A Compositional Operational Semantics for OWL-S

  • Barry Norton
  • Simon Foster
  • Andrew Hughes
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3670)

Abstract

Software composition via workflow specifications has received a great deal of attention recently. One reason is the high degree of fit with the encapsulation of software modules in service-oriented fashion. In the Industry, existing workflow languages have been merged to form WS-BPEL, the Business Process Execution Language for Web Services. In the Research community OWL-S, a ontology for web services, has been submitted for standardisation alongside OWL, the Web Ontology Language in which it is expressed. The OWL-S Process Model is based on an abstraction of the common features of industrial workflow languages. On the one hand, WS-BPEL has only informal semantics; on the other, the type of semantics given to ontology-based work tends to be structural rather than computationally oriented. As a result the semantics developed for DAML-S, which led to OWL-S, are still deficient in some regards. In this paper we shall survey the existing semantics and introduce a novel semantics for the latest version of OWL-S that is focussed on the principle of compositionality, so far not tackled.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Ankolekar, A., Huch, F., Sycara, K.: Concurrent execution semantics of DAML-S with subtypes. In: Horrocks, I., Hendler, J. (eds.) ISWC 2002. LNCS, vol. 2342, pp. 308–332. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    de Alfaro, L., Henzinger, T.A.: Interface automata. In: Proc. 8th European Soft. Eng. Conference and 9th ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Foundations of Soft. Eng. (ESEC/FSE 2001). Software Engineering Notes, vol. 26, 5, pp. 109–120. ACM Press, New York (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Martin, D., et al.: OWL-S: Semantic markup for web services (2004), http://www.daml.org/services/owl-s/1.1/overview/
  4. 4.
    Hennessy, M., Regan, T.: A process algebra for timed systems. Information and Computation 117(2), 221–239 (1995)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Milner, A.J.R.G.: Communication and Concurrency. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1989)MATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Milner, A.J.R.G.: Communicating and Mobile Systems: The Pi-Calculus. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1999)MATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Narayanan, S., McIlraith, S.A.: Simulation, verification and automated composition of web services. In: Proc. 11th Intl. World Wide Web Conference (WWW 2002), May 7-10 (2002)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Norton, B., Lüttgen, G., Mendler, M.: A compositional semantic theory for synchronous component-based design. In: Amadio, R.M., Lugiez, D. (eds.) CONCUR 2003. LNCS, vol. 2761, pp. 461–476. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Norton, B., Fairtlough, M.: Reactive types for dataflow-oriented software architectures. In: Martin, D.C. (ed.) Proceedings of 4th IEEE/IFIP Conference on Software Architecture (WICSA2004), vol. P2172, pp. 211–220. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Paolucci, M., Ankolekar, A., Srinivasan, N., Sycara, K.: The DAML-S virtual machine. In: Fensel, D., Sycara, K., Mylopoulos, J. (eds.) ISWC 2003. LNCS, vol. 2870, pp. 290–305. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Roman, D., Lausen, H., Keller, U.: WSMO final draft (February 2005), http://www.wsmo.org/TR/d2/v1.1/
  12. 12.
    Sheth, A., Ramakrishnan, C., Thomas, C.: Semantics for the Semantic Web: The implicit, the formal and the powerful. Intl. Journal on Semantic Web and Information Systems 1(1), 1–18 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Barry Norton
    • 1
  • Simon Foster
    • 1
  • Andrew Hughes
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of SheffieldUK

Personalised recommendations