Advertisement

Web Service Composition Via Generic Procedures and Customizing User Preferences

  • Shirin Sohrabi
  • Nataliya Prokoshyna
  • Sheila A. McIlraith
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4273)

Abstract

We claim that user preferences are a key component of Web service composition – a component that has largely been ignored. In this paper we propose a means of specifying and intergrating user preferences into Web service composition. To this end, we propose a means of performing automated Web service composition by exploiting generic procedures together with rich qualitative user preferences. We exploit the agent programming language Golog to represent our generic procedures and a first-order preference language to represent rich qualitative temporal user preferences. From these we generate Web service compositions that realize the generic procedure, satisfying the user’s hard constraints and optimizing for the user’s preferences. We prove our approach sound and optimal. Our system, GologPref, is implemented and interacting with services on the Web. The language and techniques proposed in this paper can be integrated into a variety of approaches to Web or Grid service composition.

Keywords

User Preference Linear Temporal Logic Situation Calculus Agent Programming Language Nonfunctional Property 
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.
    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, pp. 482–493 (2002)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    McDermott, D.V.: Estimated-regression planning for interactions with web services. In: Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on AI Planning and Scheduling (AIPS 2002), pp. 204–211 (2002)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    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
  4. 4.
    McIlraith, S., Son, T., Zeng, H.: Semantic Web services. IEEE Intelligent Systems (Special Issue on the Semantic Web) 16 (2001)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Reiter, R.: Knowledge in Action: Logical Foundations for Specifying and Implementing Dynamical Systems. MIT Press, Cambridge (2001)MATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sirin, E., Parsia, B., Wu, D., Hendler, J., Nau, D.: HTN planning for web service composition using SHOP2. Journal of Web Semantics 1(4), 377–396 (2005)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bienvenu, M., Fritz, C., McIlraith, S.: Planning with qualitative temporal preferences. In: Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR 2006), pp. 134–144 (2006)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Horrocks, I., Patel-Schneider, P., van Harmelen, F.: From SHIQ and RDF to OWL: The making of a web ontology language. Journal of Web Semantics 1(1), 7–26 (2003)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Martin, D., Burstein, M., McDermott, D., McIlraith, S., Paolucci, M., Sycara, K., McGuinness, D., Sirin, E., Srinivasan, N.: Bringing semantics to web services with owl-s. World Wide Web Journal (to appear, 2006)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bruijn, J.D., Lausen, H., Polleres, A., Fensel, D.: The web service modeling language WSML: An overview. Technical report, DERI (2006)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Battle, S., Bernstein, A., Boley, H., Grosof, B.: R. Hull, M.G., Kifer, M., Martin, D., McIlraith, S., McGuinness, D., Su, J., Tabet, S.: Semantic web service ontology (SWSO) first-order logic ontology for web services (FLOWS) (2005), http://www.daml.org/services/swsl/report/
  12. 12.
    Klusch, M., Gerber, A., Schmidt, M.: Semantic web service composition planning with OWLS-Xplan. In: Working notes of the AAAI 2005 Fall Symposium on Agents and the Semantic Web, Arlington VA, USA (2005)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    McIlraith, S.A., Fadel, R.: Planning with complex actions. In: 9th International Workshop on Non-Monotonic Reasoning (NMR), Toulouse, France, pp. 356–364 (2002)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Narayanan, S., McIlraith, S.: Simulation, verification and automated composition of web services. In: Proceedings of the Eleventh International World Wide Web Conference (WWW 2002) (2002)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    de Giacomo, G., Lespérance, Y., Levesque, H.: ConGolog, a concurrent programming language based on the situation calculus. Artificial Intelligence 121(1–2), 109–169 (2000)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sirin, E., Parsia, B., Hendler, J.: Template-based composition of semantic web services. In: Working notes of the AAAI 2005 Fall Symposium on Agents and the Semantic Web (2005)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Fritz, C., McIlraith, S.: Decision-theoretic GOLOG with qualitative preferences. In: Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR 2006) (2006)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Son, T., Pontelli, E.: Planning with preferences using logic programming, Theory and Practice of Logic Programming (to appear, 2007)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Shirin Sohrabi
    • 1
  • Nataliya Prokoshyna
    • 1
  • Sheila A. McIlraith
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations