Advertisement

A Conceptual Comparison of WSMO and OWL-S

  • Rubén Lara
  • Dumitru Roman
  • Axel Polleres
  • Dieter Fensel
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3250)

Abstract

Web Services have added a new level of functionality on top of current Web, enabling the use and combination of distributed functional components within and across company boundaries. The addition of semantic information to describe Web Services, in order to enable the automatic location, combination and use of distributed functionalities, is nowadays one of the most relevant research topics due to its potential to achieve dynamic, scalable and cost-effective Enterprise Application Integration and eCommerce. In this context, two major initiatives aim to realize Semantic Web Services by providing appropriate description means that enable the effective exploitation of semantic annotations, namely: WSMO and OWL-S. In this paper, we conduct a conceptual comparison that identifies the overlaps and differences of both initiatives in order to evaluate their applicability in a real setting and their potential to become widely accepted standards.

Keywords

Web Services Semantic Web Ontologies Semantic Web Services Mediators 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Fensel, D., Bussler, C.: The Web Service Modeling Framework WSMF. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications 1(2) (2002)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Flett, A.: A comparison of DAML-S and WSMF. Technical report (2002)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Herzog, R., Lausen, H., Roman, D., Zugmann, P. (eds.): WSMO Registry. WSMO working draft (2004), available at http://www.wsmo.org/2004/d10/v0.1/
  4. 4.
    Kifer, M., Lausen, G., Wu, J.: Logical foundations of object oriented and frame-based languages. Journal of the ACM 42(4), 741–843 (1995)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    McIlraith, S., Son, T.C., Zeng, H.: Semantic Web Services. IEEE Intelligent Systems 16(2) (March/April 2001)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    The OWL-S Service Coallition: OWL-S: Semantic Markup for Web Services, version 0.1, Available at http://www.daml.org/services/owl-s/1.0/owl-s.pdf
  7. 7.
    Paolucci, M., Kawamura, T., Payne, T.R., Sycara, K.: Importing the Semantic Web in UDDI. In: Proceedings of Web Services, E-business and Semantic Web Workshop (2002)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Roman, D., Keller, U., Lausen, H. (eds.): Web Service Modeling Ontology (WSMO), available at http://www.wsmo.org/2004/d2/v01/index.html
  9. 9.
    Roman, D., Lausen, H., Oren, E., Lara, R. (eds.): Web Service Modeling Ontology – Lite (WSMO-Lite), available at http://www.wsmo.org/2004/d11/v01/index.html
  10. 10.
    Sabou, M., Richards, D., Splunter, S.: An experience report on using DAML-S. In: WWW 2003 workshop on E-services and the Semantic Web (ESSW 2003). Budapest, Hungary (2003)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wiederhold, G.: Mediators in the Architecture of Future Information Systems. IEEE Computer 25(3), 38–49 (1992)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rubén Lara
    • 1
  • Dumitru Roman
    • 1
  • Axel Polleres
    • 1
  • Dieter Fensel
    • 2
  1. 1.Digital Enterprise Research Institute (DERI) Innsbruck InnsbruckAustria
  2. 2.Digital Enterprise Research Institute (DERI) International 

Personalised recommendations