some approaches available for matching of service requirements with service advertisements according to such an ontology.

We propose an algorithm, which ranks the matching degree of service descriptions according to OWL-S. Different matching degrees are achieved based on the contravariance of the input and output types for requested and advertised services. Furthermore, additional elements of the service description, such as the service category, are either covered by reasoning processes or, such as quality of service constraints, by custom matching rules. Contrary to mechanisms that return only success or fail, ranked results provide criteria for the selection of a service among a large set of results. With such a discovery mechanism additional Web services can be found that might have normally been ignored.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Rama Akkiraju, Richard Goodwin, Prashant Doshi, and Sascha Roeder. A method for semantically enhancing the service discovery capabilities of uddi. In In Proceedings of the Workshop on Information Integration on the Web, pages 87–92, August 2003.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sharad Bansal and Jose M. Vidal. Matchmaking of web services based on the daml-s service model. In Proceedings of AAMAS'03. ACM Press, July 2003.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    David Booth et al. Web services architecture. Technical report, W3C,, 2004.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Anupriya Ankolenkar et al. Daml-s: A semantic markup language for web services. In Proceedings of 1st Semantic Web Working Symposium (SWWS 01), pages 441–430, Stanford, USA, August 2001. Stanford University.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Frank Manola et al. RDF Primer. Technical report, W3C,, 2004.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Michael C. Jaeger and Stefan Tang. Ranked matching for service descriptions using daml-s. In Janis Grundspenkis and Marite Kirikova, editors, Proceedings of CAiSE'04 Workshops, pages 217–228, Riga, Latvia, 2004. Riga Technical University.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Michael Klein and Birgitta Koenig-Ries. A Process and a Tool for Creating Service Descriptions based on DAML-S. In Proceedings of 4th International Workshop Technologies for E-Services, TES 2003, pages 143–154. Springer, September 2003.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mei Kobayashi and Koichi Takeda. Information retrieval on the web. ACM Computing Surveys, (2):144–173, June 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Marja-Riitta Koivunen and Eric Miller. W3c semantic web activity. In Semantic Web Kick-Off in Finland, pages 27–44, November 2001.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lei Li and Ian Horrocks. A software framework for matchmaking based on semantic web technology. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on World Wide Web (WWW2003), pages 331–339. ACM Press, May 2003.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Deborah L. McGuinness and Frank van Harmelen. Owl web ontology language overview. Technical report, W3C,, 2004.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sheila A. McIlraith and David L. Martin. Bringing semantics to web services. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 18:90–93, January/February 2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    M. Paolucci, T. Kawamura, T. Payne, and K. Sycara. Semantic matching of web service capabilities. In Proceedings of 1st International Semantic Web Conference. (ISWC2002), pages 333–347. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2002.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Terry R. Payne, Massimo Paolucci, and Katia Sycara. Advertising and matching daml-s service descriptions. In Position Papers for SWWS' 01, pages 76–78, Stanford, USA, July 2001. Stanford University.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    A. Puder, F. Gudermann S. Markwitz, and K. Geihs. AI-based Trading in Open Distributed Environments. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Open Distributed Processing (ICODP'95), Brisbane, Australia, February 1995. Chapman and Hall.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Arno Puder. Typsysteme für die Dienstvermittlung in offenen verteilten Systemen. PhD thesis, Computer Science Department, Johann Wolfgang Goethe University, Frankurt/M., 1997.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Arno Puder and Kurt Geihs. Meta-level Service Type Specifications. In Proceedings of the IFIP/IEEE international conference on Open distributed processing and distributed platforms, pages 74–84, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, 1997. Chapman and Hall.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Katia Sycara, Massimo Paolucci, Julien Soudry, and Naveen Srinivasan. Dynamic discovery and coordination of agent-based semantic web services. IEEE Internet Computing, 8(3):66–73, May, June 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    UDDI Spec TC. Uddi version 3.0.1. Technical report, OASIS,, 2003.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    The OWL Services Coalition. OWL-S Example Description for Bravo Air. Technical report, Scholar
  21. 21.
    The OWL Services Coalition. OWL-S: Semantic Markup for Web Services. Technical report,, 2004.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    David Trastour, Claudio Bartolini, and Chris Preist. A semantic web approach to service description for matchmaking of services. In Proceedings of the 11th international conference on World Wide Web, pages 89–98, Honolulu, USA, May 2002. ACM Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael C. Jaeger
    • 1
  • Gregor Rojec-Goldmann
    • 1
  • Christoph Liebetruth
    • 1
  • Gero Mühl
    • 1
  • Kurt Geihs
    • 2
  1. 1.Institute of Telecommunication SystemsTU BerlinBerlin
  2. 2.Univ. KasselKassel

Personalised recommendations