skip to main content
research-article

Automatic annotation of Web services based on workflow definitions

Published:05 May 2008Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Semantic annotations of web services can support the effective and efficient discovery of services, and guide their composition into workflows. At present, however, the practical utility of such annotations is limited by the small number of service annotations available for general use. Manual annotation of services is a time consuming and thus expensive task, so some means are required by which services can be automatically (or semi-automatically) annotated. In this paper, we show how information can be inferred about the semantics of operation parameters based on their connections to other (annotated) operation parameters within tried-and-tested workflows. Because the data links in the workflows do not necessarily contain every possible connection of compatible parameters, we can infer only constraints on the semantics of parameters. We show that despite their imprecise nature these so-called loose annotations are still of value in supporting the manual annotation task, inspecting workflows and discovering services. We also show that derived annotations for already annotated parameters are useful. By comparing existing and newly derived annotations of operation parameters, we can support the detection of errors in existing annotations, the ontology used for annotation and in workflows. The derivation mechanism has been implemented, and its practical applicability for inferring new annotations has been established through an experimental evaluation. The usefulness of the derived annotations is also demonstrated.

References

  1. Belhajjame, K., Embury, S. M., Fan, H., Goble, C. A., Hermjakob, H., Hubbard, S. J., Jones, D., Jones, P., Martin, N., Oliver, S., Orengo, C., Paton, N. W., Poulovassilis, A., Siepen, J., Stevens, R., Taylor, C., Vinod, N., Zamboulis, L., and Zhu, W. 2005. Proteome data integration: Characteristics and challenges. In Proceedings of the UK All Hands Meeting. National e-Science Centre, Nottingham, UK.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Belhajjame, K., Embury, S. M., and Paton, N. W. 2006. On characterising and identifying mismatches in scientific workflows. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Data Integration in the Life Sciences (DILS 06). Springer, 240--247. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Belhajjame, K., Embury, S. M., Paton, N. W., Stevens, R., and Goble, C. A. 2006. Automatic annotation of Web services based on workflow definitions. In Proceedings of the 5th International Semantic Web Conference. Springer, 116--129. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Benatallah, B., Hacid, M.-S., Léger, A., Rey, C., and Toumani, F. 2005. On automating Web services discovery. VLDB J. 14, 1, 84--96. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Berardi, D., Calvanese, D., Giacomo, G. D., Hull, R., and Mecella, M. 2005. Automatic composition of transition-based semantic Web services with messaging. In Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Very Large Data Bases, Trondheim, Norway. 613--624. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Bowers, S. and Ludäscher, B. 2005. Towards automatic generation of semantic types in scientific workflows. In WISE 2005 International Workshops. Springer, 207--216. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Bowers, S. and Ludäscher, B. 2006. A calculus for propagating semantic annotations through scientific workflow queries. In Query Languages and Query Processing Workshop (QLQP'06) in the 10th International Conference on Extending Database Technology. Springer, 712--723. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Bowers, S., McPhillips, T. M., Ludäscher, B., Cohen, S., and Davidson, S. B. 2006. A model for user-oriented data provenance in pipelined scientific workflows. In Proceedings of the International Provenance and Annotation Workshop (IPAW), L. Moreau and I. T. Foster, Eds. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 4145. Springer, 133--147. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Bussler, C., Fensel, D., and Maedche, A. 2002. A conceptual architecture for semantic Web-enabled Web services. SIGMOD Record 31, 4, 24--29. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Cardoso, J. and Sheth, A. P. 2003. Semantic e-workflow composition. J. Intell. Inform. Syst. 21, 3. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Dong, X., Halevy, A. Y., Madhavan, J., Nemes, E., and Zhang, J. 2004. Simlarity search for Web services. In Proceedings of the 30th International Conference on Very Large Data Bases, Toronto, Canada. 372--383. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Goble, C. A., Wolstencroft, K., Goderis, A., Hull, D., Zhao, J., Alper, P., Lord, P., Wroe, C., Belhajjame, K., Turi, D., Stevens, R., and Roure, D. D. 2006. Semantic Web: Revolutionizing Knowledge Discovery in the Life Sciences. Springer Verlag, To appear. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Heß, A., Johnston, E., and Kushmerick, N. 2004. Assam: A tool for semi-automatically annotating semantic Web services. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Semantic Web Conference. Springer, 320--334.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Heß, A. and Kushmerick, N. 2003. Learning to attach semantic metadata to Web services. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Semantic Web Conference. Springer, 258--273.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Hull, D., Zolin, E., Bovykin, A., Horrocks, I., Sattler, U., and Stevens, R. 2006. Deciding semantic matching of stateless services. In Proceedings of the 21st National Conference on Artificial Intelligence and the 18th Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence Conference, MA. AAAI Press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Lerman, K., Plangprasopchok, A., and Knoblock, C. A. 2006. Automatically labeling the inputs and outputs of Web services. In Proceedings of the 21st National Conference on Artificial Intelligence and the 18th Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence Conference. MA. AAAI Press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Lord, P. W., Alper, P., Wroe, C., and Goble, C. A. 2005. Feta: A lightweight architecture for user oriented semantic service discovery. In Proceedings of the 2nd European Semantic Web Conference (ESWC'5). Springer, 17--31. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Lord, P. W., Bechhofer, S., Wilkinson, M. D., Schiltz, G., Gessler, D., Hull, D., Goble, C. A., and Stein, L. 2004. Applying semantic Web services to bioinformatics: Experiences gained, lessons learned. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Semantic Web Conference. Springer, 350--364.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Ludwig, S. A. and Reyhani, S. M. S. 2006. Semantic approach to service discovery in a grid environment. J. Web Sem. 4, 1, 1--13. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Maximilien, E. M. and Singh, M. P. 2004. A framework and ontology for dynamic Web services selection. IEEE Internet Comput. 8, 5. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. McGuinness, D. L. and v. Harmelen, F. 2004. Owl Web ontology language overview. In W3C Recommendation.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. McIlraith, S., Son, T., and Zeng, H. 2001. Semantic Web services. IEEE Intell. Syst. Special Issue on the Semantic Web 16, 2, 46--53. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Medjahed, B., Bouguettaya, A., and Elmagarmid, A. K. 2003. Composing Web services on the semantic Web. VLDB J. 12, 4, 333--351. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Mitchell, T. M. 1997. Machine Learning. Mc Graw Hill. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Mitra, P., Wiederhold, G., and Kersten, M. L. 2000. A graph-oriented model for articulation of ontology interdependencies. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Extending Database Technology (EDBT'00). Springer, 86--100. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Nezhad, H. R. M., Benatallah, B., Casati, F., and Toumani, F. 2006. Web services interoperability specifications. IEEE Computer 39, 5, 24--32. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Oldham, N., Thomas, C., Sheth, A. P., and Verma, K. 2004. METEOR-S Web service annotation framework with machine learning classification. In 1st International Workshop on Semantic Web Services and Web Process Composition (SWSWPC'04). Springer, 137--146. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Patil, A. A., Oundhakar, S. A., Sheth, A. P., and Verma, K. 2004. METEOR-S Web service annotation framework. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on World Wide Web (WWW'04). ACM, New York, NY, 553--562. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Rahm, E. and Bernstein, P. A. 2001. A survey of approaches to automatic schema matching. VLDB J. 10, 4, 334--350. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Senger, M., Rice, P., and Oinn, T. 2003. Soaplab: A unified sesame door to analysis tools. In UK e-Science All Hands Meeting. National e-Science Centre. 509--513.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Sirin, E., Parsia, B., Wu, D., Hendler, J. A., and Nau, D. S. 2004. Htn planning for Web service composition using shop2. J. Web Sem. 1, 4, 377--396. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Sycara, K. P., Paolucci, M., Ankolekar, A., and Srinivasan, N. 2003. Automated discovery, interaction and composition of semantic Web services. J. Web Sem. 1, 1, 27--46.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. Traverso, P. and Pistore, M. 2004. Automated composition of semantic Web services into executable processes. In 3rd International Semantic Web Conference. Springer, 380--394.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Wilkinson, M. 2006. Gbrowse moby: A Web-based browser for biomoby services. Source Code for Biology and Medicine 1, 4, 1--8.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  35. Wroe, C., Goble, C. A., Greenwood, R. M., Lord, P. W., Miles, S., Papay, J., Payne, T. R., and Moreau, L. 2004. Automating experiments using semantic data on a bioinformatics grid. IEEE Intell. Syst. 19, 1, 48--55. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Wroe, C., Stevens, R., Goble, C. A., Roberts, A., and Greenwood, R. M. 2003. A suite of daml+oil ontologies to describe bioinformatics Web services and data. Int. J. Cooper. Inform. Syst. 12, 2, 197--224.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  37. Zhao, J., Wroe, C., Goble, C. A., Stevens, R., Quan, D., and Greenwood, R. M. 2004. Using semantic Web technologies for representing e-science provenance. In 3rd International Semantic Web Conference. Springer, 92--106.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Automatic annotation of Web services based on workflow definitions

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in

    Full Access

    • Published in

      cover image ACM Transactions on the Web
      ACM Transactions on the Web  Volume 2, Issue 2
      April 2008
      158 pages
      ISSN:1559-1131
      EISSN:1559-114X
      DOI:10.1145/1346337
      Issue’s Table of Contents

      Copyright © 2008 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 5 May 2008
      • Accepted: 1 January 2008
      • Revised: 1 December 2007
      • Received: 1 June 2007
      Published in tweb Volume 2, Issue 2

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article
      • Research
      • Refereed

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader