Advertisement

Modelling Capabilities as Attribute-Featured Entities

  • Sami Bhiri
  • Wassim Derguech
  • Maciej Zaremba
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 140)

Abstract

The concept of capability is a fundamental element not only for Service Oriented Architecture but also for Enterprise Information Systems. This concepts denotes what an action (i.e., a service, a program, a business process, etc.) can do from a functional perspective. Despite its importance, current approaches do not model it properly: either they confuse it with an annotated invocation interface or do not go beyond the classical IOPE paradigm which, from an end user perspective, does not have an intuitive description of what is the capability being modeled. In this paper, we present a conceptual model as an RDF-schema for describing capabilities as attribute-featured entities which is more user friendly. Actually, we consider a capability as an action verb and a set of domain specific attributes that relates to an exact business meaning. This way, we are able to represent capabilities at several levels of abstraction from the most abstract one with just an action verb to the most concrete one that corresponds to the exact need of an end user which is not possible with current capability modelling approaches. We are also able to interlink capabilities for creating a hierarchical structure that allows for improving the discovery process. Our meta model is based on RDF and makes use of Linked Data to define capability attributes as well as their values.

Keywords

Capability modelling Web services Business process RDF 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Polleres, A.: From SPARQL to rules (and back). In: WWW 2007, Banff, Alberta, Canada. ACM (2007)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bizer, C., Heath, T., Berners-Lee, T.: Linked Data - The Story So Far. IJSWIS 5(3) (2009)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kopecký, J., Simperl, E.P.B., Fensel, D.: Semantic Web Service Offer Discovery. In: SMRR. CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 243 (2007)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kopecký, J., Vitvar, T., Bournez, C., Farrell, J.: SAWSDL: Semantic annotations for WSDL and XML schema. IEEE Internet Computing 11(6) (2007)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lathem, J., Gomadam, K., Sheth, A.P.: Sa-rest and (s)mashups: Adding semantics to restful services. In: ICSC. IEEE Computer Society (2007)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lebo, T., Williams, G.T.: Converting governmental datasets into linked data. In: I-SEMANTICS. ACM (2010)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Malone, T.W., Crowston, K., Herman, G.A. (eds.): Organizing Business Knowledge: The MIT Process Handbook, 1st edn. The MIT Press (September 2003)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Martin, D., Paolucci, M., Wagner, M.: Bringing Semantic Annotations to Web Services: OWL-S from the SAWSDL Perspective. In: Aberer, K., Choi, K.-S., Noy, N., Allemang, D., Lee, K.-I., Nixon, L.J.B., Golbeck, J., Mika, P., Maynard, D., Mizoguchi, R., Schreiber, G., Cudré-Mauroux, P. (eds.) ISWC/ASWC 2007. LNCS, vol. 4825, pp. 340–352. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mokhtar, S.B., Preuveneers, D., Georgantas, N., Issarny, V., Berbers, Y.: Easy: Efficient semantic service discovery in pervasive computing environments with qos and context support. Journal of Systems and Software 81(5), 785–808 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Oaks, P., ter Hofstede, A.H.M., Edmond, D.: Capabilities: Describing What Services Can Do. In: Orlowska, M.E., Weerawarana, S., Papazoglou, M.P., Yang, J. (eds.) ICSOC 2003. LNCS, vol. 2910, pp. 1–16. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Roman, D., de Bruijn, J., Mocan, A., Lausen, H., Domingue, J., Bussler, C., Fensel, D.: WWW: WSMO, WSML, and WSMX in a Nutshell. In: Mizoguchi, R., Shi, Z.-Z., Giunchiglia, F. (eds.) ASWC 2006. LNCS, vol. 4185, pp. 516–522. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Scheer, A.W., Schneider, K.: ARIS Architecture of Integrated Information Systems. Bernus Peter Mertins Kai Schmidt Gunter (2006)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sheridan, J., Tennison, J.: Linking UK Government Data. In: LDOW 2010 (2010)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sugumaran, V., Storey, V.C.: A semantic-based Approach to Component Retrieval. SIGMIS Database 34 (August 2003)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Vitvar, T., Zaremba, M., Moran, M.: Dynamic Service Discovery Through Meta-interactions with Service Providers. In: Franconi, E., Kifer, M., May, W. (eds.) ESWC 2007. LNCS, vol. 4519, pp. 84–98. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Zaremba, M., Vitvar, T., Bhiri, S., Derguech, W., Gao, F.: Service Offer Descriptions and Expressive Search Requests – Key Enablers of Late Service Binding. In: Huemer, C., Lops, P. (eds.) EC-Web 2012. LNBIP, vol. 123, pp. 50–62. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Zaremba, M., Vitvar, T., Moran, M., Haselwanter, T.: WSMX Discovery for the SWS Challenge. In: ISWC, Athens, Georgia, USA (November 2006)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sami Bhiri
    • 1
  • Wassim Derguech
    • 1
  • Maciej Zaremba
    • 1
  1. 1.Digital Enterprise Research InstituteNational University of IrelandGalwayIreland

Personalised recommendations