On the Composability of Semantic Web Services

  • Brahim Medjahed
  • Zaki Malik
  • Salima Benbernou


In this chapter, we propose a multilevel composability model for automatically checking the composability of semantic Web services. The model is defined by a set of rules called composability rules. Each rule specifies the constraints and requirements for checking horizontal and vertical composability. The model provides support for partial and total composability via the notions of composability degree and \(\tau \)-composability. Then, we describe rules dealing with static semantic, dynamic semantic, and business process composability. Finally, we discuss future research directions in the area of service composition.


Cloud Service Service Composition Composite Service Composability Rule Situation Calculus 
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.


  1. 1.
    Alonso, G., Casati, F., Kuno, H., Machiraju, V.: Web Services: Concepts, Architecture, and Applications. Springer, Berlin, ISBN: 3540440089 (2003)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baresi, L., Guinea, S.: An introduction to self-healing web services. In: International Conference on Engineering of Complex Computer Systems, p. 4, June 2005Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    BEA, IBM, Microsoft: Business Process Execution Language for Web Services (BPEL4WS).
  4. 4.
    Benatallah, B., Dumas, M., Shen, M., Ngu, A.H.H.: Declarative composition and peer-to-peer provisioning of dynamic web services. In: ICDE Conference, pp. 297–308, CA, USA, Feb 2002Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Berners-Lee, T., Hendler, J., Lassila, O.: The semantic web. Sci. Am. 284(5), 34–43 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bertino, E., Paci, F., Ferrini, R., Shang, N.: Privacy-preserving digital identity management for cloud computing. IEEE Data Eng. Bull. 32(1), 21–27 (2009)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bouguettaya, A., Nepal, S., Sherchan, W., Zhou, X., Wu, J., Chen, S., Liu, D., Li, L., Wang, H., Liu, X.: End-to-end service support for mashups. IEEE Trans. Serv. Comput. 3(3), 250–263 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Casati, F., Ilnicki, S., Jin, L., Krishnamoorthy, V., Shan, M.-C.: Adaptive and dynamic service composition in eFlow. In: CAiSE Conference, pp. 13–31, Stockholm, Sweden, June 2000Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Doan, A., Madhavan, J., Dhamankar, R., Domingos, P., Halevy, A.: Learning to match ontologies on the semantic web. VLDB J. 12(4), 309–319 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    ebXML.:, 2003
  11. 11.
    Eugster, P.Th., Felber, P., Guerraoui, R., Kermarrec, A.-M.: The many faces of publish/subscribe. ACM Comput. Surv. 35(2), 114–131 (2003)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fensel, D.: Ontologies: A Silver Bullet for Knowledge Management and Electronic Commerce. Springer, Berlin, ISBN: 3540003029 (2003)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Georgakopoulos, D., Schuster, H., Cichocki, A., Baker, D.: Managing process and service fusion in virtual enterprises. Inf. Syst. 24(6), 429–456 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ghosh, D., Sharman, R., Rao, H.R., Upadhyaya, S.: Self-healing systems—survey and synthesis. Decis. Support Syst. 42, 2164–2185 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gribble, S.D., Brewer, E.A., Hellerstein, J.M., Culler, D.: Scalable, distributed data structures for internet service construction. In: Proceedings of the Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation, pp. 319–332, San Diego, CA, USA, Oct 2000Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hayes, B.: Cloud computing. Commun. ACM 51(7), 9–11 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jhingran, A.: Enterprise information mashups: integrating information, simply. In: VLDB, pp. 3–4, 2006Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kuper, G.M., Simeon, J.: Subsumption for XML types. In: ICDT Conference, pp. 331–345, London, UK, Jan 2001Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lazcano, A., Alonso, G., Schuldt, H., Schuler, C.: The WISE approach to electronic commerce. Int. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. Eng. 15(5), 343–355 (2000)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Leavitt, N.: Is cloud computing really ready for prime time? IEEE Comput. 42(1), 15–20 (2009)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lin, D., Squicciarini, A.C.: Data protection models for service provisioning in the cloud. In: SACMAT, pp. 183–192, 2010Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Di Lorenzo, G., Hacid, H., Paik, H.-Y., Benatallah, B.: Data integration in mashups. SIGMOD Rec. 38(1), 59–66 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    McDermott, D.V.: Estimating-regression planning for interactions with web services. In: International Conference on Artificial Intelligence Planning Systems, pp. 204–211, Toulouse, France, Apr 2002Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    McIlraith, S.A., Son, T.C.: Adapting Golog for composition of semantic web services. In: 8th International Conference on Principles and Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR-02), pp. 482–496, Toulouse, France, 2002Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Mclraith, S.A., Son, T.C., Zeng, H.: Semantic web services. IEEE Intell. Syst. 16(2), 46–53 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Medjahed, B., Benatallah, B., Bouguettaya, A., Ngu, A., Elmagarmid, A.: Business-to-business interactions: issues and enabling technologies. VLDB J. 12(1), 59–85 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Medjahed, B., Bouguettaya, A.: Service Composition for the Semantic Web. Springer, Berlin, ISBN: 9781441984647 (2011)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Medjahed, B., Bouguettaya, A., Elmagarmid, A.: Composing web services on the semantic web. VLDB J. 12(4), 333–351 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Mika, P., Tummarello, G.: Web semantics in the clouds. IEEE Intell. Syst. 23(5), 82–87 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Papazoglou, M.P., Traverso, P., Dustdar, S., Leymann, F.: Service-oriented computing: a research roadmap. Int. J. Cooperative Inf. Syst. 17(2), 223–255 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Payne, T.R., Paolucci, M., Sycara, K.: Advertising and matching DAML-S service descriptions (position paper). In: International Semantic Web Working Symposium, pp. 76–78, CA, USA, July 2001Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Ponnekanti, S.R., Fox, A.: SWORD: a developer toolkit for web service composition. In: Proceedings of the International World Wide Web Conference, pp. 83–107, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA, May 2002Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Rosenberg, F., Müller, M.B., Leitner, P., Michlmayr, A., Bouguettaya, A., Dustdar, S.: Metaheuristic optimization of large-scale QoS-aware service compositions. In: IEEE SCC, pp. 97–104, 2010Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Sabbouh, M., Higginson, J., Semy, S., Gagne, D.: Web mashup scripting language. In: WWW, pp. 1305–1306, 2007Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Salfner, F., Lenk, M., Malek, M.: A survey of online failure prediction methods. ACM Comput. Surv. 42(3), Article 3, 1–42 (2010)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Schuster, H., Baker, D., Cichocki, A., Georgakopoulos, D., Rusinkiewicz, M.: The collaboration management infrastructure. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Data Engineering, pp. 485–487, San Jose, CA, USA, Mar 2000Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Schuster, H., Georgakopoulos, D., Cichocki, A., Baker, D.: Modeling and composing service-based and reference process-based multi-enterprise processes. In: CAiSE Conference, pp. 247–263, Stockholm, Sweden, June 2000Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Singh, M.P.: Physics of service composition. IEEE Internet Comput. 5(3), 6 (2001)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Sirin, E., Parsia, B., Hendler, J.: Filtering and selecting semantic web services with interactive composition techniques. IEEE Intell. Syst. 19(4), 42–49 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Sycara, K., Klush, M., Widoff, S.: Dynamic service matchmaking among agents in open information environments. ACM SIGMOD Rec. 28(1), 47–53 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Want, R., Pering, T., Tennenhouse, D.L.: Comparing autonomic and proactive computing. IBM Syst. J. 42(1), 129–135 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Wu, D., Parsia, B., Hendler, J., Nau, D.: Automating DAML-S web services composition using SHOP2. In: International Semantic Web Conference, pp. 195–210, FL, USA, Oct 2003Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Yu, Q., Bouguettaya, A.: Framework for web service query algebra and optimization. TWEB 2(1), 1–35 (2008)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Zaremski, A.M., Wing, J.M.: Specification matching of software components. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 6(4), 333–369 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer and Information ScienceUniversity of Michigan–DearbornDearbornUSA
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceWayne State UniversityDetroitUSA
  3. 3.LIPADEUniversité Paris DescartesParisFrance

Personalised recommendations