Semantic Annotation for Web Services
  • Holger Lausen
  • Rubén Lara
  • Axel Polleres
  • Jos de Bruijn
  • Dumitru Roman

Web Services have added a new level of functionality to the current Web, making the first step to achieve seamless integration of distributed components. Nevertheless, current Web Service technologies only address the syntactical aspects of a Web Service and, therefore, only provide a set of rigid services that cannot adapt to a changing environment without human intervention. The human programmer has to be kept in the loop and scalability as well as economy of Web Services are limited. The description of Web Services in a machine-understandable fashion is expected to have a great impact in areas of e-Commerce and Enterprise Application Integration, as it can enable dynamic and scalable cooperation between different systems and organisations. These great potential benefits have led to the establishment of an important research activity, both in industry and in academia, which aims at realising Semantic Web Services. This chapter outlines aspects of the description of semantic Web Services.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    R. Akkiraju et al. Web Service Semantics - WSDL-S. W3C Member Submission. November 2005. Available from Scholar
  2. 2.
    S. Battle et al. Semantic Web Services Framework (SWSF). W3C Member Submission. May 2005, Available from Scholar
  3. 3.
    E. Börger. High Level System Design and Analysis using Abstract State Machines. In D. Hutter and W. Stephan and P. Traverso and M. Ullmann, editor, Current Trends in Applied Formal Methods (FM-Trends 98), number 1641 in LNCS, pages 1–43. Springer-Verlag, 1999.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    T. Bray, D. Hollander, and A. Layman. Namespaces in XML. W3C Recommendation. January 1999, Available from Scholar
  5. 5.
    D. Brickley and L. Miller. FOAF Vocabulary Specification, 2004. Available from Scholar
  6. 6.
    E. Christensen, F. Curbera, G. Meredith, and S. Weerawarana. Web Services Description Language (WSDL) 1.1., March 2001.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    J. de Bruijn, A. Polleres, R. Lara, and D. Fensel. OWL DL vs. OWL Flight: Conceptual Modeling and Reasoning for the Semantic Web. Technical Report DERI-TR-2004-11-10, DERI, November 2004.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    J. de Bruijn et al. Web Service Modeling Ontology (WSMO). W3C Member Submission 3 June 2005, Available from Scholar
  9. 9.
    J. de Bruijn, editor. The WSML Family of Representation Languages. 2005. WSMO Deliverable D16, WSMO Working Draft, 2005, latest version available at Scholar
  10. 10.
    M. Dean and G. Schreiber, editors. OWL Web Ontology Language Reference. 2004. W3C Recommendation 10 February 2004.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    KIF Knowledge Interchange Format: Draft Proposed American National Standard. Technical Report NCITS.T2/98-004, 1998. available from Scholar
  12. 12.
    D. Fensel and C. Bussler. The Web Service Modeling Framework WSMF. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 1(2), 2002.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    B.N. Grosof, I. Horrocks, R. Volz, and S. Decker. Description Logic Programs: Combining Logic Programs With Description Logic. In Proc. Intl. Conf. on the World Wide Web (WWW-2003), Budapest, Hungary, 2003.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    T.R. Gruber. A Translation Approach to Portable Ontology Specifications. Knowledge Acquisition, 5:199–220, 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Y. Gurevich. Evolving Algebras 1993: Lipari Guide, pages 9–36. Oxford University Press, Inc., 1995.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    P. Hayes. RDF Semantics. W3C Recommendation, February 2004, Available from Scholar
  17. 17.
    I. Horrocks et al. SWRL: A Semantic Web Rule Language Combining OWL and RuleML. W3C Submission, May 2004, Available from Scholar
  18. 18.
    U. Keller, M. Stollberg, and D. Fensel. Woogle Meets Semantic Web Fred. In Proceedings of the Workshop on WSMO Implementations (WIW 2004), volume Vol-113, 2004.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    M. Kifer, G. Lausen, and J. Wu. Logical Foundations of Object-Oriented and Frame-Based Languages. Journal of the ACM, 42(4):741–843, 1995.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    A. Kiryakov, D. Ognyanov, and V. Kirov. A Framework for Representing Ontologies Consisting of Several Thousand Concepts Definitions. DIP Deliverable D2.2, Ontotext Lab, 2004.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    D. McDermott. DRS: A Set of Conventions for Representing Logical Languages in RDF. Available from, January 2004.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Object Management Group Inc. (OMG). Meta Object Facility (MOF) Specification v1.4, 2002.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    J. O’Sullivan, D. Edmond, and A. ter Hofstede. What is a Service?: Towards Accurate Description of Non-Functional Properties. Distributed and ParallelDatabases, 12(2-3):117–133, 2002.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    M. Paolucci, A. Ankolekar, N. Srinivasan, and K. Sycara. The DAML-S Virtual Machine. In International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC 2003), 2003.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    M. Paolucci, N. Srinivasan, and K. Sycara. Expressing WSMO Mediators in OWL-S. In D. Martin, R. Lara, and T. Yamaguchi, editors, Proceedings 1st International Workshop SWS’2004 at ISWC-2004, volume 119,, November 2004. Scholar
  26. 26.
    J. Penix and P. Alexander. Towards Automated Component Adaptation. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering, June 1997.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    D. Roman, editor. WSMO Choreography. WSMO Choreography Working Draft D14v0.3. April 2006, Available from Scholar
  28. 28.
    D. Roman, H. Lausen, and U. Keller, editors. Web Service Modeling Ontology (WSMO). WSMO Working Draft D2v1.2, April 2005. Available from Scholar
  29. 29.
    The Object Management Group. Meta-Object Facility. Technical Report, 2004. Available from Scholar
  30. 30.
    D. Martin et al. OWL-S: Semantic Markup for Web Services. W3C Member Submission, November 2004, Available from Scholar
  31. 31.
    S. Weibel, J. Kunze, C. Lagoze, and M. Wolf. Dublin Core Metadata for Resource Discovery. RFC 2413, IETF, September 1998.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    S. Weibel, J. Kunze, C. Lagoze, and M. Wolf. RFC 2413 - Dublin Core Metadata for Resource Discovery, September 1998.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    G. Wiederhold. Mediators in the Architecture of the Future Information Systems. Computer, 25(3):38–49, 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Holger Lausen
    • 1
  • Rubén Lara
    • 2
  • Axel Polleres
    • 3
  • Jos de Bruijn
    • 1
  • Dumitru Roman
    • 1
  1. 1.Digital Enterprise Research Institute (DERI)InnsbruckAustria
  2. 2.Tecnología Informacón y Finanzas (TIF)MadridSpain
  3. 3.Universidad Rey Juan CarlosMadridSpain

Personalised recommendations