Discovering Services: Towards High-Precision Service Retrieval

  • Abraham Bernstein
  • Mark Klein
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2512)


The ability to rapidly locate useful on-line services (e.g. software applications, software components), as opposed to simply useful documents, is becoming increasingly critical in many domains. Current service retrieval technology is, however, notoriously prone to low precision. This paper describes a novel service retrieval approached based on the sophisticated use of process ontologies. Our preliminary evaluations suggest that this approach offers qualitatively higher retrieval precision than existing (keyword and table-based) approaches without sacrificing recall and computational tractability/scalability.


Resource Description Framework Service Model Query Language Correct Match Process Ontology 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    J. Y. Bakos, “Reducing Buyer Search Costs: Implications for Electronic Marketplaces,” Management Science, vol. 43, 1997.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    H. Mili, F. Mili, and A. Mili, “Reusing software: issues and research directions,” IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, vol. 21, pp. 528–62, 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    G. Salton and M. J. McGill, Introduction to modern information retrieval. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1983.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    R. Prieto-Diaz, “Implementing faceted classification for software reuse,” 12th International Conference on Software Engineering, vol. 9, pp. 300–4, 1990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    B. Magnini, “Use of a lexical knowledge base for information access systems,” International Journal of Theoretical & Applied Issues in Specialized Communication, vol. 5, pp. 203–228, 1999.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    S. Henninger, “Information access tools for software reuse,” Journal of Systems &Software, vol. 30, pp. 231–47, 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    C. Fernandez-Chamizo, P. A. Gonzalez-Calero, L. Hernandez-Yanez, and A. Urech-Baque, “Case-based retrieval of software components,” Expert Systems with Applications, vol. 9, pp. 397–421, 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    M. G. Fugini and S. Faustle, “Retrieval of reusable components in a development information system,” presented at Second International Workshop on Software Reusability, 1993.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    P. Devanbu, R. J. Brachman, P. G. Selfridge, and B. W. Ballard, “LaSSIE: a knowledge-based software information system,” Communications of the ACM, vol. 34, pp. 34–49, 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    ESPEAK, “Hewlett Packard’s Service Framework Specification,”.: HP Inc, 2000.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    R. Raman, M. Livny, and M. Solomon, “Matchmaking: an extensible framework for distributed resource management,” Cluster Computing, vol. 2, pp. 129–38, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    G. G. Richard, “Service advertisement and discovery: enabling universal device cooperation,” IEEE Internet Computing, vol. 4, pp. 18–26, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    K. Sycara, M. Klusch, S. Widoff, and J. Lu, “Matchmaking Among Heterogeneous Agents on the Internet,” presented at A A AI Symposium on Intelligent Agents in Cyberspace, 1999.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    D. Fensel, “An Ontology-based Broker: Making Problem-Solving Method Reuse Work,” presented at Workshop on Problem-Solving Methods for Knowledge-based Systems at the 15th International Joint Conference on AI (IJCAI-97), Nagoya, Japan, 1997.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    S. Meggendorfer and P. Manhart, “A Knowledge And Deduction Based Software Retrieval Tool,” presented at 6th Annual Knowledge-Based Software Engineering Conference, 1991.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    A. Podgurski and L. Pierce, “Retrieving reusable software by sampling behavior,” ACM Transactions on Software Engineering & Methodology, vol. 2, pp. 286–303, 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    M. Klein and A. Bernstein, “Searching for Services on the Semantic Web using Process Ontologies,” presented at The First Semantic Web Working Symposium (SWWS-1), Stanford, C A USA, 2001.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    M. Klein and C. Dellarocas, “A Knowledge-Based Approach to Handling Exceptions in Workflow Systems,” Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Work. Special Issue on Adaptive Workflow Systems., vol. 9, 2000.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    NIST, “Integrated Definition for Function Modeling (IDEF0),” National Institute of Standards and Technology, Federal Information Processing Standards (FIPS) Publication 183, December 21, 1993 1993.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    J. Lee and M. Gruninger, “The Process Interchange Format “The Process Interchange Format and Framework v.1.2,” Knowledge Engineering Review, 1998.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    C. Schlenoff, M. Gruninger, M. Ciocoiu, and Jintae Lee, “The essence of the process specification language,” Transactions of the Society for Computer Simulation, vol. 16, pp. 204–16, 1999.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    K. Kosanke, CIMOSA: Open System Architecture for CIM: Springer Verlag, 1993.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    T. W. Malone and K. Crowston, “The interdisciplinary study of coordination,” ACM Computing Surveys, vol. 26, pp. 87–119, 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    T. W. Malone, K. Crowston, J. Lee, B. Pentland, C. Dellarocas, G. Wyner, J. Quimby, C. Osborn, A. Bernstein, G. Herman, M. Klein, and E. O’Donnell, “Tools for inventing organizations: Toward a handbook of organizational processes,” Management Science, vol. 45, pp. 425–443, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    L. Latour and E. Johnson, “Seer: a graphical retrieval system for reusable Ada software modules,” presented at Third International IEEE Conference on Ada Applications and Environments, 1988.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    A. Bernstein and M. Klein, “Towards High-Precision Service Retrieval,” presented at The International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC-02), Sardinia Italy, 2002.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    S. Abiteboul, R. Hull, and V. Vianu, Foundations of Databases. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing, 1995.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    G. Rozenberg, “Handbook of Graph Grammars and Computing by Graph Transformation,”, vol. 3: World Scientific, 1999.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    W. Kim, Introduction to Object-Oriented Databases. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1990.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    O. Lassila and R. R. Swic, “Resource Description Framework (RDF) Model and Syntax Specification,” W3C — World Wide Web Consortium, Cambridge, MA, W3C Recommendation 22 February 1999 1999.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    D. Connolly, F. van Harmelen, I. Horrocks, D. L. McGuinness, P. F. Patel-Schneider, and L. A. Stein, “DAML+OIL (March 2001) Reference Description,” W3C — World Wide Web Consortium, Cambridge, MA, Note 18 December 2001 2001.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    D. Trastour, C. Bartolini, and J. Gonzalez-Castillo, “A Semantic Web Approach to Service Description for Matchmaking of Services,” HP Laboratories Bristol, Bristol, UK, Technical Report July 30 th, 2001 2001.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    S. Alexaki, V. Christophides, G. Karvounarakis, D. Plexousakis, and K. Tolle, “The RDFSuite: Managing Voluminous RDF Description Bases,” presented at Second International Workshop on the Semantic Web (SemWeb 2001), Hongkong, 2001.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    M. Sintek and S. Decker, “TRIPLE — A Query, Inference, and Transformation Language for the Semantic Web,” presented at International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC), Sardinia, Italia, 2002.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    The DAML Services Coalition, A. Ankolekar, M. Burstein, J. R. Hobbs, O. Lassila, D. L. Martin, S. A. McIlraith, S. Narayanan, M. Paolucci, and T. Payne, “DAML-S: Semantic Markup For Web Services,” presented at The First Semantic Web Working Symposium, Stanford University, California, USA, 2001.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    B. Grosof and T. C. Poon, “Representing Agent Contracts with Exceptions using XML Rules, Ontologies, and Process Descriptions,” MIT — Sloan School of Management, Cambridge, MA, Submitted Working Paper April 26, 2002 2002.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    A. MacLean, K. Carter, L. Lövstrand, and T. Moran, “User-tailorable Systems: Pressing the Issues with Buttons,” presented at Human Factors in Computing Systems, Seattle, Washington, 1990.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Abraham Bernstein
    • 1
  • Mark Klein
    • 2
  1. 1.New York UniversityNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.MIT — CCSCambridgeUSA

Personalised recommendations