Advertisement

Discovering Semantic Web Services with Process Specifications

  • Piya Suwannopas
  • Twittie Senivongse
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4025)

Abstract

Service discovery is one of the crucial issues for service-oriented architectural model. Recently the trend is towards semantic discovery by which semantic descriptions are the basis for service matchmaking instead of simple search based on service attributes. OWL-S is a widely adopted semantic specification for Web Services which comprises three profiles. Among those, process model is the profile that describes dynamic behaviour of Web Services in terms of functional aspects and process flows, and is generally aimed for service enactment, composition, and monitoring. This paper presents a new approach to use OWL-S process model for service discovery purpose. A Web Service can have its internal process described as an OWL-S process model specification, and a service consumer can query for a Web Service with a particular process detail. Matchmaking will be based on flexible ontological matching and evaluation of constraints on the functional behaviour and process flow of the Web Service. The architecture for process-based discovery is also presented.

Keywords

Service Composition Service Discovery Numerical Range Functional Behaviour Service Consumer 
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.
    Huhns, M.N., Singh, M.P.: Service-Oriented Computing: Key Concepts and Principles. IEEE Internet Computing, 75–81 (January-February 2005)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    uddi.org: UDDI: Universal Description, Discovery, and Integration of Web Services (2002), http://www.uddi.org
  3. 3.
    Tapabut, C., Senivongse, T., Futatsugi, K.: Defining Attribute Templates for Descriptions of Distributed Services. In: Proceedings of 9th Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference (APSEC 2002), Gold Coast, Australia, December 2002, pp. 425–434 (2002)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Burstein, M., et al.: Semantic Web Services Architecture. IEEE Internet Computing, 72–81 (September-October 2005)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    OWL-S Coalition. OWL-S 1.1 Release, http://www.daml.org/services/owl-s/1.1/
  6. 6.
    Sriharee, N., Senivongse, T.: Matchmaking and Ranking of Semantic Web Services Using Integrated Service Profile. International Journal of Metadata, Semantics and Ontologies 1(2). Inderscience Publishers (to be published) Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    WSMO. Web Services Modeling Ontology (2004), http://www.wsmo.org
  8. 8.
    Bruijn, D.J., Lausen, H., Polleres, A., Fensel, D.: The Web Service Modeling Language WSML: An Overview. DERI Technical Report (June 16, 2005)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Paolucci, M., Sycara, K.: UDDI Spec TC V4 Proposal Semantic Search (2004), http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/uddi-spec/doc/req/uddi-spec-tc-req029-semanticsearch-20040308.doc
  10. 10.
    Trastour, D., Bartolini, C., Gonzalez-Castillo, J.: A Semantic Web Approach to Service Description for Matchmaking of Services. In: Proceedings of the International Semantic Web Working Symposium (SWWS 2001) (2001)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Paolucci, M., et al.: Semantic Matching of Web Services Capabilities. In: Horrocks, I., Hendler, J. (eds.) ISWC 2002. LNCS, vol. 2342, p. 333. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sivashanmugan, K., Verma, K., Sheth, A., Miller, J.: Adding Semantics to Web Services Standards. In: Jeckle, M., Zhang, L.-J. (eds.) ICWS-Europe 2003. LNCS, vol. 2853, Springer, Heidelberg (2003)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    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
  14. 14.
    Klein, M., Bernstein, A.: Searching for Services on the Semantic Web Using Process On-tologies. In: Cruz, I., et al. (eds.) The Emerging Semantic Web – Selected papers from 1st Semantic Web Working Symposium, pp. 159–172. IOS press, Amsterdam (2002)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Klusch, M., Gerber, A., Schmidt, M.: Semantic Web Service Composition Planning with OWLS-Xplan. In: Proceedings of 1st Intl. AAAI Fall Symposium on Agents and the Semantic Web, Arlington, VA, USA. AAAI Press, Menlo Park (2005)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sirin, E., Parsia, B.: Planning for Semantic Web Services. In: McIlraith, S.A., Plexousakis, D., van Harmelen, F. (eds.) ISWC 2004. LNCS, vol. 3298. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Horrocks, I., Patel-Schneider, P.F., Boley, H., Tabet, S., Grosof, B., Dean, M.: SWRL: A Semantic Web Rule Language combining OWL and RuleML (2003), http://daml.org/2003/11/swrl/
  18. 18.
    Li, L., Horrocks, I.: A Software Framework for Matchmaking Based on Semantic Web Technology. In: Proceedings of 12th International World Wide Web Conference (2003)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Jess the Rule Engine for the JAVATM Platform, http://herzberg.ca.sandia.gov/jess
  20. 20.
    Havey, M.: Essential Business Process Modeling. O’Rielly, Sebastopol (2005)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Barros, O.H.: Business Information System Design Based on Process Patterns and Frameworks (2004), http://www.bptrends.com
  22. 22.
    Jena Semantic Web Framework: Jena, http://jena.sourceforge.net/index.html

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Piya Suwannopas
    • 1
  • Twittie Senivongse
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer EngineeringChulalongkorn UniversityBangkokThailand

Personalised recommendations