A Model of User Preferences for Semantic Services Discovery and Ranking

  • José María García
  • David Ruiz
  • Antonio Ruiz-Cortés
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6089)


Current proposals on Semantic Web Services discovery and ranking are based on user preferences descriptions that often come with insufficient expressiveness, consequently making more difficult or even preventing the description of complex user desires. There is a lack of a general and comprehensive preference model, so discovery and ranking proposals have to provide ad hoc preference descriptions whose expressiveness depends on the facilities provided by the corresponding technique, resulting in user preferences that are tightly coupled with the underlying formalism being used by each concrete solution. In order to overcome these problems, in this paper an abstract and sufficiently expressive model for defining preferences is presented, so that they may be described in an intuitively and user-friendly manner. The proposed model is based on a well-known query preference model from database systems, which provides highly expressive constructors to describe and compose user preferences semantically. Furthermore, the presented proposal is independent from the concrete discovery and ranking engines selected, and may be used to extend current Semantic Web Service frameworks, such as wsmo, sawsdl, or owls-s. In this paper, the presented model is also validated against a complex discovery and ranking scenario, and a concrete implementation of the model in wsmo is outlined.


User Preferences Ontology Modeling Semantic Web services Service Discovery Service Ranking 


  1. 1.
    Agrawal, R., Wimmers, E.L.: A framework for expressing and combining preferences. ACM SIGMOD 29(2), 297–306 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Brockmans, S., Volz, R., Eberhart, A., Loffler, P.: Visual modeling of OWL DL ontologies using UML. In: McIlraith, S.A., Plexousakis, D., van Harmelen, F. (eds.) ISWC 2004. LNCS, vol. 3298, pp. 198–213. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chomicki, J.: Preference formulas in relational queries. ACM Transactions on Database Systems (TODS) 28(4), 466 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dobson, G., Lock, R., Sommerville, I.: QoSOnt: a QoS ontology for service-centric systems. In: EUROMICRO-SEAA, pp. 80–87. IEEE Comp. Soc., Los Alamitos (2005)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Farrell, J., Lausen, H.: Semantic annotations for WSDL and XML Schema. Technical report, World Wide Web Consortium (August 2007)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fishburn, P.C.: Utility theory for decision making. Wiley, Chichester (1970)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    García, J.M., Rivero, C., Ruiz, D., Ruiz-Cortés, A.: On using semantic web query languages for semantic web services provisioning. In: The 2009 International Conference on Semantic Web and Web Services (SWWS). CSREA Press (2009)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    García, J.M., Toma, I., Ruiz, D., Ruiz-Cortés, A.: A service ranker based on logic rules evaluation and constraint programming. In: 2nd ECOWS Non-Functional Properties and Service Level Agreements in Service Oriented Computing Workshop, CEUR Workshop Proceedings, Dublin, Ireland, November 2008, vol. 411 (2008)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Iqbal, K., Sbodio, M.L., Peristeras, V., Giuliani, G.: Semantic service discovery using SAWSDL and SPARQL. In: Fourth International Conference on Semantics, Knowledge and Grid, SKG 2008, pp. 205–212 (2008)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Keeney, R.L., Raiffa, H.: Decisions with multiple objectives: Preferences and value tradeoffs. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge (1993)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kerrigan, M.: Web service selection mechanisms in the web service execution environment (WSMX). In: SAC, pp. 1664–1668 (2006)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kießling, W.: Foundations of preferences in database systems. In: VLDB, pp. 311–322. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (2002)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kritikos, K., Plexousakis, D.: Semantic QoS metric matching. In: ECOWS 2006, pp. 265–274. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (2006)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lamparter, S., Ankolekar, A., Studer, R., Grimm, S.: Preference-based selection of highly configurable web services. In: WWW 2007, pp. 1013–1022. ACM, New York (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Liu, Y., Ngu, A.H.H., Zeng, L.: Qos computation and policing in dynamic web service selection. In: WWW (Alt Track Papers & Posters), pp. 66–73 (2004)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    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
  17. 17.
    Palmonari, M., Comerio, M., De Paoli, F.: Effective and Flexible NFP-Based Ranking of Web Services. In: Baresi, L., Chi, C.-H., Suzuki, J. (eds.) ICSOC-ServiceWave 2009. LNCS, vol. 5900, pp. 546–560. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    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, pp. 45–50. ACM Press, New York (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Roman, D., Lausen, H., Keller, U.: Web service modeling ontology (WSMO). Technical Report D2 v1.3 Final Draft, WSMO (2006)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Siberski, W., Pan, J.Z., Thaden, U.: Querying the Semantic Web with Preferences. In: Cruz, I., Decker, S., Allemang, D., Preist, C., Schwabe, D., Mika, P., Uschold, M., Aroyo, L.M. (eds.) ISWC 2006. LNCS, vol. 4273, pp. 612–624. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Steinmetz, N., Toma, I. (eds.): The Web Service Modeling Language WSML. Technical report, WSML, WSML Working Draft D16.1v0.3 (2008)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Toma, I., Roman, D., Fensel, D., Sapkota, B., Gomez, J.M.: A multi-criteria service ranking approach based on non-functional properties rules evaluation. In: Krämer, B.J., Lin, K.-J., Narasimhan, P. (eds.) ICSOC 2007. LNCS, vol. 4749, pp. 435–441. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Vu, L.H., Hauswirth, M., Porto, F., Aberer, K.: A search engine for QoS-enabled discovery of semantic web services. International Journal of Business Process Integration and Management 1(4), 244–255 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    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
  25. 25.
    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

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • José María García
    • 1
  • David Ruiz
    • 1
  • Antonio Ruiz-Cortés
    • 1
  1. 1.Escuela Técnica Superior de Ingeniería InformáticaUniversity of SevilleSevillaSpain

Personalised recommendations