Skip to main content

Advertisement

Springer Nature Link
Log in

Generalized semantic Web service composition

  • Original Research Paper
  • Published:
Service Oriented Computing and Applications Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

With the increasing popularity of Web Services and Service-Oriented Architecture, we need infrastructure to discover and compose Web services. In this paper, we present a generalized semantics-based technique for automatic service composition that combines the rigor of process-oriented composition with the descriptiveness of semantics. Our generalized approach presented in this paper introduces the use of a conditional directed acyclic graph where complex interactions, containing control flow, information flow, and pre-/post-conditions are effectively represented. Composition solution obtained is represented semantically as OWL-S documents. Web service composition will gain wider acceptance only when users know that the solutions obtained are comprised of trustworthy services. We present a framework that not only uses functional and non-functional attributes provided by the Web service description document but also filters and ranks solutions based on their trust rating that is computed using Centrality Measure of Social Networks. Our contributions are applied for automatic workflow generation in context of the currently important bioinformatics domain. We evaluate our engine for automatic workflow generation of a phylogenetic inference task. We also evaluate our engine for automated discovery and composition on repositories of different sizes and present the results.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Castagna G, Gesbert N, Padovani L (2008) A theory of contracts for web services. ACM SIGPLAN Not 43:261–272

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  2. Bansal A, Patel K, Gupta G, Raghavachari B, Harris ED, Staves JC (2005) Towards intelligent services: a case study in chemical emergency response. In: IEEE International conference on web services (ICWS)

  3. McIlraith SA, Son TC, Zeng H (2001) Semantic web services. IEEE Intell Syst 16(2):46–53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Mandell DJ, McIlraith SA (2003) Adapting BPEL4WS for the semantic web: the bottom-up approach to web service interoperation. In: The semantic web-ISWC. Springer 2003, pp 227–241

  5. Paolucci M, Kawamura T, Payne TR, Sycara K (2002) Semantic matching of web services capabilities. In: The semantic Web–ISWC. Springer 2002, pp 333–347

  6. Rao J, Dimitrov D, Hofmann P, Sadeh N (2006) A mixed initiative approach to semantic web service discovery and composition: SAP’s guided procedures framework. In: International conference on web services. ICWS’06, 2006, pp 401–410

  7. Cardoso J, Sheth AP (2006) Semantic web services, processes and applications. Springer, Berlin

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  8. Edwards AWF, Cavalli-Sforza LL (1964) Reconstruction of evolutionary trees, systematics association publication number 6, No. Phenetic and Phylogenetic Classification, pp 67–76

  9. Freeman LC (1979) Centrality in social networks conceptual clarification. Social Netw 1(3):215–239

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Wasserman SF (1994) Social network analysis: methods and applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  11. Tamura K, Peterson D, Peterson N, Stecher G, Nei M, Kumar S (2011) MEGA5: molecular evolutionary genetics analysis using maximum likelihood, evolutionary distance, and maximum parsimony methods. Mol Biol Evol 28(10):2731–2739

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Thompson JD, Higgins DG, Gibson TJ (1994) CLUSTAL W: improving the sensitivity of progressive multiple sequence alignment through sequence weighting, position-specific gap penalties and weight matrix choice. Nucleic Acids Res 22(22):4673–4680

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Edgar RC (2004) MUSCLE: multiple sequence alignment with high accuracy and high throughput. Nucleic Acids Res 32(5):1792–1797

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Badr Y, Caplat G (2010) Software-as-a-service and versionology: towards innovative service differentiation. In: 24th IEEE international conference on advanced information networking and applications (AINA), 2010, pp 237–243

  15. Kona S, Bansal A, Blake MB, Gupta G (2008) Generalized semantics-based service composition. In: IEEE international conference on web services (ICWS), pp 219–227

  16. Rao J, Su X (2005) A survey of automated web service composition methods. In: Cardoso J, Sheth A (eds) Semantic web services and web process composition. Springer, Berlin, pp 43–54

  17. Srivastava B, Koehler J (2003) Web service composition-current solutions and open problems. In: ICAPS 2003 workshop on planning for web services, vol 35, pp 28–35

  18. McIlraith S, Son TC (2002) Adapting golog for composition of semantic web services. KR 2:482–493

    Google Scholar 

  19. Pistore M, Roberti P, Traverso P (2005) Process-level composition of executable web services: on-the-fly versus once-for-all composition. In: Gomez-Perez A, Euzenat J (eds) The semantic web: research and applications. Springer, Berlin, pp 62–77

  20. Boustil A, Maamri R, Sahnoun Z (2013) A semantic selection approach for composite web services using OWL-DL and rules. Serv Oriented Comput Appl 8:1–18

  21. Claro DB, Albers P, Hao JK (2005) Selecting web services for optimal composition. In ICWS international workshop on semantic and dynamic web processes, Orlando-USA

  22. Suvee D, De Fraine B, Cibrán MA, Verheecke B, Joncheere N, Vanderperren W (2005) Evaluating FuseJ as a web service composition language. In: Third IEEE European conference on web services (ECOWS)

  23. Dong W, Jiao L (2008) QoS-aware Web service composition based on SLA. In: Fourth international conference on natural computation (ICNC) vol 5, pp 247–251

  24. Yan J, Kowalczyk R, Lin J, Chhetri MB, Goh SK, Zhang J (2007) Autonomous service level agreement negotiation for service composition provision. Future Gener Comput Syst 23(6):748–759

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Wada H, Champrasert P, Suzuki J, Oba K (2008) Multiobjective optimization of SLA-aware service composition. In: IEEE congress on services-Part I, pp 368–375

  26. Blake MB (2007) Decomposing composition: service-oriented software engineers. IEEE Softw 24(6):68–77

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  27. Zeng L, Benatallah B, Ngu AH, Dumas M, Kalagnanam J, Chang H (2004) QoS-aware middleware for web services composition. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 30(5):311–327

  28. Cardoso J, Sheth A, Miller J, Arnold J, Kochut K (2004) Quality of service for workflows and web service processes. Web Semant 1(3):281–308

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Zhao X, Shen LW, Peng X, Zhao W (2013) Finding preferred skyline solutions for SLA-constrained service composition. In: 2013 IEEE 20th international conference on web services (ICWS), pp 195–202

  30. Feng Y, Ngan LD, Kanagasabai R (2013) Dynamic service composition with service-dependent QoS attributes. In: 2013 IEEE 20th international conference on web services (ICWS), pp 10–17

  31. “OWL-S”. [Online]. http://www.w3.org/Submission/OWL-S/. (Accessed: 22-Jan-2014)

  32. Wen S, Tang C, Li Q, Chiu DK, Liu A, Han X (2014) Probabilistic top-K dominating services composition with uncertain QoS. Serv Oriented Comput Appl 8(1):91–103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Immonen A, Pakkala D (2014) A survey of methods and approaches for reliable dynamic service compositions. Serv Oriented Comput Appl 8(2):129–158

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Mehdi M, Bouguila N, Bentahar J (2013) A QoS-based trust approach for service selection and composition via Bayesian networks. In: 2013 IEEE 20th international conference on web services (ICWS), pp 211–218

  35. Kuter U, Golbeck J (2009) Semantic web service composition in social environments. Springer, Berlin

    Book  Google Scholar 

  36. Leavitt HJ (1951) Some effects of certain communication patterns on group performance. J Abnorm Soc Psychol 46(1):38

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  37. Bansal A, Kona S, Simon L, Mallya A, Gupta G, Hite TD (2005) A universal service-semantics description language. In: Third IEEE European conference on web services (ECOWS), pp 214–225

  38. Kona S, Bansal A, Simon L, Mallya A, Gupta G (2009) USDL: a service-semantics description language for automatic service discovery and composition. Int J Web Serv Res 6(1):20–48

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Sterling L, Shapiro EY, Warren DH (1986) The art of Prolog: advanced programming techniques. MIT Press, Cambridge

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  40. Marriott K, Stuckey PJ (1998) Programming with constraints: an introduction. MIT Press, Cambridge

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  41. “RDF/OWL Representation of WordNet”. [Online]. http://www.w3.org/TR/wordnet-rdf/. (Accessed: 23-Jan-2014)

  42. Blake MB, Cheung W, Jaeger MC, Wombacher A (2006) WSC-06: the web service challenge. In: The 3rd IEEE international conference on E-commerce technology, 2006. The 8th IEEE international conference on enterprise computing, E-commerce, and E-services, pp 62–62

  43. Blake MB, Cheung WKW, Jaeger MC, Wombacher A (2007) WSC-07: Evolving the web services challenge. In: The 9th IEEE international conference on E-commerce technology and the 4th IEEE international conference on enterprise computing, E-commerce, and E-services, 2007. CEC/EEE 2007, pp 505–508

  44. Kona S, Bansal A, Gupta G, Hite D (2007) Automatic composition of semantic web services. In: International conference on web services (ICWS), vol 7, pp 150–158

  45. Felsenstein J (2004) Inferring phylogenies, vol 2. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland

  46. Iglesias JR, Gupta G, Pontelli E, Ranjan D, Milligan B (2001) Interoperability between bioinformatics tools: a logic programming approach. In: Practical aspects of declarative languages. Springer, Berlin, pp 153–168

  47. Maddison DR, Swofford DL, Maddison WP (1997) NEXUS: an extensible file format for systematic information. Syst Biol 46(4):590–621

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. “myGrid”. [Online]. http://www.mygrid.org.uk/

  49. “BioPerl”. [Online]. http://www.bioperl.org/wiki/Main_Page

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Arizona State University, Mesa, AZ, USA

    Srividya Bansal & Ajay Bansal

  2. The University of Texas at Dallas, Richardson, TX, USA

    Gopal Gupta

  3. University of Miami, Miami, FL, USA

    M. Brian Blake

Authors
  1. Srividya Bansal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ajay Bansal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  3. Gopal Gupta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  4. M. Brian Blake
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Srividya Bansal.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bansal, S., Bansal, A., Gupta, G. et al. Generalized semantic Web service composition. SOCA 10, 111–133 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11761-014-0167-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11761-014-0167-5

Keywords