Implementing Non-functional Service Descriptions in SOAs

  • Stephan Aier
  • Philipp Offermann
  • Marten Schönherr
  • Christian Schröpfer
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4473)

Abstract

This article describes a framework for extended service descriptions based on OWL-S (Web Ontology Language for Services) focusing on non-functional criteria. Necessary service management tasks will be introduced and extended by corresponding data elements and statements for its automated support. After a short comparative description of several existing approaches to semantic service descriptions the paper addresses the actual extension of OWL-S. Non-functional extensions as service lifecycle elements and Quality of Services (QoS) are added. To extend QoS capabilities, the approach combines the common extension mechanism with UML (Unified Modeling Language) Profile for QoS. A prototype delivers the proof-of-concept for the first part of the extension. The prototype implements SOA-specific authentications and all basic features for a tool-supported service management using extended semantic service descriptions by defining an ontology-based service taxonomy and service annotation.

Keywords

SOA Protégé OWL-S QoS UML Profile for QoS service management ontology service lifecycle 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Gold, N., Knight, C., Mohan, A., Munro, M.: Understanding Service-Oriented Software, pp. 71–77. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (2004)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    McCoy, D., Natis, Y.: Service-Oriented Architecture: Mainstream Straight Ahead. Gartner Research (2003)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    New Rowley Group: Building a more flexible and efficient IT infrastructure - Moving from a conceptual SOA to a service-based infrastructure (2003), http://www.newrowley.com/reseach.html
  4. 4.
    Lubblinsky, B., Tyomkin, D.: Dissecting Service-Oriented Architectures. Business Integration Journal, 52–58 (2003)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Roth, P.: Moving to A Service Based Architecture. Business Integration Journal, 48–50 (2003)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sleeper, B., Robins, B.: The Laws of Evolution: A Pragmatic Analysis of the Emerging Web Services Market. The Stencil Group, San Francisco (2002)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Weinreich, R., Sametinger, J.: Component Models and Component Services: Concepts and Principles. In: Council, W.T., Heinemann, G.T. (eds.) Component-Based Software Engineering: Putting Pieces Together, pp. 22–64. Addison Wesley, Boston (2001)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Aier, S.: How Clustering Enterprise Architectures helps to Design Service Oriented Architectures. In: IEEE SCC 2006, IEEE, Chicago, USA (2006)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Martin, D., Burstein, M., Hobbs, J., Lassila, O., McDermott, D., McIlraith, S., Narayanan, S., Paolucci, M., Parsia, B., Payne, T., Sirin, E., Srinivasan, N., Sycara, K.: OWL-S: Semantic markup for Web services (2006), http://www.ai.sri.com/daml/services/owl-s/1.2/overview/
  10. 10.
    DAML: DAML Services (2006), http://www.daml.org/services/owl-s/
  11. 11.
    Fensel, D., Bussler, C.: The Web Service Modeling Framework WSMF. In: Electronic Commerce: Research and Applications, pp. 113–137 (2002)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Feier, C., Domingue, J.: D3.1v0.1 WSMO primer. DERI (2005), http://www.wsmo.org/TR/d3de.1/v0.1/
  13. 13.
    de Bruijn, J., Bussler, C., Domingue, J., Fensel, D., Hepp, M., Keller, U., Kifer, M., König-Ries, B., Kopecky, J., Lara, R., Lausen, H., Oren, E., Polleres, A., Roman, D., Scicluna, J., Stollberg, M.: Web Service Modeling Ontology (WSMO) - W3C Member submission 3 June 2005 (2005), http://www.w3.org/Submission/WSMO/
  14. 14.
    Akkiraju, R., Farrell, J., Miller, J., Nagarajan, M., Schmidt, M.-T., Sheth, A., Verma, K.: Web service semantics - WSDL-S - W3C member submission 7 November 2005 - Version 1.0 (2005), http://www.w3.org/Submission/2005/SUBM-WSDL-S-20051107/
  15. 15.
    OMG: UML Profile for Modeling Quality of Service and Fault Tolerance Characteristics and Mechanisms - OMG available specification - Version 1.0 - formal/06-05-02. OMG (2006), http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/apps/doc?formal/06-05-02.pdf
  16. 16.
    Welcome to Protégé. Stanford Medical Informatics (2006), http://protege.stanford.edu/
  17. 17.
    What is Protégé-OWL? Stanford Medical Informatics (2006), http://protege.stanford.edu/overview/protege-owl.html
  18. 18.
    The OWL-S Editor (2004), http://owlseditor.semwebcentral.org/
  19. 19.
    Jena - A Semantic Web Framework for Java. sourceforge.net, http://jena.sourceforge.net/

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stephan Aier
    • 1
  • Philipp Offermann
    • 2
  • Marten Schönherr
    • 2
  • Christian Schröpfer
    • 2
  1. 1.Institut of Information Management, University of St. Gallen, Mueller-Friedberg-Strasse 8, 9000 St. GallenSwitzerland
  2. 2.Berlin University of Technology, Faculty of Computer Sciences and Electrical Engineering, Franklinstr. 28/29, 10587 BerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations