Normalizing Heterogeneous Service Description Models with Generated QVT Transformations
Service-Oriented Architectures (SOAs) enable the reuse and substitution of software services to develop highly flexible software systems. To benefit from the growing plethora of available services, sophisticated service discovery approaches are needed that bring service requests and offers together. Such approaches rely on rich service descriptions, which specify also the behavior of provided/requested services, e.g., by pre- and postconditions of operations. As a base for the specification a data schema is used, which specifies the used data types and their relations. However, data schemas are typically heterogeneous wrt. their structure and terminology, since they are created individually in their diverse application contexts. As a consequence the behavioral models that are typed over the heterogeneous data schemas, cannot be compared directly. In this paper, we present an holistic approach to normalize rich service description models to enable behavior-aware service discovery. The approach consists of a matching algorithm that helps to resolve structural and terminological heterogeneity in data schemas by exploiting domain-specific background ontologies. The resulting data schema mappings are represented in terms of Query View Transformation (QVT) relations that even reflect complex n:m correspondences. By executing the transformation, behavioral models are automatically normalized, which is a prerequisite for a behavior-aware operation matching.
KeywordsSOA Service Description Ontologies Behavioral Models Matching
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Meta Object Facility (MOF) 2.0 Query/View/Transformation Specification Version 1.1 (January 2011), http://www.omg.org/spec/QVT/1.1/PDF/
- 2.OMG Object Constraint Language (OCL) Version 2.3.1 (January 2012), http://www.omg.org/spec/OCL/2.3.1/PDF
- 5.de Bruijn, J., Lausen, H., Polleres, A., Fensel, D.: The Web Service Modeling Language WSML: An Overview. In: Sure, Y., Domingue, J. (eds.) ESWC 2006. LNCS, vol. 4011, pp. 590–604. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)Google Scholar
- 9.Huma, Z., Gerth, C., Engels, G., Juwig, O.: A UML-based Rich Service Description Language for Automatic Service Discovery of Heterogeneous Service Partners. In: CAiSE Forum, pp. 90–97 (2012)Google Scholar
- 11.Kolovos, D.S., Ruscio, D.D., Pierantonio, A., Paige, R.F.: Different Models for Model Matching: An analysis of approaches to support model differencing. In: Proceedings of CVSM 2009 @ ICSE 2009, pp. 1–6. IEEE Computer Society (2009)Google Scholar
- 13.Mendes, P.N., Jakob, M., Bizer, C.: DBpedia for NLP: A Multilingual Cross-domain Knowledge Base. In: Proc. of the 8th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, LREC 2012 (2012)Google Scholar
- 15.OWL-S Coalition. OWL-based Web Service Ontology (2006), http://www.ai.sri.com/daml/services/owl-s/1.2/
- 17.Sabou, M., d’Aquin, M., Motta, E.: SCARLET: SemantiC RelAtion DiscoveRy by Harvesting OnLinE OnTologies. In: Bechhofer, S., Hauswirth, M., Hoffmann, J., Koubarakis, M. (eds.) ESWC 2008. LNCS, vol. 5021, pp. 854–858. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)Google Scholar
- 18.SAWSDL Working Group. Semantic Annotations for WSDL and XML Schema, SAWSDL (2007), http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/REC-sawsdl-20070828/
- 19.Shvaiko, P., Euzenat, J.: Ontology matching: State of the art and future challenges (2012)Google Scholar
- 20.Tarjan, R.E.: Data Structures and Network Algorithms, vol. 14. SIAM (1983)Google Scholar
- 21.Xing, Z., Stroulia, E.: UMLDiff: An Algorithm for Object-Oriented Design Differencing. In: Proc. of the 20th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering, pp. 54–65. ACM (2005)Google Scholar