Semantic Web Services for Satisfying SOA Requirements

  • Sami Bhiri
  • Walid Gaaloul
  • Mohsen Rouached
  • Manfred Hauswirth
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4891)

Abstract

Service oriented modeling is gaining acceptance among academia and industry as a computing paradigm for business and systems integration. Its strong decoupling between service provision and consumption enables much more flexible and cost-effective integration, within and across organizational boundaries, than existing middleware or workflow systems do. However, it also creates new requirements for handling effective service discovery, dynamic service interoperation and automation support for service composition. Web services have been emerging as the lead implementation of SOA upon the Web. The related technologies define common standards that ensure interoperability between heterogeneous platforms. Nevertheless, they fail in satisfying SOA requirements. Semantic Web services initiatives have then emerged with the objective of providing the foundation to overcome these requirements. The main idea is extending service description with machine interpretable information that software programs can reason over it. This chapter discusses how far Web services and semantic Web services initiatives satisfy SOA requirements.

Keywords

SOA Web services Semantic Web services WSMO OWL-S IRS-III METEOR-S 

References

  1. 1.
    Erl, T.: Service-Oriented Architecture (SOA): Concepts, Technology, and Design. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (2005)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Service Oriented Architecture Modeling, http://www.soamodeling.org
  3. 3.
    MacKenzie, C.M., Laskey, K., McCabe, F., Brown, P.F., Metz, R., Hamilton, B.A.: OASIS Reference Model for Service Oriented Architecture V 1.0, http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/19361/soa-rm-cs.pdf
  4. 4.
    Weerawarana, S., Curbera, F., Leymann, F., Storey, T., Ferguson, D.F.: Web services platform architecture: SOAP, WSDL, WS-Policy, WS-Addressing, WS-BPEL, WS-Reliable Messaging, and More. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (2005)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gruber, T.R.: A translation approach to portable ontology specifications. Knowledge Acquisition 5, 199–220 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Roman, D., de Bruijn, J., Mocan, A., Lausen, H., Bussler, C., Fensel, D.: WWW: WSMO, WSML, and WSMX in a nutshell. In: 1st Asian Semantic Web Conference, pp. 516–522. Springer, Beijing (2006)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Martin, D., Burstein, M., McDermott, D., et al.: OWL-S 1.2 Release, http://www.daml.org/services/owl-s/1.2/
  8. 8.
    Domingue, J., Cabral, L., Galizia, S., Tanasescu, V., Gugliotta, A., Norton, B., Carlos, P.: IRS-III: A broker-based approach to semantic Web services. J. Web Sem. 6(2), 109–132 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Verma, K., Gomadam, K., Sheth, A.P., Miller, J.A., Wu, Z.: The METEOR-S Approach for Configuring and Executing Dynamic Web Processes. LSDSIS technical report, http://lsdis.cs.uga.edu/projects/meteor-s/
  10. 10.
    Roman, D., Lausen, H., Keller, U., et al.: Web Service Modelling Ontology, http://www.wsmo.org/TR/d2/v1.4/
  11. 11.
    Fensel, D., Bussler, C.: The Web Service Modeling Framework (WSMF). Electronic Commerce Research and Applications 1(2), 113–137 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Steinmetz, S., Toma, I.: Web Service Modeling Language, http://www.wsmo.org/TR/d16/d16.1/v1.0/
  13. 13.
    Shafiq, O., Moran, M., Cimpian, E., Mocan, A., Zaremba, M., Fensel, D.: Investigating Semantic Web Service Execution Environments: A comparison between WSMX and OWL-S tools. In: 2nd International Conference on Internet and Web Applications and Services. IEEE Computer Society, Mauritius (2007)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Semantic Utilised for Process Management within and between Enterprises, http://www.ip-super.org
  15. 15.
    David, L., Martin, D.L., Burstein, M.H., McDermott, D.V., McIlraith, S.A., Paolucci, M., Sycara, K.P., McGuinness, D.L., Sirin, E., Srinivasan, N.: Bringing Semantics to Web Services with OWL-S. World Wide Web Journal 10(3), 243–277 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    McGuinness, D.L., van Harmelen, F.: OWL Web Ontology Language Overview, http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-owl-features-20040210/
  17. 17.
    Elenius, D., Denker, G., Martin, D., et al.: The OWL-S Editor—A development tool for semantic web services. In: 2nd European Semantic Web Conference, pp. 78–92. Springer, Heraklion (2005)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Srinivasan, N., Paolucci, M., Sycara, K.: An efficient algorithm for OWL-S based semantic search in UDDI. In: Cardoso, J., Sheth, A.P. (eds.) SWSWPC 2004. LNCS, vol. 3387, pp. 96–110. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Paolucci, M., Ankolekar, A., Srinivasan, N., et al.: The DAML-S virtual machine. In: 2nd International Semantic Web Conference, pp. 335–350. Springer, Sanibel Island (2003)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Paolucci, M., Srinivasan, N., Sycara, K., et al.: Toward a semantic choreography of web services: From WSDL to DAML-S. In: 1st International Conference on Web Services, pp. 22–26. CSREA Press, Las Vegas (2003)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    McIlraith, S., Son, T.: Adapting golog for composition of semantic web services. In: 8th International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, pp. 482–493. Morgan Kaufmann, Toulouse (2002)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sirin, E., Parsia, B., Wu, D., et al.: HTN Planning for Web Service Composition using SHOP2. Journal of Web Semantics 1(4), 377–396 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Nau, D., Au, T.C., Ilghami, O., et al.: SHOP2: An HTN planning system. J. Artif. Intell. 20, 379–404 (2003)MATHGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sheshagiri, M., desJardins, M., Finin, T.: A planner for composing services described in DAML-S. In: Workshop on Web Services and Agent-Based Engineering, Melbourne (2003)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    McDermott, D.: Estimated-regression planning for interactions with web services. In: 6th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence Planning Systems, Toulouse (2002)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sirin, E., Parsia, B., Hendler, J.: Filtering and selecting semantic web services with interactive composition techniques. IEEE Intell. Syst. 19(4), 42–49 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Motta, J., Domingue, L., Cabral, M.: IRS-II: a framework and infrastructure for semantic Web services. In: Fensel, D., Sycara, K.P., Mylopoulos, J. (eds.) ISWC 2003. LNCS, vol. 2870, pp. 306–318. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Motta, E.: An overview of the OCML modelling language. In: 8th Workshop on Knowledge Engineering Methods and Languages, Karlsruhe, pp. 21–22 (1998)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Miller, J., Verma, K., Rajasekaran, P., Sheth, A., Aggarwal, R., Sivashanmugam, K.: WSDL-S: Adding Semantics to WSDL - White Paper, http://lsdis.cs.uga.edu/library/download/wsdl-s.pdf
  30. 30.
    Kopecky, J., Vitvar, T., Bournez, C., Farrell, F.: SAWSDL: Semantic Annotations for WSDL and XML Schema. IEEE Internet Computing 11, 60–67 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Patil, A., Oundhakar, S., Sheth, A., Verma, K.: METEOR-S Web service Annotation Framework. In: 13th International World Wide Web Conference, pp. 17–22 (2004)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Verma, K., Sivashanmugam, K., Sheth, A., Patil, A., Oundhakar, S., Miller, J.: METEOR-S WSDI: A Scalable P2P Infrastructure of Registries for Semantic Publication and Discovery of Web Services. J. Inf. Technol. and Management 6(1), 7–39 (2005)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Cardoso, J., Sheth, A.O.: Semantic E-Workflow Composition. J. Intell. Inf. Syst. 21(3), 91–225 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sami Bhiri
    • 1
  • Walid Gaaloul
    • 1
  • Mohsen Rouached
    • 2
  • Manfred Hauswirth
    • 1
  1. 1.Digital Enterprise Research Institute (DERI)National University of Ireland, GalwayGalwayIreland
  2. 2.LORIA-INRIA-UMR 7503Vandoeuvre-les-Nancy CedexFrance

Personalised recommendations