Comparing Approaches for Semantic Service Description and Matchmaking

Matching descriptions of user requirements against descriptions of service capabilities is crucial for the discovery of appropriate services for a given task. To improve the precision of approaches that consider only syntactical aspects of matchmaking (e.g. UDDI) several approaches for semantic matchmaking have been proposed. We compare two approaches with respect to their potentials for matchmaking between semantic descriptions of geoinformation services. The State-based Approach uses the Web Ontology Language and the Rule Markup Language to describe inputs, outputs, preconditions and effects. In the Algebraic Approach, abstract data types are specified to capture domain knowledge. The specific data types used in a service model referred to these shared concepts. In order to make the specifications executable and to enable matchmaking a functional programming language (Haskell) is used in this approach. For a scenario from the domain of disaster management, both approaches are tested for one specific type of match.

[1]  Hartmut Ehrig,et al.  Fundamentals of Algebraic Specification 1: Equations and Initial Semantics , 1985 .

[2]  Ian Horrocks,et al.  A software framework for matchmaking based on semantic web technology , 2003, WWW '03.

[3]  Paul Hudak The Haskell School of Expression: Learning Functional Programming through Multimedia , 1999 .

[4]  Takahiro Kawamura,et al.  Semantic Matching of Web Services Capabilities , 2002, SEMWEB.

[5]  Anni-Yasmin Turhan,et al.  RACE User's Guide and Reference Manual Version 1.1 , 1999 .

[6]  James A. Hendler,et al.  The Semantic Web — ISWC 2002 , 2002, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[7]  Matthias Klusch,et al.  Interoperability among Heterogeneous Software Agents on the Internet , 1998 .

[8]  Volker Haarslev,et al.  RACER User''s Guide and Reference Manual Version 1. 6. University of Hamburg, Computer Science De , 2001 .

[9]  Peyton Jones,et al.  Haskell 98 language and libraries : the revised report , 2003 .

[10]  Deborah L. McGuinness,et al.  Bringing Semantics to Web Services: The OWL-S Approach , 2004, SWSWPC.

[11]  H. Lan,et al.  SWRL : A semantic Web rule language combining OWL and ruleML , 2004 .

[12]  Shige Peng UDDI Technical White Paper , 2000 .

[13]  Werner Kuhn,et al.  A Specification Language for Interoperable GIS , 1999 .

[14]  Ewa Orlowska,et al.  Service-Oriented Computing - ICSOC 2003 , 2003, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[15]  Deborah L. McGuinness,et al.  OWL Web ontology language overview , 2004 .

[16]  Andrew U. Frank,et al.  Specifying Open GIS with Functional Languages , 1995, SSD.

[17]  V. Stavridou,et al.  Abstraction and specification in program development , 1988 .

[18]  Damir Medak,et al.  EXECUTABLE AXIOMATIC SPECIFICATION USING FUNCTIONAL LANGUAGE - CASE STUDY: BASE ONTOLOGY FOR A SPATIO-TEMPORAL DATABASE , 1997 .

[19]  M. Raubal,et al.  IMPLEMENTING SEMANTIC REFERENCE SYSTEMS , 2003 .

[20]  Richard S. Bird,et al.  Introduction to functional programming , 1988, Prentice Hall International series in computer science.

[21]  Martin Gogolla,et al.  Algebraische Spezifikation abstrakter Datentypen , 1989 .

[22]  Max J. Egenhofer,et al.  Advances in Spatial Databases , 1997, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[23]  Werner Kuhn,et al.  Modeling the Semantics of Geographic Categories through Conceptual Integration , 2002, GIScience.

[24]  Takahiro Kawamura,et al.  Preliminary Report of Public Experiment of Semantic Service Matchmaker with UDDI Business Registry , 2003, ICSOC.

[25]  Matthias Klusch,et al.  Larks: Dynamic Matchmaking Among Heterogeneous Software Agents in Cyberspace , 2002, Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems.

[26]  Gerd Wagner,et al.  Design Rationale for RuleML: A Markup Language for Semantic Web Rules , 2001, SWWS.