Academic and Industrial Research: Do Their Approaches Differ in Adding Semantics to Web Services?

  • Jorge Cardoso
  • John Miller
  • Jianwen Su
  • Jeff Pollock
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3387)


Since the new terms, “Semantic Web” and “Web services”, have been introduced, researchers have followed two different roads. Following one road, academia has focused on developing a new set of languages to enable the automation of Web services execution and integration based on the Semantic Web. On the other road, industry has taken the lead to propose and develop technologies and infrastructures to support Web services and Web processes without, until recently, paying much attention to semantics. It is fundamental to analyze the trend that is being followed with regard to the “Semantic Web” and “Web services”. Therefore, two important questions need to be answered: “do the approaches taken by academia and industry differ in how they add semantics to Web services?” and “are their efforts converging or diverging?” This paper, based on a panel discussion at an international conference on Web services, which consisted of members of both academia and industry, addresses precisely these two questions.


Simple Object Access Protocol Digital Enterprise Research Institute 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Business Process Execution Language for Web Services Version 1.1 (May 5, 2003),
  2. 2.
    Bultan, T., Fu, X., Hull, R., Su, J.: Conversation specification: A new approach to design and analysis of e-service composition. In: Proc. 12th Int. World Wide Web Conference, WWW (May 2003)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cardoso, J., Sheth, A.: Semantic e-Workflow Composition. Journal of Intelligent Information Systems (JIIS) 12(3), 191–225 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ankolekar, A., Burstein, M., Hobbs, J., Lassila, O., Martin, D., McIlraith, S., Narayanan, S., Paolucci, M., Payne, T., Sycara, K., Zeng, H. (DAML Services Coalition): DAML-S: Semantic Markup for Web Services. In: Proceedings of the International Semantic Web Working Symposium (SWWS), July 30-August 1 (2001)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Digital Enterprise Research Institute,
  6. 6.
    Foster, H., Uchitel, S., Magee, J., Kramer, J.: Model-based verification of Web service compositions. In: Proc. 18th IEEE Int. Conf. on Automated Software Engineering Conference (2003)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fu, X., Bultan, T., Su, J.: WSAT: A tool for formal analysis of Web service compositions. In: Alur, R., Peled, D.A. (eds.) CAV 2004. LNCS, vol. 3114, pp. 510–514. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gruber, T.R.: Toward principles for the design of ontologies used for knowledge sharing. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 43(5-6), 907–928 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hanson, J.E., Nandi, P., Kumaran, S.: Conversation support for business process integration. In: Proc. 6th IEEE Int. Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference, EDOC (2002)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hanson, J.E., Nandi, P., Levine, D.W.: Conversation-enabled Web services for agents and e-business. In: Proc. Int. Conf. on Internet Computing (IC 2002). CSREA Press (2002)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hull, R., Benedikt, M., Christophides, V., Su, J.: E-services: A look behind the curtain. In: Proc. ACM Symp. on Principles of Database Systems (2003)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    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
  13. 13.
    Martin, D., Paolucci, M., McIlraith, S., Burstein, M., McDermott, D., McGuinness, D., Parsia, B., Payne, T., Sabou, M., Solanki, M., Srinivasan, N., Sycara, K.: Bringing Semantics to Web Services: The OWL-S Approach. In: Cardoso, J., Sheth, A.P. (eds.) SWSWPC 2004. LNCS, vol. 3387, pp. 26–42. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    METEOR-S: Semantic Web Services and Processes, LSDIS Lab, University of Georgia,,
  15. 15.
    Plotkin, G.D.: A Structural Approach to Operational Semantics. University of Aarhus, Denmark (1981)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    OWL Web Ontology Language Overview. W3C Candidate Recommendation (August 18, 2003),
  17. 17.
    Simple Object Access Protocol (SOAP) 1.1,
  18. 18.
    Semantic Web Services Initiative (SWSI),
  19. 19.
    UDDI Spec Technical Committee Specification (July 19, 2002),
  20. 20.
    UDDI Spec Technical Committee Specification (October 14, 2003),
  21. 21.
    Web Services Conversation Language (WSCL) 1.0, W3C Note (March 14, 2002),
  22. 22.
    Web Services Description Language (WSDL) 1.1, W3C Note (March 15, 2001),
  23. 23.
    Web Services Description Language (WSDL) 2.0, W3C Working Draft (August 3, 2004),
  24. 24.
    Web Service Modeling Language (WSML),
  25. 25.
    Web Services Modeling Ontology (WSMO),
  26. 26.
    Web Services Execution Environment (WSMX),

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jorge Cardoso
    • 1
  • John Miller
    • 2
  • Jianwen Su
    • 3
  • Jeff Pollock
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Mathematics and EngineeringUniversity of MadeiraFunchalPortugal
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of GeorgiaAthensUSA
  3. 3.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of CaliforniaSanta BarbaraUSA
  4. 4.Network InferenceCarlsbadUSA

Personalised recommendations