Adapting BPEL4WS for the Semantic Web: The Bottom-Up Approach to Web Service Interoperation

  • Daniel J. Mandell
  • Sheila A. McIlraith
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2870)


Towards the ultimate goal of seamless interaction among networked programs and devices, industry has developed orchestration and process modeling languages such as XLANG, WSFL, and recently BPEL4WS. Unfortunately, these efforts leave us a long way from seamless interoperation. Researchers in the Semantic Web community have taken up this challenge proposing top-down approaches to achieve aspects of Web Service interoperation. Unfortunately, many of these efforts have been disconnected from emerging industry standards, particularly in process modeling. In this paper we take a bottom-up approach to integrating Semantic Web technology into Web services. Building on BPEL4WS, we present integrated Semantic Web technology for automating customized, dynamic binding of Web services together with interoperation through semantic translation. We discuss the value of semantically enriched service interoperation and demonstrate how our framework accounts for user-defined constraints while gaining potentially successful execution pathways in a practically motivated example. Finally, we provide an analysis of the forward-looking limitations of frameworks like BPEL4WS, and suggest how such specifications might embrace semantic technology at a fundamental level to work towards fully automated Web service interoperation.


Resource Description Framework Service Composition Service Partner Semantic Translation Automate Service Composition 
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.


  1. 1.
    Arkin, A.: Business Process Modeling Language,
  2. 2.
    Arkin, A., Askary, S., Fordin, S., Jekeli, W., Kawaguchi, K., Orchard, D., Pogliani, S., Riemer, K., Struble, S., Takacsi-Nagy, P., Trickovic, I., Zimek, S.: Web Service Choreography Interface,
  3. 3.
    Bellwood, T., Clément, L., Ehnebuske, D., Hately, A., Hondo, M., Husband, Y., Januszewski, K., Lee, S., McKee, B., Munter, J., von Riegen, C.: UDDI Version 3.0 (2002),
  4. 4.
    Berners-Lee, T., Hendler, J., Lassila, O.: The Semantic Web. Scientific American (May 2001)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Box, D., Ehnebuske, D., Kakivaya, G., Layman, A., Mendelsohn, N., Nielsen, H., Thatte, S., Winer, D.: Simple Object Assess Protocol (SOAP) 1.1. W3C Technical report (2000),
  6. 6.
    Christensen, E., Curbera, F., Meredith, G., Weerawarana, S.: Web Services Definition Language. Technical report, W3C (2001),
  7. 7.
    Curbera, F., Goland, Y., Klein, J., Leymann, F., Roller, D., Thatte, S., Weerawarana, S.: Business Process Execution Language for Web Services,
  8. 8.
    DAML Services Coalition. DAML-S and OWL-S,
  9. 9.
    Ankolekar, A., Burstein, M., Hobbs, J.R., Lassila, O., Martin, D., McDermott, D., McIlraith, S.A., Narayanan, S., Paolucci, M., Payne, T.R., Sycara, K. (The DAML Services Coalition): DAML-S: Web service description for the semantic web. In: Horrocks, I., Hendler, J. (eds.) ISWC 2002. LNCS, vol. 2342, pp. 348–363. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dean, M., Connolly, D., van Harmelen, F., Hendler, J., Horrocks, I., McGuinness, D., Patel-Schneider, P., Stein, L.: OWL Web Ontology Language 1.0 Reference,
  11. 11.
    Fikes, R., Hayes, P., Horrocks, I.: DAML Query Language, Abstract Specification (2002),
  12. 12.
    Fikes, R., McGuinness, D.: An Axiomatic Semantics for RDF, RDF-S, and DAML+OIL (March 2001) (manuscript),
  13. 13.
    Georgakopoulos, D., Hornick, M., Sheth, A.: An Overview of Workflow Management: From Process Modeling to Workflow Automation Infrastructure. Distributed and Parallel Databases 3(2), 119–153 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hendler, J., McGuinness, D.: The DARPA Agent Markup Language. IEEE Intelligent Systems, Tends and Controversies, pp. 6–7 (November/December 2000)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
  16. 16.
    Frank, G.: A General Interface for Interaction of Special-Purpose Reasoners within a Modular Reasoning System. In: Proceedings of the 1999 AAAI Fall Symposium on Question Answering Systems, pp. 57–62 (1999)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lassila, O., Swick, R.: Resource Description Framework (RDF) Model and Syntax Specification. W3C Recommendation, February 22 (1999),
  18. 18.
  19. 19.
    McDermott, D.: Estimated-Regression Planning for Interactions with Web Services. In: Proceedings of the AI Planning Systems Conference (AIPS 2002) (June 2002)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    McDermott, D., Burstein, M., Smith, D.: Overcoming ontology mismatches in transactions with self-describing agents. In: Proc. Semantic Web Working Symposium, pp. 285–302 (2001)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    McGuinness, D., van Harmelen, F.: Feature Synopsis for OWL Lite and OWL,
  22. 22.
    McIlraith, S., Son, T.: Adapting Golog for Composition of Semantic Web Services. In: Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR 2002), pp. 482–493 (April 2002)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    McIlraith, S., Son, T.C., Zeng, H.: Semantic Web Services. IEEE Intelligent Systems. Special Issue on the Semantic Web 16(2), 46–53 (2001) (Copyright IEEE, 2001)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Narayanan, S., McIlraith, S.: Simulation, Verification and Automated Composition of Web Services. In: Proceedings of the Eleventh International World Wide Web Conference (WWW–11) (May 2002)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Paolucci, M., Kawamura, T., Payne, T., Sycara, K.: Semantic Matching of Web Services Capabilities. In: Horrocks, I., Hendler, J. (eds.) ISWC 2002. LNCS, vol. 2342, pp. 333–347. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Patel-Schneider, P., Horrocks, I., van Harmelan, F.: OWL Web Ontology Language 1.0 Abstract Syntax,
  27. 27.
    Proposal for Web Services Choreography Working Group Charter. W3C Architecture Domain,
  28. 28.
    Thatte, S.: XLANG: Web Services for Business Process Design,
  29. 29.
    van Harmelen, F., Horrocks, I.: FAQs on OIL: the Ontology Inference Layer. IEEE Intelligent Systems, Trends and Controversies, 3–6 (November/December 2000) Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Weiser, M.: Some Computer Science Problems in Ubiquitous Computing. Communications of the ACM (July 1993)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Workflow Management Coalition. The Workflow Reference Model. Document Number TC00–1003, Workflow Management Coalition Office, Avenue Marcel Thirty 204, 1200 Brussels, Belgium (1994)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Daniel J. Mandell
    • 1
  • Sheila A. McIlraith
    • 1
  1. 1.Dept. Computer Science, Knowledge Systems LaboratoryStanford UniversityStanfordUSA

Personalised recommendations