On User Preferences and Utility Functions in Selection: A Semantic Approach

  • José María García
  • David Ruiz
  • Antonio Ruiz-Cortés
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4907)


Discovery tasks in the context of Semantic Web Services are generally performed using Description Logics. However, this formalism is not suited when non-functional, numerical parameters are involved in the discovery process. Furthermore, in selection tasks, where an optimization algorithm is needed, DLs are not capable of computing the optimum. Although there are DLs extensions that can handle numerical parameters, they bring decidability problems. Other solutions, as hybrid approaches which use DLs in functional discovery and other formalisms in non-functional selection, do not provide a semantic framework to describe user preferences based on non-functional properties. In this work, we propose to semantically describe user preferences, so they can be used to perform selection within a hybrid solution. By using semantically described utility functions in order to define user preferences, our proposal enables interoperability between service offers and demands, while providing a high level of expressiveness in these preferences and including them within SWS descriptions.


NFP-based Selection Quality of Services Utility Functions Semantic Web Services 


  1. 1.
    Buswell, S., Caprotti, O., Carlisle, D.P., Dewar, M.C., Gaëtano, M., Kohlhase, M.: The OpenMath standard. Technical Report Version 2.0, The OpenMath Society (2004)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dobson, G., Lock, R., Sommerville, I.: Qosont: a qos ontology for service-centric systems. In: EUROMICRO-SEAA, pp. 80–87. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (2005)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    García, J.M., Ruiz, D., Ruiz-Cortés, A., Martín-Díaz, O., Resinas, M.: An hybrid, QoS-aware discovery of semantic web services using constraint programming. In: Krämer, B.J., Lin, K.-J., Narasimhan, P. (eds.) ICSOC 2007. LNCS, vol. 4749, pp. 69–80. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kritikos, K., Plexousakis, D.: Semantic QoS metric matching. In: ECOWS 2006, pp. 265–274. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (2006)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Liu, Y., Ngu, A.H.H., Zeng, L.: Qos computation and policing in dynamic web service selection. In: WWW (Alternate Track Papers & Posters), pp. 66–73 (2004)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Martin, D., Burstein, M., Hobbs, J., Lassila, O., Mcdermott, D., et al.: OWL-S: Semantic Markup for Web Services. Technical Report 1.1, DAML (2004)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Martín-Díaz, O., Ruiz-Cortés, A., Benavides, D., Durán, A., Toro, M.: A quality-aware approach to web services procurement. In: 4th VLDB Workshop on Technologies for E-services TES 2003, pp. 42–53 (2003)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Maximilien, E.M., Singh, M.P.: A framework and ontology for dynamic web services selection. Internet Computing 8(5), 84–93 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pathak, J., Koul, N., Caragea, D., Honavar, V.G.: A framework for semantic web services discovery. In: WIDM 2005: Proceedings of the 7th annual ACM international workshop on Web information and data management, New York, NY, USA, pp. 45–50. ACM Press, New York (2005)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ran, S.: A model for web services discovery with QoS. SIGecom Exch. 4(1), 1–10 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Roman, D., Lausen, H., Keller, U.: Web Service Modeling Ontology (WSMO). Technical Report D2 v1.3 Final Draft, WSMO (2006)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ruiz-Cortés, A., Martín-Díaz, O., Durán-Toro, A., Toro, M.: Improving the automatic procurement of web services using constraint programming. Int. J. Cooperative Inf. Syst. 14(4), 439–468 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sánchez-Macián, A., López, D., López de Vergara, J.E., Pastor, E.: A framework for the automatic calculation of quality of experience in telematic services. In: 13th HP-OVUA Workshop, Sophia Antipolis, France (May 2006)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Soydan Bilgin, A., Singh, M.P.: A DAML-based repository for QoS-aware semantic Web service selection. In: IEEE International Conference on Web Services, pp. 368–375 (2004)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sycara, K., Paolucci, M., Ankolekar, A., Srinivasan, N.: Automated discovery, interaction and composition of semantic web services. J. Web Sem. 1(1), 27–46 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wang, X., Vitvar, T., Kerrigan, M., Toma, I.: A QoS-Aware Selection Model for Semantic Web Services. In: Dan, A., Lamersdorf, W. (eds.) ICSOC 2006. LNCS, vol. 4294, pp. 390–401. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Zeng, L., Benatallah, B., Ngu, A.H.H., Dumas, M., Kalagnanam, J., Chang, H.: QoS-aware middleware for web services composition. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 30(5), 311–327 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Zhou, C., Chia, L., Lee, B.: DAML-QoS ontology for web services. In: IEEE International Conference on Web Services, pp. 472–479 (2004)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • José María García
    • 1
  • David Ruiz
    • 1
  • Antonio Ruiz-Cortés
    • 1
  1. 1.Escuela Técnica Superior de Ingeniería InformáticaUniversidad de SevillaSevillaEspaña

Personalised recommendations