Advertisement

Web Services Analysis: Making Use of Web Service Composition and Annotation

  • Peep Küngas
  • Mihhail Matskin
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4185)

Abstract

Automated Web service composition and automated Web service annotation could be seen as complimentary methodologies. While automated annotation allows to extract Web service semantics from existing WSDL documents, automated composition uses this semantics for integrating applications. Therefore applicability of both methodologies is essential for increasing the productivity of information system integration. Although several papers have proposed methods for automated annotation, there is a lack of studies providing analysis of the general structure of Web services. We argue that having an overview of general Web services structures would greatly improve design of new annotation methods. At the same time, progress in automated composition has resulted in several methods for automating Web services orchestration. In this paper we propose application of automated composition also for analysing Web services domain. We identify and analyse some general Web services properties and provide their interpretation in an industrial context.

Keywords

Automate Composition WSDL Document Intermediary Data Merge Domain Strict Output 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Burstein, M.: Ontology mapping for dynamic service invocation on the Semantic Web. In: AAAI Spring Symposium on Semantic Web Services, Palo Alto (March 2004)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Casati, F., Ilnicki, S., Jin, L.-J., Krishnamoorthy, V., Shan, M.-C.: Adaptive and dynamic service composition in eFlow. In: Wangler, B., Bergman, L.D. (eds.) CAiSE 2000. LNCS, vol. 1789, pp. 13–31. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gómez-Pérez, A., González-Cabero, R., Lama, M.: A framework for design and composition of Semantic Web services. In: Proceedings of the First International Semantic Web Services Symposium, AAAI 2004 Spring Symposium Series, March 22–24, pp. 113–120. AAAI Press, Menlo Park (2004)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Heß, A., Johnston, E., Kushmerick, N.: Assam: A tool for semi-automatically annotating semantic web services. In: McIlraith, S.A., Plexousakis, D., van Harmelen, F. (eds.) ISWC 2004. LNCS, vol. 3298, pp. 320–334. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Heß, A., Kushmerick, N.: Learning to attach semantic metadata to web services. In: Fensel, D., Sycara, K., Mylopoulos, J. (eds.) ISWC 2003. LNCS, vol. 2870, pp. 258–273. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kim, S.M., Rosu, M.C.: A survey of public Web services. In: Bauknecht, K., Bichler, M., Pröll, B. (eds.) EC-Web 2004. LNCS, vol. 3182, pp. 96–105. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Küngas, P.: Distributed Agent-Based Web Service Selection, Composition and Analysis through Partial Deduction. PhD thesis, Department of Computer and Information Science, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway (2006)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Küngas, P., Matskin, M.: Web services roadmap: The SemanticWeb perspective. In: Proceedings of International Conference on Internet and Web Applications and Services, ICIW 2006, Guadeloupe, French Caribbean, February 23–25. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (2006)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Küngas, P., Rao, J., Matskin, M.: Symbolic agent negotiation for Semantic Web service exploitation. In: Li, Q., Wang, G., Feng, L. (eds.) WAIM 2004. LNCS, vol. 3129, pp. 458–467. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Levesque, H.J., Reiter, R., Lespérance, Y., Lin, F., Scherl, R.B.: Golog: A logic programming language for dynamic domains. Journal of Logic Programming 31(1–3), 59–83 (1997)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    McIlraith, S., Son, T.C.: Adapting Golog for composition of Semantic Web services. In: Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR 2002), Toulouse, France, April 22–25, pp. 482–493. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (2002)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Odrats, I. (ed.): Information Technology in Public Administration of Estonia, yearbook 2004, OÜ Piltkiri (2005)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Patil, A., Oundhakar, S., Sheth, A., Verma, K.: METEOR-S Web service annotation framework. In: Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on World Wide Web (WWW 2004), New York, NY, USA, May 17–22, pp. 553–562. ACM Press, New York (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ponnekanti, S.R., Fox, A.: SWORD: A developer toolkit for Web service composition. In: Proceedings of The Eleventh World Wide Web Conference (Web Engineering Track), Honolulu, Hawaii, USA, May 7–11, pp. 83–107 (2002)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rao, J., Küngas, P., Matskin, M.: Logic-based Web services composition: From service description to process model. In: Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Web Services (ICWS 2004), San Diego, California, USA, July 6–9, pp. 446–453 (2004)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rao, J., Küngas, P., Matskin, M.: Composition of semantic web services using linear logic theorem proving. Information Systems 31(4–5), 340–360 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sabou, M.: From software APIs toWeb service ontologies: a semi-automatic extraction method. In: McIlraith, S.A., Plexousakis, D., van Harmelen, F. (eds.) ISWC 2004, vol. 3298, pp. 410–424. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Schuster, H., Georgakopoulos, D., Cichocki, A., Baker, D.: Modeling and composing service-based and reference process-based multi-enterprise processes. In: Wangler, B., Bergman, L.D. (eds.) CAiSE 2000. LNCS, vol. 1789, pp. 247–263. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sheshagiri, M.,, M.: A planner for composing services described in DAML-S. In: Proceedings of the AAMAS Workshop on Web Services and Agent-based Engineering (2003)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sirin, E., Parsia, B., Hendler, J.: Composition-driven filtering and selection of Semantic Web services. In: Proceedings of the First International Semantic Web Services Symposium, AAAI 2004 Spring Symposium Series, March 22–24, pp. 129–136. AAAI Press, Menlo Park (2004)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Traverso, P., Pistore, M.: Automated composition of semantic web services into executable processes. In: McIlraith, S.A., Plexousakis, D., van Harmelen, F. (eds.) ISWC 2004. LNCS, vol. 3298, pp. 380–394. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wu, D., Parsia, B., Sirin, E., Hendler, J., Nau, D.: Automating DAML-S Web services composition using SHOP2. In: Fensel, D., Sycara, K., Mylopoulos, J. (eds.) ISWC 2003, vol. 2870, pp. 195–210. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peep Küngas
    • 1
  • Mihhail Matskin
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Computer and Information ScienceNorwegian University of Science and TechnologyTrondheimNorway
  2. 2.Department of Microelectronics and Information TechnologyRoyal Institute of TechnologyKistaSweden

Personalised recommendations