Context-based Semantic Mediation in Web Service Communities

  • Michael MrissaEmail author
  • Stefan Dietze
  • Philippe Thiran
  • Chirine Ghedira
  • Djamal Benslimane
  • Zakaria Maamar


Communities gather Web services that provide a common functionality, acting as an intermediate layer between end users and Web services. On the one hand, they provide a single endpoint that handles user requests and transparently selects and invokes Web services, thus abstracting the selection task and leveraging the provided quality of service level. On the other hand, they maximize the visibility and use rate of Web services. However, data exchanges that take place between Web services and the community endpoint raise several issues, in particular due to semantic heterogeneities of data. Specific mediation mechanisms are required to adapt data operated by Web services to those of the community. Hence, mediation facilititates interoperability and reduces the level of difficulty for Web services to join and interact with communities. In this chapter, we propose a mediation approach that builds on (1) context-based semantic representation for Web services and the community; and (2) mediation mechanisms to resolve the semantic heterogeneities occuring during data exchanges. We validate our solution through some experiments as part of the WSMO framework over a test community and show the limitations of our approach.

Context Community Mediation Semantics Web services WSMO 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    E. Al-Masri and Q. H. Mahmoud. Investigating web services on the world wide web. In J. Huai, R. Chen, H.-W. Hon, Y. Liu, W.-Y. Ma, A. Tomkins, and X. Zhang, editors, WWW, pages 795–804. ACM, 2008.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    S. Arroyo and M. Stollberg. WSMO Primer. WSMO Deliverable D3.1, DERI Working Draft. Technical report, WSMO, 2004.
  3. 3.
    B. Benatallah, Q. Z. Sheng, and M. Dumas. The self-serv environment for web services composition. IEEE Internet Computing, 7(1):40–48, 2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    D. Benslimane, Z. Maamar, Y. Taher, M. Lahkim, M.-C. Fauvet, and M. Mrissa. A multi-layer and multi-perspective approach to compose web services. In AINA, pages 31–37. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC 2007.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    V. Bicer, O. Kilic, A. Dogac, and G. B. Laleci. Archetype-based semantic interoperability of web service messages in the health care domain. International Journal of Semantic Web and Information Systems (IJSWIS), 1(4):1–23, October 2005.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    S. Bowers and B. Ludäscher. An ontology-driven framework for data transformation in scientific workflows. In E. Rahm, editor, DILS, volume 2994 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 1–16. Springer, 2004.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    D. Box, D. Ehnebuske, G. Kakivaya, A. Layman, N. Mendelsohn, H. F. Nielsen, S. Thatte, and D. Winer. Simple object access protocol (SOAP) 1.1. Technical report, The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), 2000.
  8. 8.
    L. Cabral and J. Domingue. Mediation of semantic web services in IRS-III. In First International Workshop on Mediation in Semantic Web Services (MEDIATE 2005) held in Conjunction with the 3rd International Conference on Service Oriented Computing (ICSOC 2005), Amsterdam, The Netherlands, December 12th 2005.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    L. Cabral, J. B. Domingue, S. Galizia, A. Gugliotta, B. Norton, V. Tanasescu, and C. Pedrinaci. IRS-III: A broker for semantic web services based applications. In Proceeding of the 5th International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC2006), Athens, GA, USA, 2006.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    E. Christensen, F. Curbera, G. Meredith, and S. Weerawarana. Web Services Description Language (WSDL) 1.1. W3c note, The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), March 2001.
  11. 11.
    S. Dietze, A. Gugliotta, and J. Domingue. A semantic web service oriented framework for adaptive learning environments. In E. Franconi, M. Kifer, and W. May, editors, ESWC, volume 4519 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 701–715. Springer, 2007.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    C. H. Goh, S. Bressan, S. Madnick, and M. Siegel. Context interchange: new features and formalisms for the intelligent integration of information. ACM Transactions on Information and Systems, 17(3):270–293, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    A. Haller, E. Cimpian, A. Mocan, E. Oren, and C. Bussler. Wsmx – a semantic service-oriented architecture. In I. C. Society, editor, ICWS, pages 321–328. IEEE Computer Society Washington, DC, 2005.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    D. L. Martin, M. Paolucci, S. A. McIlraith, M. H. Burstein, D. V. McDermott, D. L. McGuinness, B. Parsia, T. R. Payne, M. Sabou, M. Solanki, N. Srinivasan, and K. P. Sycara. Bringing semantics to web services: the OWL-S approach. In J. Cardoso and A. P. Sheth, editors, SWSWPC, volume 3387 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 26–42. Springer Berlin, 2004.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    B. Medjahed and Y. Atif. Context-based matching for web service composition. Distrib. Parallel Databases, 21(1):5–37, 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    B. Medjahed and A. Bouguettaya. A dynamic foundational architecture for semantic web services. Distributed and Parallel Databases, 17(2):179–206, 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    J. Miller, K. Verma, P. Rajasekaran, A. Sheth, R. Aggarwal, and K. Sivashanmugam. WSDL-S: Adding Semantics to WSDL - White Paper. Technical report, Large Scale Distributed Information Systems, 2004.
  18. 18.
    E. Motta. An overview of the ocml modelling language. In Proceedings KEML98: 8th Workshop on Knowledge Engineering Methods & Languages, pages 21–22. Karlsruhe, Germany,1998.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    M. Mrissa, C. Ghedira, D. Benslimane, and Z. Maamar. A context model for semantic mediation in web services composition. In D. W. Embley, A. Olivé, and S. Ram, editors, ER, volume 4215 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 12–25. Springer, Berlin, 2006.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    M. Mrissa, C. Ghedira, D. Benslimane, and Z. Maamar. Towards context-based mediation for semantic web services composition. In Proceedings of the Eighteenth International Conference on Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering (SEKE’2006), San Francisco, California, July 2006.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    M. Nagarajan, K. Verma, A. P. Sheth, J. Miller, and J. Lathem. Semantic interoperability of web services – challenges and experiences. In ICWS, pages 373–382. IEEE Computer Society Washington, DC, 2006.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    M. Paolucci, N. Srinivasan, and K. Sycara. Expressing WSMO mediators in owl-s. In Proceeding of the Semantic Web Services Workshop (SWS) at the 3rd International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC), Hiroshima, Japan, 2004.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    S. Sattanathan, P. Thiran, Z. Maamar, and D. Benslimane. Engineering communities of web services. In G. Kotsis, D. Taniar, E. Pardede, and I. K. Ibrahim, editors, iiWAS, volume 229 of, pages 57–66. Austrian Computer Society, Wien, 2007.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    G. Schreiber and M. Dean. Owl web ontology language reference., February 2004.
  25. 25.
    R. G. Smith. The contract net protocol: high-level communication and control in a distributed problem solver. IEEE Trans. Computers, 29(12):1104–1113, 1980.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Y. Taher, D. Benslimane, M.-C. Fauvet, and Z. Maamar. Towards an approach for web services substitution. In P. Ghodous, R. Dieng-Kuntz, and G. Loureiro, editors, IDEAS, pages 166–173. IOS Press, Amsterdam, 2006.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    UDDI Specification Technical Commitee. Universal Description, Discovery, and Integration of Business for the Web. Technical report, October 2001.
  28. 28.
    WSMX Working Group. The web service modelling execution environment, 2007.

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael Mrissa
    • 1
    Email author
  • Stefan Dietze
    • 2
  • Philippe Thiran
    • 1
  • Chirine Ghedira
    • 3
  • Djamal Benslimane
    • 1
  • Zakaria Maamar
    • 4
  1. 1.PReCISE Research CenterUniversity of NamurNamurBelgium
  2. 2.Knowledge Media Institute, The Open UniversityMilton KeynesUK
  3. 3.LIRIS laboratory, Lyon 1 UniversityLyonFrance
  4. 4.College of Information Technology, Zayed UniversityUAEUSA

Personalised recommendations