Anda di halaman 1dari 7

Proceedings of International Conference on Computing Sciences

WILKES100 ICCS 2013


ISBN: 978-93-5107-172-3
Review on semantic web service processes
Aditya Khampariya
1*
and Babita Pandey
2

2
Assistant Professor, Department of Computer Applications, Lovely Professional University, PB, India
Abstract
The Semantic web is a vision, the idea of having data on the web defined and linked in a way that it can be used by machine
not just for display purposes, but for automation, integration and reuse of data across applications. Semantic web services or
agents help us to find what we are looking for on the semantic web. Applying semantics in web process lifecycle helps to
address critical issues in reuse, integration, scalability. In this paper we discussed comparative study of various web service
processes like discovery, selection, composition, matchmaking, monitoring, assessment, prediction, orchestration and
suggested optimal services to be opted by user based on their requirement.
2013 Elsevier Science. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Semantic web, semantic service, selection, composition of service, orchestration.
1. Introduction
In todays scenario web is not an information retriever but only a location finder. The information has to be
retrieved by human being from source documents location shown by web. This is because web contents are not
machine process able so to present these web contents in machine process able form there comes a phenomenon
known as semantic web. Semantic Web is an extension of current web, in which information is given well-
defined meaning, better enabling computer and people to work in cooperation [1]. It comprises of semantic
annotations, ontologies, logical support, languages, tools, applications and services. Semantic web contents can
not only be explained in natural language form but it can be expressed in a form that can be understood,
interpreted and used by software agents, thus permitting them to find, share and integrate information more
easily. Semantic web services are considered as self-contained, self-describing, modular applications that can be
published, located and invoked across the semantic web. Semantic web services will allow automatic and
semiautomatic annotations, discovery, selection, composition, matchmaking, advertisement and execution of
business logics with help of internet and enables third party organizations and individuals to communicate with
each other and provide scalable, reliable value added services which can be reused[4]. The combinations of
various web services make web processes which helps users to take their decisions.
In this paper major concern focused on comparative based study of various web services processes, how these
services can be used by several authors either through method of Artificial planning, work flow based, agent
based, QOS based[2] etc. to fulfill their needs .Major concerned here is to suggest an approach to select, retrieve,
compose suitable services methods which user can opt to design their applications or to fulfill their tasks, based
on literature survey or comparative study of processes like discovery, selection, composition etc. Some
observations which covered in this paper like which technology and tool used by various authors and how they
perform their research methods by using appropriate techniques.
The paper has been structured as apart from introduction in Section I, Section II covers a brief view of various
semantic web service processes, Section III covers our observation and discussions on each of these web service
processes, including various applicability features with different languages and tools on different platforms and
finally paper has been concluded with Section IV.
*
Corresponding author - Aditya khampariya
387 Elsevier Publications, 2013
Aditya Khamparia and Babita Panday
2. Overview on semantic web service processes
Now a days semantic web system are much more powerful by introducing various new Artificial planning,
rule based, matchmaking, case based reasoning, theorem proving, particle swarm optimization, context based
techniques. Due to internet portability, scalability, accessibility, reusability and availability these semantic based
systems are much in demand [5]. These systems provide services to clients so that information can be easily
invoked and accessed across the web. Various complex applications can be developed with help of combining
several homogeneous and heterogeneous services. To satisfy client request some of appropriate services has to be
opted based on various web services processes like discovery, selection, composition, matchmaking, monitoring,
advertisement, orchestration etc.
In semantic web service domain, semantics can be classified into different types like functional semantic, data
semantic, QoS and data semantics [1]. These semantics are used to represent capabilities, requirements, effects
and execution of web service. In functional semantic matching between inputs and outputs of the services and
requirements can be tested. Data semantic helpful in matching semantics of input and output data of web service
with semantics of user. QoS semantics involves locating the service and provide best quality service among all
available services based on their quality. Execution semantic deals with pattern of flow execution, sequencing of
operations and effects of service invocation.
There are various web services processes available in semantic web as network and technology proceeds; here
some of web services processes have been discussed.
2.1 Discovery
Discovery is the process of locating the services suitable for particular tasks. Semantic service discovery can
be performed in different way depending on service description language, means of service selection and
coordination between different entities [3]. UDDI is a mechanism for registering and discovering web services. It
allows how services interact with each other. A web service discovery process can be carried out in three ways,
first step is the advertisement of web services by developers, in second step web service is requested by user
through some repository, final step is to selection and invocation of retrieved web services. Discovery of web
service mainly depend on how user requirements can be interpreted and how they are matched with available
services. Now here by listing some discovery approaches proposed till now.
Table 1. Comparative view of discovery approaches
Author Name Approach Used
Tools/ Languages/
models
Advantages Disadvantages
Nawz @ [7]
Publish Subscribe
Model
OWL-S
Time required for
web service
discovery is
reduced,
probability of
finding suitable
service increases
Adds Overheads in
developing and
maintaining new
components in
architecture
Rong and Liu [8]
Context aware web
service discovery
PLSA (Probabilistic
Latent semantic
analysis)
Request and result
optimization,
better than
traditional
keyword matching
Make system
architecture more
complex when new
attributes
introduced.
388 Elsevier Publications, 2013
Review on semantic web service processes
Zhou @ [9]
Keyword based
clustering
Bipartite graph
Helps in semantic
reasoning to find
matching services.
Implementation is
complex
Grigori @ [10]
BPEL process
ranking using graph
matching
BPEL (Business
process execution
language)
Behavioral
matching used for
approx. matching
web services.
Completely based
on syntax, no
semantic is defined.
Rajendran and
Balasubramanie
[11]
Agent based
discovery considering
QoS
Based on QoS
Parameters
Time required to
select best suitable
service decreases
if best QoS
parameters
considered
Dependent on QoS
Parameters apart
from more concern
over agents
semantics
Tsai and HWANG
[12] Hybrid Approach
Ontology based
OWL, and Keyword
matching service
Gives better result
after combining
both ontology and
keyword.
Individual approach
not supported either
ontology or
keyword.
2.2 Service Selection
Service selection is the process of selecting most appropriate service among the available services suitable for
particular task. It is the step of deciding which service is suitable to take to finally finish the task. There are two
approaches used to deal with web services i.e. Web socio semantic and pragmatic web [5]. In first approach
ontologies are developed using logical, situational approach to establish agreements. Pragmatic web consists of
set of pragmatic context of semantic resources.
Table 2. Comparative view of Selection approaches
Author name Approach
Tools/models/
languages
Advantages Disadvantages
Rey [13]
Selection based on
matchmaking
DAML-S
Degree of similarity
found easily between
requested and
provided service
Similarity not
achieved without
using description
logic.
Krishnaswamy and
Loke [14]
Based on Quality of
service using Multi
agent systems and
QoS Ontology
Response time, cost
and reputation based
model
Assessment of
reputation
communication and
reasoning among
agents easier
Objective function
required to find
better services.
Bonatti and Festa
[15]
Optimal service
selection based on
QoS
Accuracy,
performance, cost,
speed of retrieval
Fast retrieval of web
service components
with less complexity
Tedious in terms of
effectiveness.
Gandon and Sadeh
[16]
Selection
Based on context
XSLT and
SOAP
Contextual
characteristic of
media, network
preferences and
Context incorporates
overhead to choose
suitable web
services sometimes.
389 Elsevier Publications, 2013
Aditya Khamparia and Babita Panday
access right of user.
Behr@ [17] Context adaptation XSLT
Portability, ease of
access,
responsiveness
Complex application
not supported
Maxmilien and
Singh [20]
Based on
configurable web
services
Simulation used
Personalized
selection strategies,
interoperability
Overhead on system
architecture
increased.
Pashtan@ [18]
Negotiation between
provider and
requestor
Agent based
framework
More preference for
pragmatic service,
ontology base
Rules, information
and policy need to
formalize.
2.3 Service Composition
Service composition is used to generate aggregated service by integration of several independent component
services for satisfying a client request that cant be satisfied by single available service. There are two types of
composition methods i.e. automatic based and semi-automatic based composition methods [2]. Automation to
web service composition means that either method can generate the process model automatically or method can
locate correct services if suitable abstract model is given. There are mainly six phases which are covered in
automation composition like presentation of service, translation of language, generation of composition process
model, evaluation and execution of composite service. It provides a standard based approach to create high level
business process. Standards are designed to reduce the complexity required to compose web services hence
reducing time and costs, and increase overall efficiency in business. Composition standards do not provide direct
support for security.
Table 3. Comparative view of composition approaches
Author name Approach
Models/Tools/
languages
Advantages Disadvantages
Casati @ [21] Work Flow Eflow tool
Specification,
enactment and
management of
composite services
with dynamic and
static method
Abstract model has
to build before
composition in static
method.
Sandeep kumar and
Mishra [4]
Multi agent based
Multi agent based
composition model
using OWL, RDF.
Handling
negotiation
condition and
validating input
request
More dependent on
coordinator agent
selection
Rao and Sau [2]
Artificial
intelligence based
OWL-S
Generate plan
automatically, based
on theorem
deductions, rule
planning
Process model cant
be generated
automatically
Sometimes if user
constraint doesnt
match
Masoud and Bayati
[6]
Promothee method
and non- functional
parameters
OWL-S,WSDL-S
Multicriteria decisn
select best
compositn among
possible comp
Hierarchy of non -
functional parameter
can be increased
390 Elsevier Publications, 2013
Review on semantic web service processes
3. Observation and Discussion
Several approaches have been discussed for discovery, selection and composition of semantic web services,
here by describing which method is suitable for end user based on requirement of their application either it is
model based, platform and language based. From detailed study of discovery approaches it has been observed
that agent based discovery suggested by Rajendran [11] is suitable for selecting QoS parameters as it reduced the
time to select best possible web service, whereas hybrid approach from Tsai and Hwang [12] worked on OWL-S
platform and after combined with ontology and keyword based matching service produced efficient service
discovery. Various approaches similarly suggested for selection in which multi-agent system and QoS ontology
from krishnaswamy [14], Festa, Luke [15] made communication and reasoning among agent easier to facilitate
exact selection of web service based on user needs. Among service composition based methods preferred
approaches of Rao [2] is better in which discussion regarding Artificial intelligence based method dependent on
rule based and theorem proving deductions has better advantage compared to work flow methods as it generates
plan automatically for user to compose available web services. Sandeep Kumar [4] proposed multi-agent based
composition model on OWL-S and RDF which validates the input request of user and handled the negotiation
conditions.
4. Conclusions
In this paper comparative study has been discussed keeping an overview of recent progresses in discovery,
selection and composition of web services with their advantages and disadvantages. Each methods has their own
impact some are based on location discovery, information retrieval and others to compose services with help of
individual component available services. Several approaches with their merits and demerits being discussed like
workflow, artificial planning, multi agent and several QoS based method to provide help to end user through
available semantic services depending on use of their application.
References
[1] Kuldeep Kumar, Sandeep Kumar, IJ CTE Vol 1., Some observations on semantic web service processes, tools and applications, pp. 42-
45,2009.
[2] J inghai Rao, Xiaomeng su, springer link, A survey of automated web services composition methods, pp. 43-54, 2005.
[3] Debajyoti Mukhopadhyay, Archana Chougule, springer link, A survey on web services discovery approach, pp. 1001-1012, 2012.
[4] Sandeep Kumar, R.B Mishra, Multi-agent based semantic web service composition models, pp. 123-134, 2008.
[5] Nabil Keskes, AJ ER, Vol. 2, Context of QoS in web service selection, pp. 120-126, 2013.
[6] Masoud Goli, Shahab Bayati, Ahmad Farahi, Ardeshir, Hasan, Selecting suitable web service composition using Promothee method and
non-functional parameters, pp. 321-325, 2011.
[7] Nawaz, F., Qadir, K., Farooq Ahmad, H.: SEMREG-Pro: A Semantic based Registry for Proactive Web Service Discovery using Publish
Subscribe Model. In: Fourth International Conference on Semantics, Knowledge and Grid. IEEE Xplore, 2008.
[8] Rong, W., Liu, K.: A Survey of Context Aware Web Service Discovery: From Users Perspective. In: Fifth IEEE International
Symposium on Service Oriented System Engineering, 2010.
[9] Zhou, J ., Zhang, T., Meng, H., Xiao, L., Chen, G., Li, D., Web Service Discovery based on Keyword clustering and ontology, 2007.
[10] Grigori, D., Corrales, J .C., Bouzeghoub, M., Gater, A.: Ranking BPEL Processes for Service Discovery . IEEE Transactions on
Services Computing, J uly-September 2010.
[11] Rajendran, T., Balasubramanie, P.: An Optimal Agent-Based Architecture for Dynamic Web Service Discovery with QoS. In: Second
International Conference on Computing, Communication and Networking Technologies, IEEE-Xplore, 2010.
[12] Tsai, Y.-H., Hwang, S.-Y., Tang, Y.: A Hybrid Approach to Automatic Web Services Discovery, In: International J oint Conference on
Service Sciences. IEEE Xplore, 2011.
[13] Christophe Rey, Dynamic discovery of e-services: a Description Logics based approach. Symposium on the Effectiveness of Logic in
Computer Sciences (ELICS02) in Honour of Moshe Vardi Poster Presentation, 2002.
[14] Padovitz, S. Krishnaswamy, S. Wai Loke, Towards Efficient Selection of Web services, 17th IEEE International Conference on
Volume, Issue, 16-16 Nov, Page(s):5 pp. 376, 2005.
[15] Bonatti, P. Festa, On Optimal Service Selection, Proceedings of the 14th international conference on World Wide Web, Chiba, J apan,
pp. 530 538, 2005.
[16] Gandon F. Sadeh N, Semantic Web Technologies to Reconcile Privacy and Context Awareness J ournal of Web Semantic, vol .1, n3,
pp.241-260, 2005.
391 Elsevier Publications, 2013
Aditya Khamparia and Babita Panday
[17] Behr G, Brunei L., Pierson J .M, Modeling Service-Based Multimedia Contents Adaptation in Pervasive Computing, Actes de la 1ere
Conference Computing Frontiers, Ischia, Italie, ACM Press, pp. 60-90, 2004.
[18] Pashtan A. Heusser A, Sheuermann P, Personal Service Areas for Mobile Web Applications. IEEE Internet Computing, vol.8, n 6, pp.
34-39, 2004.
[19] Keidl M., Kemper A, Toward Context-Aware Adaptable Web Services, Actes de 13eme conference WWW, New York, USA, pp. 55-
65, 2004.
[20] Maximilien and P. Singh, Multi agent System for Dynamic Web Services Selection, IEEE Internet Computing, Volume 8,Issue 5,
pp.84- 93, 2004.
[21] F. Casati, M. Sayal, and M.-C. Shan, Developing e-services for composing eservices. In Proceedings of 13th International Conference
on Advanced Information Systems Engineering (CAiSE), Interlaken, Switzerland, J une 2001.
392 Elsevier Publications, 2013
Index

B
Binarization, 382

C
Count of words, 383

M
Morphological operators, 382

O
Optical character recognition (OCR), 381
accuracy of process, 384385
advantages, 385
binarization, 382
future extension, 385386
morphological operators, 382
segmentation, 382383

R
Recognised word
defined, 383

S
Segmentation, 382383