Semantic Annotations and Web Service Retrieval: The URBE Approach

Chapter

Abstract

The goal of this chapter is to discuss how annotating the Web service interfaces can improve the precision of a Web service matchmaking algorithm. To this aim, we adopt Urbe (UDDI Registry By Example) as a matchmaking algorithm for calculating the similarities between two Web service interfaces described using the SAWSDL or WSDL. The approach adopted in Urbe takes into account both the structural and semantic analysis of the interfaces: the former takes into account the number of operations, inputs, and outputs as well as the data types involved; the latter considers the concepts related to the names given to the service, the operations, and the parameters. In case the Web services are described with WSDL, WordNet is used to find the relationships between names. In case of SAWSDL-based descriptions, the analysis is based on the ontologies referred by the annotations.

Keywords

Mixed Integer Linear Programming Average Precision Constraint Logic Programming UDDI Registry Mixed Integer Linear Programming Solver 
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.
    V. Andrikopoulos, S. Benbernou, M.P. Papazoglou, Managing the evolution of service specifications, in Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering, CAiSE ’08 (Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, 2008), pp. 359–374Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    D. Ardagna, M. Comuzzi, E. Mussi, B. Pernici, P. Plebani, PAWS: a framework for executing adaptive web-service processes. IEEE Softw. 24, 39–46, (2007)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    A. Asratian, T. Denley, R. Häggqvist, Bipartite Graphs and Their Applications (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge/New York, 1998)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    S. Ben Mokhtar, A. Kaul, N. Georgantas, V. Issarny, Towards efficient matching of semantic web service capabilities, in Proceedings of International Workshop on Web Services Modeling and Testing (WS-MaTe2006), Palermo, 9 June 2006, pp. 137–152, ed. by A. Bertolino, A. PoliniGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    P.V. Biron, A. Malhotra, XML schema Part 2: datatypes second edition (W3C recommendation) (Oct 2004), http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/. Accessed 04 Mar 2011
  6. 6.
    S. Bistarelli, U. Montanari, F. Rossi, Semiring-based constraint logic programming: syntax and semantics. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 23, 1–29 (2001)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    J. Garofalakis, Y. Panagis, E. Sakkopoulos, A. Tsakalidis, Contemporary web service discovery mechanisms. J. Web Eng. 5(3), 265–290 (2006)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    J.O. Kephart, D.M. Chess, The vision of autonomic computing, IEEE Comput. 36(1), 41–50 (2003)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    H. Kil, S-C. Oh, D. Lee, On the topological landscape of web services matchmaking, in Proceedings of International Workshop on Semantic Matchmaking and Resource Retrieval (VLDB-SMR’06), CEUR, vol. 178 (2006), http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-178/proceedings_SMR_06.pdf
  10. 10.
    M. Klusch, OWL-S and SAWSDL service matchmakers. S3 contest 2008 summary report (Oct 2008), http://www-ags.dfki.uni-sb.de/~klusch/s3/s3c-2008.pdf. Accessed 04 Mar 2011
  11. 11.
    M. Klusch, OWL-S and SAWSDL service matchmakers. S3 contest 2010 summary report (Oct 2010), http://www-ags.dfki.uni-sb.de/~klusch/s3/s3c-2010-summary-report-v2.pdf. Accessed 04 Mar 2011
  12. 12.
    T. Pedersen, S. Patwardhan, J. Michelizzi, WordNet::Similarity – measuring the relatedness of concepts, in Proceedings of National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, San Jose, 25–29 July, 2004, pp. 1024–1025Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    P. Plebani, B. Pernici, URBE: web service retrieval based on similarity evaluation. IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng. 21(11), 1629–1642 (2009)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    F. Rossi, P. van Beek, T. Walsh, Handbook of Constraint Programming (Foundations of Artificial Intelligence) (Elsevier Science Inc., New York, 2006)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    N. Seco, T. Veale, J. Hayes, An intrinsic information content metric for semantic similarity in wordnet, in Proceedings of Eureopean Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI’04), Valencia, Aug 22–27, (IOS Press, Amsterdam, 2004), pp. 1089–1090Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    E. Stroulia, Y. Wang, Structural and semantic matching for assessing web-service similarity. Int. J. Coop. Inf. Syst. 14(4), 407–438 (2005)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sun Microsystems, Code conventions for the Java programming language (Apr 1999), http://java.sun.com/docs/codeconv/html/CodeConvTOC.doc.html. Accessed 04 Mar 2011
  18. 18.
    J. Wang, J. Xiao, C.P. Lam, H. Li, A bipartite graph approach to generate optimal test sequences for protocol conformance testing using the Wp-method, in Proceedings of Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference (APSEC’05), Taipei, 2005, pp. 307–316Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    L. Wolsey, Integer Programming (Wiley, New York, 1998)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    A.M. Zaremski, J.M. Wing, Signature matching: a tool for using software libraries. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 4(2), 146–170 (1995)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dipartimento di Elettronica ed InformazionePolitecnico di MilanoMilanItaly

Personalised recommendations