Software Engineering, Artificial Intelligence, Networking and Parallel/Distributed Computing pp 87-100 | Cite as
Semantic Annotation of Web Services: A Comparative Study
Abstract
A Web service is software that provides its functionality through the Web using a common set of technologies, including SOAP, WSDL and UDDI. This allows access to software components residing on different platforms and written in different programming languages. However, several spots, including the service discovery and composition, remain difficult to be automated. Thus, a new technology has emerged to help automate these tasks ; it is the Semantic Web Services (SWS). One solution to the engineering of SWS is the annotation. In this paper, an approach for annotating Web services is presented. The approach consists of two processes, namely the categorization and matching. Both processes use ontology matching techniques. In particular, the two processes use similarity measures between entities, strategies for computing similarities between sets and a threshold corresponding to the accuracy. Thus, an internal comparative study has been done to answer the questions: which strategy is appropriate to this approach? Which measure gives best results? And which threshold is optimum for the selected measure and strategy? An external comparative study is also useful to prove the efficacy of this approach compared to existing annotation approaches.
Keywords
Annotation Web Service SAWSDL Semantic Web Services Ontology MatchingPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
- 1.Baeze-Yates, R., Ribeiro-Neto, B.: Modern information retrieval. Addison-Wesley, ACM Press, Reading, MA (1999)Google Scholar
- 2.Belhajjame, K., Embury, S.M., Paton, N.W., Stevens, R., Goble, C.A.: Automatic annotation of web services based on workflow definitions. ACM Transactions on the Web (TWEB Journal) 2(2) (2008)Google Scholar
- 3.Bouchiha, D., Malki, M.: Semantic Annotation of Web Services. In: 4th International conference on Web and Information Technologies (ICWIT 2012), SBA Algeria, April 29-30 (2012)Google Scholar
- 4.Bowers, S., Ludäscher, B.: A calculus for propagating semantic annotations through scientific workflow queries. In: Query Languages and Query Processing workshop (QLQP-2006) anised in conjunction with the 10th International Conference on Extending abase Technology, pp. 712–723 (2006)Google Scholar
- 5.Carman, M.J., Knoblock, C.A.: Learning Semantic Definitions of Online Information Sources. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 30, 1–50 (2007)MATHGoogle Scholar
- 6.Cui, H.: CharaParser for fine-grained semantic annotation of organism morphological descriptions. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 63(4), 738–754 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 7.Euzenat, J., Shvaiko, P.: Ontology Matching. English book. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)MATHGoogle Scholar
- 8.Farrell, J., Lausen, H.: Semantic Annotations for WSDL and XML Schema. W3C Recommendation (2007), http://www.w3.org/TR/sawsdl/ (accessed August 28, 2007)
- 9.Grcar, M., Mladenic, D.: Visual OntoBridge: Semi-automatic Semantic Annotation Software. In: Buntine, W., Grobelnik, M., Mladenić, D., Shawe-Taylor, J. (eds.) ECML PKDD 2009, Part II. LNCS, vol. 5782, pp. 726–729. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 10.Hess, A., Johnston, E., Kushmerick, N.: ASSAM: A Tool for Semi-Automatically Annotating Semantic Web Services. In: International Semantic Web Conference, Hiroshima Japan, pp. 320–335 (2004)Google Scholar
- 11.Jonquet, C., Shah, N., Youn, C., Musen, M., Callendar, C., Storey, M.: NCBO Annotator: Semantic Annotation of Biomedical Data. In: 8th International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC 2009) Posters and Demonstrations, Washington DC, USA (2009)Google Scholar
- 12.Larsen, B., Aone, C.: Fast and effective text mining using lineartime document clustering. In: Proceedings of the 5th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, pp. 16–22 (1999)Google Scholar
- 13.Lerman, K., Plangprasopchok, A., Knoblock, C.A.: Automatically labeling the inputs and outputs of web services. In: Proceedings of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI 2006), Boston, Massachusetts, USA (2006)Google Scholar
- 14.Liao, Y., Lezoche, M., Panetto, H., Boudjlida, N.: Semantic Annotation Model Definition for Systems Interoperability. In: The 6th International Workshop on Enterprise Integration, Interoperability and Networking (EI2N), Hersonissos Crete, Greece (2011)Google Scholar
- 15.Miller, G.A.: WordNet: An on-line lexical database. International Journal of Lexicography, 235–312 (1990)Google Scholar
- 16.Patil, A., Oundhakar, S., Sheth, A., Verma, K.: METEOR-S Web Service Annotation Framework. In: WWW 2004, pp. 553–562. ACM Press (2004)Google Scholar
- 17.Pedersen, T., Patwardhan, S., Michelizzi, J.: WordNet:Similarity - Measuring the Relatedness of Concepts. In: Proceedings of the Nineteenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI 2004), pp. 1024–1025 (2004)Google Scholar
- 18.Pustejovsky, J., Lee, K., Bunt, H., Romary, L.: ISO-TimeML: An International Standard for Semantic Annotation. In: Proceedings LREC 2010, La Valette Malte (2010)Google Scholar
- 19.Wyner, A., Peters, W.: Semantic Annotations for Legal Text Processing using GATE Teamware. In: The 4th Workshop on Semantic Processing of Legal Texts (SPLeT 2012) in Istanbul Turkey (2012)Google Scholar