Interactive Discovery and Composition of Complex Web Services

  • Sergey Stupnikov
  • Leonid Kalinichenko
  • Stephane Bressan
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4152)


Among the most important expected benefits of a global service oriented architecture leveraging web service standards is an increased level of automation in the discovery, composition, verification, monitoring and recovery of services for the realization of complex processes. Most existing works addressing this issue are based on the Ontology Web Language for Services (OWL-S) and founded on description logic. Because the discovery and composition tasks are designed to be fully automatic, the solutions are limited to the realization of rather simple processes. To overcome this deficiency, this paper proposes an approach in which service capability descriptions are based on full first order predicate logic and enable an interactive discovery and composition of services for the realization of complex processes. The proposed approach is well suited when automatic service discovery does not constitute an absolute requirement and the discovery can be done interactively (semi-automatically) with human expert intervention. Such applications are, for instance, often met in e-science. The proposed approach is an extension and adaptation of the compositional information systems development (CISD) method based on the SYNTHESIS language and previously proposed by some of the authors. The resulting method offers a canonical extensible object model with its formal automatic semantic interpretation in the Abstract Machine Notation (AMN) as well as reasoning capabilities applying AMN interactively to the discovery and composition of web services.


Service Discovery Generalize Substitution Canonical Model Simple Object Access Protocol Predicate Transformer 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Abrial, J.-R.: B-Technology. Technical overview. – BP International Ltd (1992)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Abrial., J.-R.: The B-Book. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Andrews, T., et al.: Business Process Execution Language for Web Services (2003),
  4. 4.
    Briukhov, D.O., Kalinichenko, L.: Component-based information systems development tool supporting the SYNTHESIS design method. In: Advances in Databases and Information Systems: Proc. of the Second East European Conference, pp. 305–327. Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg (1998)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Briukhov, D.O., Kalinichenko, L.A., Tyurin, I.N.: Extension of Compositional Information Systems Development for the Web Services Platform. In: Advances in Databases and Information Systems: Proc. of the Second East European Conference, pp. 16–29. Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg (2003)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Briukhov D.O., Kalinichenko L.A. et. al. Information Infrastructure of the Russian Virtual Observatory (RVO). Moscow, IPI RAN, 173 page (2005),
  7. 7.
    Brogi, A., Corfini, S., Popescu, R.: Composition-oriented Service Discovery. Department of Computer Science, University of PisaGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Colgrave, et al.: Using WSDL in a UDDI Registry. UDDI TC Note (2003)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fensel, D., Bussler, C.: Web Services Modeling Framework. Electronic Commerce: Research and Applications (2002),
  10. 10.
    Kalinichenko, L.A.: SYNTHESIS: The language for description, design and programming of the heterogeneous interoperable information resource environment, Moscow (1995)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kalinichenko, L.A.: Compositional Specification Calculus for Information Systems Development. In: Eder, J., Rozman, I., Welzer, T. (eds.) ADBIS 1999. LNCS, vol. 1691, pp. 317–331. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kalinichenko, L.A., Skvortsov, N.: Extensible ontological modeling framework for subject mediation. In: Proc. of the Fourth Russian Scientific Conference ”DIGITAL LIBRARIES: Advanced Methods and Technologies, Digital Collections, Dubna (2002)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Li, L., Horrocks, I.: A Software Framework for Matchmaking Based on Semantic Web Technology. In: Proc.12th Internationall World Wide Web Conf. (2003)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Martin, D., Paolucci, M., McIlraith, S.A., Burstein, M., McDermott, D., McGuinness, D.L., Parsia, B., Payne, T.R., Sabou, M., Solanki, M., Srinivasan, N., Sycara, K.P.: 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
  15. 15.
    Kalinichenko, L.A., Skvortsov, N.A.: Ontology reconciliation in terms of type refinement. In: Proc. of the Sixth Russian Conference on Digital Libraries RCDL2004, Pushchino (2004)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    OWL Web Ontology Language Reference,
  17. 17.
    OWL-S Coalition. OWL-S 1.0 Release
  18. 18.
    Paolucci, M., Kawamura, T., Payne, T.R., Sycara, K.P.: Importing the Semantic Web in UDDI. In: Bussler, C.J., McIlraith, S.A., Orlowska, M.E., Pernici, B., Yang, J. (eds.) CAiSE 2002 and WES 2002. LNCS, vol. 2512, pp. 225–236. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Paolucci, M., Kawamura, T., Payne, T.R., Sycara, K.P.: Semantic Matching of Web Services Capabilities. In: Horrocks, I., Hendler, J. (eds.) ISWC 2002. LNCS, vol. 2342, p. 333. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rajasekaran, P., Miller, J., Verma, K., Sheth, A.: Enhancing Web Services Description and Discovery to Facilitate Composition. LSDIS Lab, Computer Science Department, University of Georgia, Athens (2004)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Simple Object Access Protocol (SOAP) 1.1. W3C Note (May 08, 2000),
  22. 22.
    Sirin, E., Parsia, B., Hendler, J.: Filtering and Selecting Semantic Web Services with Interactive Composition Techniques. IEEE Intelligent Systems (July/August 2004)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Srinivasan, N., Paolucci, M., Sycara, K.: Adding OWL-S to UDDI, implementation and throughput. Robotics Institute, Carnegie Mellon University (2003)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Stupnikov, S.A.: Automation of refinement verification in information systems compositional design. In: The Systems and Means of Informatics: Special Issue Formal Methods and Models for Compositional Infrastructures of Distributed Information Systems, Moscow, IPI RAN, pp. 96–119 (2005) (in Russian)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    SWRL: A Semantic Web Rule Language: Combining OWL and RuleML. W3C Member Submission (May 21, 2004),
  26. 26.
    UDDI Version 3.0 Specification,
  27. 27.
    Web services description language (wsdl) 1.1. W3C note (March 15, 2001),
  28. 28.

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sergey Stupnikov
    • 1
  • Leonid Kalinichenko
    • 1
  • Stephane Bressan
    • 2
  1. 1.Institute of Informatics ProblemsRussian Academy of Science 
  2. 2.National University of SingaporeSingapore

Personalised recommendations