Advertisement

DAML-S: Web Service Description for the Semantic Web

  • Anupriya Ankolekar
  • Mark Burstein
  • Jerry R. Hobbs
  • Ora Lassila
  • David Martin
  • Drew McDermott
  • Sheila A. McIlraith
  • Srini Narayanan
  • Massimo Paolucci
  • Terry Payne
  • Katia Sycara
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2342)

Abstract

In this paper we present DAML-S, a DAML+OIL ontology for describing the properties and capabilities of Web Services. Web Services - Web-accessible programs and devices - are garnering a great deal of interest from industry, and standards are emerging for low-level descriptions of Web Services. DAML-S complements this effort by providing Web Service descriptions at the application layer, describing what a service can do, and not just how it does it. In this paper we describe three aspects of our ontology: the service profile, the process model, and the service grounding. The paper focuses on the grounding, which connects our ontology with low-level XML-based descriptions of Web Services.

Keywords

Atomic Process Service Description Composite Process Agent Communication Language Service Grounding 
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.

References

  1. 1.
    A. Ankolekar, F. Huch and K. Sycara. Concurrent Semantics for the Web Services Specification Language Daml-S. In Proc. of the Coordination 2002 Conf., 2002.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    T. Berners-Lee, J. Hendler, and O. Lassila. The Semantic Web. Scientific American, 284(5):34–43, 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    U. C. Bureau. North american industry classification system (naics). http://www.census.gov/epcd/www/naics.html, 1997.
  4. 4.
    E. Christensen, F. Curbera, G. Meredith, and S. Weerawarana. Web Services Description Language (WSDL) 1.1. http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/NOTE-wsdl-20010315, 2001.
  5. 5.
    DAML-S Coalition: A. Ankolekar, M. Burstein, J. Hobbs, O. Lassila, D. Martin, S. McIlraith, S. Narayanan, M. Paolucci, T. Payne, K. Sycara, and H. Zeng. DAML-S: Semantic markup for Web services. In Proc SWWS, pages 411–430, 2001.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    K. Decker, K. Sycara, and M. Williamson. Middle-agents for the internet. In IJCAI97, 1997.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    T. Finin, Y. Labrou, and J. Mayfield. KQML as an agent communication language. In J. Bradshaw, editor, Software Agents. MIT Press, Cambridge, 1997.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    M. Ghallab et. al. PDDL-the planning domain definition language v. 2. Tech Report, CVC TR-98-003/DCS TR-1165, Yale University, 1998.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    J. Hendler and D. L. McGuinness. Darpa Agent Markup Language. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 15(6):72–73, 2001.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    O. Lassila. Serendipitous Interoperability. In E. Hyvönen, editor, The Semantic Web-Proc. the Kick-Off Seminar in Finland, To appear, 2002.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    H. Levesque, R. Reiter, Y. Lesperance, F. Lin, and R. Scherl. GOLOG: A Logic programming language for dynamic domains. Journal of Logic Programming, 31(1–3):59–84, April–June 1997.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    D. Martin, A. Cheyer, and D. Moran. The Open Agent Architecture: A Framework for Building Distributed Software Systems. Applied Artificial Intelligence, 13(1–2):92–128, 1999.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    D. McDermott, M. Burstein, and D. Smith. Overcoming ontology mismatches in transactions with self-describing agents. In Proc. SWWS, pages 285–302, 2001.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    S. McIlraith and T. C. Son. Adapting Golog for composition of Semantic Web services. In Proc. KR2002. To appear, 2002.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    S. McIlraith, T. C. Son, and H. Zeng. Semantic Web services. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 16(2):46–53, 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    J. Meseguer. Conditional Rewriting Logic as a Unified Model of Concurrency. Theoretical Computer Science, 96(1):73–155, 1992.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    R. Milner. Communicating with Mobile Agents: The pi-Calculus. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1999.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    S. Narayanan. Reasoning about actions in narrative understanding. In Proc. IJCAI’1999, pages 350–357. 1999.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    S. Narayanan and S. McIlraith. Simulation, verification, and automated composition of Web Services. In Proc. WWW2002, To appear 2002.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    C. Schlenoff, M. Gruninger, F. Tissot, J. Valois, J. Lubell, and J. Lee. The Process Specification Language (PSL): Overview and version 1.0 specification. NISTIR 6459, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD., 2000.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    M. Paolucci, T. Kawmura, T. Payne and K. Sycara. Semantic Matching of Web Services Capabilities. In First Int. Semantic Web Conf., To appear 2002.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    T. Payne, R. Singh and K. Sycara. Browsing Schedules-An Agent-based approach to navigating the Semantic Web In First Int. Semantic Web Conf., To appear 2002.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    K. Sycara and M. Klusch. Brokering and matchmaking for coordination of agent societies: A survey. In Coordination of Internet Agents, 2001.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    K. Sycara, M. Klusch, S. Widoff, and J. Lu. Dynamic service matchmaking among agents in open information environments. Journal ACM SIGMOD Record, 28(1):47–53, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    UDDI. The UDDI Technical White Paper. http://www.uddi.org/, 2000.
  26. 26.
    H.-C. Wong and K. Sycara. A taxonomy of middle-agents for the internet. In ICMAS’2000, 2000.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anupriya Ankolekar
    • 2
  • Mark Burstein
    • 1
  • Jerry R. Hobbs
    • 4
  • Ora Lassila
    • 3
  • David Martin
    • 4
  • Drew McDermott
    • 6
  • Sheila A. McIlraith
    • 5
  • Srini Narayanan
    • 4
  • Massimo Paolucci
    • 2
  • Terry Payne
    • 2
  • Katia Sycara
    • 2
  1. 1.BBN TechnologiesUSA
  2. 2.Carnegie Mellon UniversityUSA
  3. 3.Nokia Research CenterUK
  4. 4.SRI InternationalUSA
  5. 5.Stanford UniversityUSA
  6. 6.Yale UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations