Review on Semantic Web Service Processes Aditya Khamparia1 and Babita Pandey2 1
2
Assistant Professor, Department of Computer Science, Lovely Professional University, Phagwara, Punjab (India) – 144806.
Associate Professor, Department of Computer Application, Lovely Professional University, Phagwara, Punjab (India) – 144806. e-mail:
[email protected],
[email protected]
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. Keywords: Semantic web, semantic service, selection, composition of service, orchestration. 1. Introduction In today’s 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, selfdescribing, 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.
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
Nawz @ [7]
Publish Subscribe Model
Rong and Liu [8]
Context aware web service discovery
Zhou @ [9]
Keyword based clustering
Grigori @ [10]
BPEL process ranking using graph matching
Rajendran and Balasubramanie [11]
Agent based discovery considering QoS
Tools/ Languages/ models OWL-S
Advantages
Time required for web service discovery is reduced, probability of finding suitable service increases PLSA Request and (Probabilistic result Latent semantic optimization, analysis) better than traditional keyword matching Bipartite graph Helps in semantic reasoning to find matching services. BPEL (Business Behavioral process execution matching used language) for approx. matching web services. Based on QoS Time required Parameters to select best suitable service decreases if best QoS parameters considered
Disadvantages
Adds Overheads in developing and maintaining new components in architecture
Make system architecture more complex when new attributes introduced. Implementation is complex
Completely based on syntax, no semantic is defined. 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
Rey [13]
Approach Selection based on matchmaking
Based on Krishnaswamy Quality of and Loke [14] service using Multi agent systems and QoS Ontology Bonatti and Optimal Festa [15] service selection based on QoS Gandon and
Selection
Tools/models/ languages DAML-S
Response time, cost and reputation based model
Accuracy, performance, cost, speed of retrieval XSLT and
Advantages
Disadvantages
Degree of similarity found easily between requested and provided service Assessment of reputation communication and reasoning among agents easier Fast retrieval of web service components with less complexity Contextual
Similarity not achieved without using description logic.
Objective function required to find better services. Tedious in terms of effectiveness.
Context
Sadeh [16]
Based on context
SOAP
Behr@ [17]
Context adaptation
XSLT
Maxmilien and Singh [20]
Based on configurable web services
Simulation used
Pashtan@ [18]
Negotiation between provider and requestor
Agent based framework
characteristic incorporates of media, overhead to network choose preferences suitable web and access services right of user. sometimes. Portability, Complex ease of access, application not responsiveness supported Personalized Overhead on selection system strategies, architecture interoperability increased. More Rules, preference for information pragmatic and policy service, need to ontology base 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 can’t 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 Casati @ [21]
Sandeep kumar and Mishra [4]
Approach Work Flow
Multi agent based
Rao and Sau [2]
Artificial intelligence based
Masoud and Bayati [6]
Promothee method and nonfunctional parameters
Models/Tools/ Advantages languages Eflow tool Specification, enactment and management of composite services with dynamic and static method Multi agent Handling based negotiation composition condition and model using validating OWL, RDF. input request Generate plan automatically, OWL-S based on theorem deductions, rule planning OWLS,WSDL-S
Disadvantages Abstract model has to build before composition in static method.
More dependent on coordinator agent selection
Process model can’t be generated automatically Sometimes if user constraint doesn’t match Multicriteria Hierarchy of decisn select non best compositn functional among parameter can possible comp be increased
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, IJCTE Vol 1., “Some observations on semantic web service processes, tools and applications”, pp. 42-45,2009. [2] Jinghai 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, AJER, 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 User’s 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, July-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”, IEEEXplore, 2010. [12] Tsai, Y.-H., Hwang, S.-Y., Tang, Y.: “A Hybrid Approach to Automatic Web Services Discovery”, In: International Joint 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, Japan”, pp. 530 – 538, 2005. [16] Gandon F. Sadeh N, “Semantic Web Technologies to Reconcile Privacy and Context Awareness Journal of Web Semantic”, vol .1, n3, pp.241-260, 2005. [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”, June 2001.
