Advertisement

Decoupling of Heterogeneous Semantic Service Annotations and Their Semantic Models – Towards an Integrated Approach in a Multi-Service-Provider-Scenario

  • Jannis Rake
  • Marten Schönherr
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4907)

Abstract

The introduction of Service-Oriented Architectures often promises effective and efficient service support of the organization’s business processes. Matching and combining the right services to support the processes can only be ensured, if the service functionalities are semantically annotated. However, service discovery within heterogeneous annotations can become a problem. The following paper introduces an integrated approach to deal with heterogeneous semantic annotations of different service providers. Based on deduction from the state-of-the-art of semantic annotations for services, the developed approach establishes four strategies as the prerequisites for a common search base.

Keywords

Business Process Service Composition Semantic Model Service Discovery Semantic Annotation 
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.

References

  1. 1.
    SUPER. Semantics Utilised for Process Management within and between EnterpRises (2007) (retrieved from, 01.08.2007), http://www.ip-super.org/
  2. 2.
    Hevner, A.R., March, S.T., Park, J., Ram, S.: Design Science in Information Systems Research. MIS Quarterly 28(1), 75–105 (2004)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Krafzig, D., Banke, K., Slama, D.: Enterprise SOA - Service-Oriented Architecture Best Practices. Prentice Hall Professional Technical Reference, Upper Saddle River (2005)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Offermann, P., Schröpfer, C., Holschke, O., Schönherr, M.: SOA: The IT-Architecture behind Service-Orientation. In: Steffens, U., Addicks, J.S., Streekmann, N. (eds.) MDD, SOA und IT-Management, pp. 1–11. GITO, Berlin (2007)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Erl, T.: Service-Oriented Architecture - Concepts, Technology, and Design. Prentice Hall Professional Technical Reference, Upper Saddle River (2005)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Newcomer, E., Lomow, G.: Understanding SOA with Web Services. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2005)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Organization for the Advancement of Structured Information Standards (OASIS), Web Services Business Process Execution Language Version 2.0. (2007), http://docs.oasis-open.org/wsbpel/2.0/wsbpel-v2.0.pdf
  8. 8.
    Khalaf, R., Keller, A., Leymann, F.: Business processes for Web Services: Principles and applications. IBM Systems Journal 45(2), 425–446 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kona, S., Bansal, A., Gupta, G., Hite, T.: Semantics-based Efficient Web Service Discovery and Composition, Department of Computer Science - University of Texas at Dallas (2007)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Christensen, E., Curbera, F., Meredith, G., Weerawarana, S.: Web Services Description Language (WSDL) 1.1 (2001) (retrieved from, 02.08.07), http://www.w3.org/TR/wsdl
  11. 11.
    McIlraith, S.A., Son, T.C., Zeng, T.C.H.: Semantic Web services. IEEE Intelligent Systems 16(2), 46–53 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gruber, T.R.: A translation approach to portable ontology specifications. Knowledge Acquisition 5(2), 199–220 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Vetere, G., Lenzerini, M.: Models for semantic interoperability in service-oriented architectures. IBM Systems Journal 44(4), 887–903 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    McGuinness, D.L., Harmelen, F.v.: OWL Web Ontology Language Overview (2004) (retrieved from, 28.07.07), http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-features/
  15. 15.
    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
  16. 16.
    Roman, D., Keller, U., Lausen, H., Bruijn, J.d., Lara, R., Stollberg, M., Polleres, A., Feier, C., Bussler, C., Fensel, D.: Web Service Modeling Ontology. Applied Ontology 1(1), 77–106 (2005)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Keller, U., Lara, R., Lausen, H., Fensel, D.: Semantic Web Service Discovery in the WSMO Framework. In: Cardoso, J. (ed.) Semantic Web Services: Theory, Tools and Applications. IGI Publishing (2007)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Akkiraju, R., Farrell, J., Miller, J., Nagarajan, M., Schmidt, M.-T., Sheth, A., Verma, K.: Web Service Semantics - WSDL-S (2005) (retrieved from, 28.07.2007), http://www.w3.org/Submission/WSDL-S/
  19. 19.
    Farrell, J., Lausen, H.: Semantic Annotations for WSDL and XML Schema (2007) (retrieved from, 01.08.2007), http://www.w3.org/TR/sawsdl/
  20. 20.
    Battle, S., Bernstein, A., Boley, H., Grosof, B., Gruninger, M., Hull, R., Kifer, M., Martin, D., McIlraith, S., McGuinness, D., Su, J., Tabet, S.: Semantic Web Services Framework (SWSF) Overview (2005) (retrieved from, 02.08.2007), http://www.daml.org/services/swsf/1.0/overview/
  21. 21.
    Bansal, A., Kona, S., Simon, L., Hite, T.D.: A Universal Service-Semantics Description Language. In: Proceedings of the Third IEEE European Conference on Web Services (ECOWS), pp. 214–225 (2005)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Pathak, J., Koul, N., Caragea, D., Honavar, V.: A Framework for Semantic Web Services Discovery. In: Proceedings of the 7th ACM International Workshop on Web Information and Data Management, WIDM (2005)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kaufer, F., Klusch, M.: WSMO-MX: a logic programming based hybrid service matchmaker. In: Proceedings of the 4th IEEE European Conference on Web Services (ECOWS 2006), Zürich, Switzerland, pp. 161–170 (2006)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wang, H.H., Gibbins, N., Payne, T., Saleh, A., Sun, J.: A Formal Semantic Model of the Semantic Web Service Ontology (WSMO). In: Proceedings of Twelfth IEEE International Conference on Engineering of Complex Computer Systems, Auckland, New Zealand (2007)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Keller, U., Feier, C., Steinmetz, N., Lausen, H.: Report on reasoning techniques and prototype implementation for the WSML-Core and WSMO-DL languages, Digital Enterprise Research Institute (2006)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    World Wide Web Consortium. OWL Web Ontology Language Semantics and Abstract Syntax (2004) (retrieved from, 27.07.2007), http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-semantics/syntax.html
  27. 27.
    OMG. Ontology Definition Metamodel (2006) (retrieved from, 01.08.07), http://www.omg.org/docs/ptc/06-10-11.pdf
  28. 28.
    Aumueller, D., Do, H.H., Massmann, S., Rahm, E.: Schema and ontology matching with COMA++. In: Proceedings of the 2005 ACM SIGMOD international conference on Management of data, pp. 906–908 (2005)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Arvidsson, M., Gremyr, I.: Principles of robust design methodology. Quality and Reliability Engineering International (published, 2007)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jannis Rake
    • 1
  • Marten Schönherr
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Computer SciencesTechnische Universität BerlinBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations