Semantic Web Services

Journal of Network and Computer Applications ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎
1 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

2
3
4 Journal of Network and Computer Applications
5
6
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jnca
7
8
9
Review
10
11
12
Semantic web services: Standards, applications, challenges
13 and solutions
14
15 Q1 Hassina Nacer a,b, Djamil Aissani c
16
a
Q4
17 Q3 b Computer Science Department A/Mira University of Béjaia, Algeri
Laboratory LIMED, Algeria
18 c
Laboratory LAMOS University A/Mira of Béjaia, Algeria
19
20
21
art ic l e i nf o a b s t r a c t
22
23
Article history: To share Knowledge coming from disparate and heterogeneous environments, we propose the use of
24 Received 28 February 2013 semantic Web services to provide a common Knowledge format and meaning. Semantic Web services
25 Received in revised form would require careful usage of combined technologies. On one hand, XML Web services technology
26 7 December 2013
because of their system agnostic nature and the ease of integration and, on the other hand, the semantic
Accepted 30 April 2014
27 Q5 Web can define and link Web data in a way that it can be understood and used by software agents. This
28 mixed technology may be a solution to functional interoperability, technical interoperabilty, semantic
29 Keywords: interoperability and flexible development in heterogeneous environments using the Internet as the main
Interoperability infrastructure. In this paper a survey of semantic Web services is realized to show that they ensure
30
Distributed middleware
31 interoperability. Four aspects of Web services are presented: (1) Standards of XML Web services
Web services
32 (eXtended Markup Language Web services) and their limits, (2) Languages and Tools of Semantic
Semantic web
Web services composition Annotation, (3) Web Services Composition, and (4) Performance Evaluation. Observations on some new
33
Performance analysis challenges brought by semantic Web services are cited. Furthermore, a comparative study is presented,
34
over the Internet and Intranet, based on numerical results using a discrete event between semantic Web
35 services and distributed middleware, e.g. CORBA (Common Object Request Broker Architecture) and
36 JAVA RMI (JAVA Remote Method Invocation).
37 & 2014 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
38
39 67
40 68
41 69
Contents
42 70
43 71
44 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
72
2. Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
45 73
2.1. Reference architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
46 74
2.1.1. XML . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
47 2.1.2. SOAP: simple object access protocol. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 75
48 2.1.3. WSDL: Web services description language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 76
49 2.1.4. UDDI: universal description, discovery and integration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 77
50 2.2. Observations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 78
51 2.3. Semantic annotations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 79
52 2.3.1. Elementary definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 80
53 2.3.2. Semantic description languages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
81
54 2.3.3. Semantic annotations tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
82
3. Applications: Web services interrogation, functional properties based Web services composition and QoS based Web services composition . . . 7
55 83
3.1. Web services interrogation and exploration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
56 84
3.2. Synthesis of web services composition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
57 85
3.2.1. Properties of composition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
58 3.2.2. Literature review on Web services composition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 86
59 4. Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 87
60 4.1. Performance comparison of JAVA RMI, CORBA and semantic Web services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 88
61 89
62 90
63 E-mail addresses: sino_nacer@yahoo.fr (H. Nacer), lamos_bejaia@hotmail.com (D. Aissani).
91
64 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jnca.2014.04.015 92
65 1084-8045/& 2014 Published by Elsevier Ltd. 93
66
Please cite this article as: Nacer H, Aissani D. Semantic web services: Standards, applications, challenges and solutions. Journal of
Network and Computer Applications (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jnca.2014.04.015i
2 H. Nacer, D. Aissani / Journal of Network and Computer Applications ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎
1 4.1.1. Performance model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 67

2 4.1.2. Experimental results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 68
3 5. Conclusion . . . ....................................................................................................... 15 69
4 References . . . . . . . ....................................................................................................... 16 70
5 71
6 72
7 73
8 74
1. Introduction
9 play an essential role in interoperability because they provide 75
10 structured vocabularies that describe a formal specification of 76
Globalization, cooperation and collaboration have substantially
11 shared conceptualization (Heflin and Hendler, 2000; Wache, 77
changed the software world and have contributed to the emergence
12 2001; Cruz and Xiao, 2003; Lin and Ding, 2005; Tsai, 2007; 78
of Knowledge sharing culture in open and large environments1
13 Gordon et al., 2011). Ontologies contribute to resolve semantic 79
Q6 (Beau et al., 2010; Sinderen, 2008). Actually, an individual human
14 heterogeneity by providing a shared comprehension of a given 80
user cannot produce Knowledge and competencies but by colla-
15 domain of interest. Furthermore, the main challenge of interoper- 81
boration with other human users and companies a rich source of
16 ability and data integration is still ontologies matching. The work 82
Knowledge and competencies can be created. Thus, Knowledge
17 in semantic Web demonstrates how ontologies can be used to 83
representation becomes a central problem (Chein and Mugnier,
18 address interoperability problems at the application level. Speci- 84
1992; Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995; Davenport and Prusak, 1998;
19 fically, ontologies have been used during discovery to express the 85
Gasmi et al., 2010). Knowledge should be used, shared, discovered
20 capabilities of services, as well as the requests for capabilities. 86
and exchanged by any user (Human, Smart industrial device, Robot,
21 Ontologies are used to improve communication between any user 87
Software agent, etc.) in heterogeneous and large environments. To
22 by specifying the semantics of the symbolic apparatus used in the 88
solve the problem, a common format and meaning to represent a
23 communication process. More specifically, Jasper and Uschold 89
Knowledge is used. We refer to this design principle as “generic
24 (1999) identified three major uses of ontologies: (i) to assist in 90
Knowledge”. In order to realize, to represent and to save “generic
25 communication between human beings, (ii) to achieve interoper- 91
Knowledge” over the Web, we propose the use of semantic Web
26 ability among software systems, and (iii) to improve the design 92
services. These latter ones provide the necessary support by
27 and the quality of software systems. 93
defining a standard mechanism for representing, publishing and
28 Semantic Web services were introduced first by McIlraith et al. 94
locating Knowledge.
29 (2001). Their goal was to provide a DAML-enabled agent program- 95
Semantic Web services would require a careful usage of com-
30 ming capability that supports writing generic procedures for Web 96
bined technologies. On one hand, XML Web services technology
31 services-based task. And their vision was that agents will exploit 97
because of their system agnostic nature, the ease of integration and
32 users' constraints and preferences to help customize users' requests 98
communication and, on the other hand, the semantic Web can
33 for automatic Web services discovery, execution, or composition 99
define and link Web data in a way that it can be understood and
34 and interoperation. But none of these ideas were entirely realized in 100
used by software agents. Semantics need to be introduced into the
35 2001. However, these latter ones could be realizable nowadays. 101
services so that functionalities can be identified on the meaning
36 Semantic Web services can ensure interoperability at three levels 102
rather than on the syntax basis. Therefore, adding semantics
37 regarding the most known distributed middleware proposed in the 103
enables structured information to be interpreted unambiguously.
38 literature. 104
This mixed technology may be a solution for interoperability and
39 To our best Knowledge, there exist some research works, in the 105
flexible developments in heterogeneous environments (McIlraith et
40 literature, that gave as overview containing several topics about Web 106
al., 2001).
41 services in the same paper in order to prove that Web services 107
To address interoperability problems in some identified areas of
42 technology contributes to solve the problem of interoperability: 108
research (e.g. Resource Sharing, Competence Sharing, Negotiation,
43 Wang et al. (2004) studied four layers (Service Security, Service 109
Web Services Discovery, Web Services Composition, Web Services
44 Composition, Service Semantic, and Grid Services) in order to show 110
Security and Web Services Interactions, Benna et al., 2008; Boudries
45 that Web services were designed to tackle the problem of integration 111
et al., 2008; Nacer-Talantikite et al., 2009; Gasmi et al., 2010; Niu et
46 of heterogeneous sources and make heterogeneous systems inter- 112
al., 2011; Syncar et al., ; Nacer-Talantikite and Aissani, 2010; Zhou et
47 operable. However, Web services have shortcomings to fully satisfy 113
al., 2011), standards-based approaches have been proposed such as
48 the requirements of interoperability. Cardoso and Sheth (2005) 114
CORBA, JAVA RMI and XML Web services (Nester et al., 1999; Orfali
49 discussed the Web process life cycle phases (Semantic Web Services 115
and Harkey, 1997; Soley and Stone, 1995; Group, 1998; Yu et al.,
50 Annotation, Semantic Web Services Advertisement, Semantic Web 116
2008; http://www.omg.org; http://JAVA.sun.com/j2se/1.4.2/docs/
51 Services Discovery, Semantic Web Services Selection, Semantic 117
guide/rmi/index.html; http://www.WebServices.org; http://www.
52 Process Composition and Execution Web process). They showed that 118
ws-i.org). However, as a new distributed computing infrastructure,
53 Web services promise universal interoperability and integration. 119
XML Web services technology is an effective mechanism for data
54 The key to achieve this relies on the efficiency of discovering 120
and application integration over the Internet. It is characterized by
55 appropriate Web services and composing them to build complex 121
its openness, dynamics, and loose coupling. It provides good
56 processes. Dong et al. (2013) presented a survey of semantic Web 122
support for resources sharing and cooperative works in hetero-
57 Services matchmakers in order to obtain an overview of the state 123
geneous environments. In addition, the arrival of the semantic Web
58 of the art in this research area and to show that Web services provide 124
represents a revolution for Knowledge description and storage.
59 a standard means for the interoperable operations between elec- 125
The semantic Web was defined by Lee et al. (2001) as an
60 tronic devices over the Internet. They summarized six technical 126
extension of the current Web in which Knowledge is given a well-
61 dimensions from the past literature and analyzed the typical 127
defined meaning by using ontologies (Charlet et al., 2003; Perez
62 semantic Web Services matchmakers mostly developed during 128
et al., 2004; http://www.daml.org/ontologies). These latter ones
63 these years. Gayathridevi and Manikandan (2013) presented five 129
64 layers (Standards, the Semantic Web, Representation of Semantic 130
65 1
Large-scale virtual worlds like the Internet such as Pervasive networking Web Services, Semantic Web Services Composition, and Discovery). 131
66 environments and Internet. They showed that there is a lot of interest in finding ways to create 132
H. Nacer, D. Aissani / Journal of Network and Computer Applications ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎ 3
1 Functional Technical Semantic 67

2 68
3 69
4 70
5 Interoperability 71
6 72
7 73
8 74
9 Web
75
10 − Web services interrogation; 76
11 Semantic Web Services 77
XML − Web services composition;
12 78
− Performance evaluation,...
13 79
14 80
15 81
16 Semantic Web XML Web Services 82
17 83
18 Semantic Annotation 84
Ontology
19 85
20 Semantic Matching
86
UDDI SOAP
21 OWL WSDL 87
22 88
23 89
24 90
25 OWL−S 91
26 92
27 93
28 94
29 Fig. 1. Semantic Web services cartography: semantic Web services are a mixture of XML Web services (SOAP, WSDL, UDDI) and semantic Web technologies (ontology, 95
semantic annotation). Semantic Web services are the result of the Web evolution in two directions: adding dynamic elements to the Web and enhancement of the syntactic
30 96
description of Web services. They ensure interoperability at three levels: functional interoperability, technical interoperability and semantic interoperability. The most
31 important applications of semantic Web services are interrogation, composition and performance evaluation. Furthermore, the motivation for these applications is more 97
32 about solving interoperability problems. 98
33 99
34 100
35 an infrastructure where services could be described that should Section 4 summarizes a comparative performance study between 101
36 allow dynamic discovery, composition and invocation with even the semantic Web services and other middlewares such as DCE 102
37 Web services standards and recommendations becoming complex. (Distributed Computing Environment), JAVA RMI, COM/DCOM 103
38 The research around Web Services is intense; several other studies (Component Object Model /Distributed Component Object Model) 104
39 focus on a unique topic of Web services, such as survey on semantic and CORBA. Numerical simulations have been used to evaluate the 105
40 Web (Lee et al., 2001; Perez et al., 2004; Domingue et al., 2004; results. Finally, in Section 5, we give concluding remarks, and we 106
41 Mohebbi et al., 2012), survey on composition (Chakraborty and describe our future work briefly. 107
42 Joshi, 2001; Zheng et al., 2010; Bartalos and Bielikova, 2011; 108
43 Portchelvi et al., 2012; http://www.w3.org/Submission/OWL-S), 109
44 and survey on comparison between middlewares (Juric et al., 110
45 2004; Gray, 2005; Narang et al., 2006; Artemio et al., 2012). 2. Standards 111
46 The motivation of the proposed survey is more about solving 112
47 the problem of interoperability. Indeed, in the last few decades, To achieve interoperability between organizations in heteroge- 113
48 the vision of semantic Web services moved toward this interoper- neous environments, the integrated vision of a reference architecture 114
49 ability. Thus, our main contribution is to analyze the landscapes of is needed and associated standards must be agreed upon and 115
50 benefits of semantic Web services. Thanks to this analysis, we gain cooperation needs of the organizations are taken into account. Indeed, 116
51 an understanding of the current research and a summary of a the XML Web services standards (XML, UDDI (Universal Description, 117
52 series of potential issues, which would provide the foundation for Discovery and Integration), WSDL (Web Services Description Lan- 118
53 future research in this area. In our survey, we have presented Web guage), and SOAP (Simple Object Access Protocol)) are the solution 119
54 services, an emerging technology for the Web. Four aspects of Web (Sinderen, 2008). 120
55 services are presented: (1) Standards of XML Web services and As commonly assumed in the literature, XML Web services are 121
56 their limits, (2) Languages and Tools of Semantic Annotation, software components of distributed applications which provide 122
57 (3) Web Services Composition, and (4) Performance Evaluation. services to other applications by using standard Internet technol- 123
58 They are critical to the success of interoperability in heterogeneous ogy.2 They respect some properties, such as autonomous object 124
59 systems. For that, we propose a cartography of semantic Web components, loosely coupled, self-described, self-contained, reusa- 125
60 services, see Fig. 1, which illustrates the link of semantic Web ble, modular, synchronous and asynchronous, that can be pub- 126
61 services with research areas and their impact on interoperability. lished, located, and invoked over the Web. Several definitions were 127
62 The paper is organized as follows. Section 2 is devoted to the advanced in the literature as follows: 128
63 survey of existing technologies and standards around Web ser- 129
64 vices and semantic Web. A comparative study of semantic descrip- 2
By using the standard Internet technology such as Internet protocols: SMTP
130
65 tion languages is given. Section 3 covers research issues about (Simple Mail Transfer Protocol), HTTP (Hypertext Transfer Protocol), and FTP (File 131
66 Web services applications. Three comparison studies are given. Transfer Protocol). 132
1 The basic infrastructure of XML Web services is illustrated in 67

2 Publication and Discovery Fig. 2. 68
3 The XML Web services technology was concretized around the 69
UDDI (Universal Description Discovery, and Integration)
4 specification of the W3C. It is divided into three areas: (1) Com- 70
5 munication Protocols (SOAP), (2) Service Description (WSDL), 71
6 Description and (3) Service Discovery (UDDI). These current standards revolve 72
7 based on XML around XML to achieve platform independence features. We 73
WSDL (Web Services Description Language)
8 illustrate each standard of XML Web services technology as 74
9 follows. 75
Communication
10 76
11 SOAP (Simple Object Access Protocol) 77
12 2.1.1. XML 78
13 XML which is a standard of W3C is a universal model of data 79
Transport
14 representation and exchange. It is a simple format text, flexible 80
15 Internet Protocols (HTTP,SMTP,TCP/IP) and also independent of any manufacturer. Adding to this, it gives 81
16 structure to documents and data (Harold and Means, 2004). It is 82
17 extracted from SGML language4 and it benefits from experiences 83
Fig. 2. Reference architecture Web services: a Web service protocol stack is used to
18 define, locate, implement and make Web services interact with each other. A Web
of HTML's use (HyperText Mark-Up Language). Furthermore, XML 84
19 service protocol stack typically stacks four protocols: (1) transport protocol (HTTP), offers portable and structured data on heterogeneous structure 85
20 (2) messaging protocol (SOAP), (3) description protocol (WSDL), and (4) discovery and programming languages. XML brings the following criteria to 86
protocol (UDDI). XML Web services architecture:
21 87
22 88
23 Extensibility: A system can function correctly without losing its 89
24 According to Chappell and Jewell (2002), a Web service is a main properties during an update. 90
25 piece of business3 logic, located somewhere over the Internet that Neutrality: The required constraints of an application are limited. 91
26 is accessible through standard-based Internet protocols. Structure: XML represents both document structure and content, 92
27 According to Benatallah et al. (2003), a Web service is an offers increased control of information granularity through 93
28 accessible application that other applications and humans can dis- transformation and query languages. 94
29 cover and invoke. The authors cited the following properties to an Interoperability: Communication and data exchange between 95
30 XML Web service: independent of specific platforms and computing heterogeneous systems are possible. 96
31 paradigms, and easily composed. 97
32 The W3C group defined a Web service as being a software 98
33 application identified by a URI, whose interfaces and bindings can 2.1.2. SOAP: simple object access protocol 99
34 be defined, described, and discovered as XML artifacts. Thus, Web The SOAP protocol is an exchange message's process in hetero- 100
35 services can tackle the challenge of heterogeneous sources and geneous environments for application-to-application communica- 101
36 interoperability. tion based on XML and on standard protocol HTTP (Kadima and 102
37 Monfort, 2004). SOAP, a standard of W3C, defines a set of rules to 103
38 structure dialogs RPC (Remote Procedure Call) to exchange data. 104
39 It ensures interoperability between components independent of 105
40 2.1. Reference architecture 106
transport mechanisms, operating systems and programming
41 languages. 107
42 XML Web services technology is SOA (An authority of Architecture 108
According to Harold and Means (2004), SOAP is a flexible
43 Oriented Service) which is an architectural style to re-use and 109
protocol to connect distributed systems. The purpose of this
44 integrate sub-systems in existing systems in order to create new 110
protocol is to facilitate the access to software services to any user
45 applications (Portchelvi et al., 2012; Papazoglou and Georgakopoulos, 111
through the Internet.
46 2003; Willy; Karimi, 2011; Balasubramanian and Ruba, 2012; http:// 112
47 www.w3.org). SOA enables flexible integration of applications and 113
resources by (i) representing each application or resource as a service 2.1.3. WSDL: Web services description language
48 114
with standardized interface, (ii) enabling a service to exchange WSDL is a formal language of Web services description accord-
49 115
structured information (Messages, Documents, Business objects), and ing to the standard XML. A WSDL file describes the functionality
50 116
(iii) coordinating and mediating between services (Dodani, 2004). SOA (Methods, Parameters) and the localization of a Web service (URI,
51 117
is based on a “service” concept. The major goal of SOA is to reverse the Port, Protocol of invocation). According to W3C (http://www.w3.
52 118
tendency which generally shows that the operational processes inside org/TR/wsdl), WSDL separates the description of abstract func-
53 119
enterprises adapt to the imposed constraints by data processing. XML tionalities offered by a service from concrete details of service
54 120
Web services architecture is based on SOA, and it takes the same description. As in programming languages, a type signature
55 121
actors. The provider of services publishes a contract of interface, defines the inputs and outputs for a function. It means that WSDL
56 122
defines the functionality and the execution of a Web service. The can be seen as a traditional function, subroutine or method.
57 123
58 client consumes the service and uses a universal registry to discover 124
59 available services. Once a service is located, the client extracts the 2.1.4. UDDI: universal description, discovery and integration 125
60 interface contract in order to execute a service. The registry of services The registry of Web services “UDDI” is a virtual database of 126
61 is a virtual database of available services. Each provider publishes a existing XML Web services. It is similar to a CORBA trader and can 127
62 contract of an XML Web service interface in the registry with be considered as a DNS service for business applications. On one 128
63 necessary information (Localization, Access Control, etc.) hand, it allows providers of services to record XML Web services 129
64 130
65 3
It means that UDDI provides a universal registry for business to provide 4
Standard Generalized Markup is a meta-language which makes it possible to 131
66 service listings (Web services description). define markup languages. 132
1 under a standardized format and on the other hand, it concen- interfaces oriented to human understanding in a standardized 67
2 trates on discovery process of XML Web services satisfying format interpretable by software agents. 68
3 services' needs in SOA. UDDI becomes an intermediate standard 69
4 between providers and clients through the Internet and it is a 70
2.3.1. Elementary definitions
5 recommendation of W3C. According to Chappell and Jewell 71
6 (2002), the UDDI project is an initiative of industry which tries Meta-data: It is data on data. This word defines the included 72
7 to create an independent platform, to describe services, to discover 73
data in documents in order to provide information on electro-
8 businesses and to integrate services. It means that UDDI provides a 74
nic resources. This information is treated by search engines to
9 universal registry for business to provide service listings (Web 75
satisfy the user's needs. Meta-data can be used not only for
10 service description). 76
describing content, but also for organizing and classifying.
11 77
Ontology: The word ontology comes from philosophy, which
12 2.2. Observations 78
means “the Knowledge of what is to be in oneself” (Charlet et
13 79
al., 2003; Perez et al., 2004; http://www.daml.org/ontologies).
14 Although, the elementary XML Web services infrastructure, mainly 80
In data processing, ontology indicates a structured set of
15 based on syntactic standards (XML, UDDI, SOAP, WSDL), is significant 81
Knowledge in a domain of interest. Ontology is conceptualiza-
16 and seems to play an important role in interoperability and it gives a 82
tion of an application domain in a human-understandable and
17 new dimension to the co-operation and the collaborative work, these 83
machine-readable form, and typically comprises the classes of
18 standards are not sufficient enough for the following research issues: 84
entities, relations between the entities and the axioms which
19 Data Exchange, Competencies Sharing (Gasmi et al., 2010; Bouchaib 85
apply to the entities which exist in that domain. Several
20 et al., 2010), Communication machine to machine (Zhou et al., 2011), 86
definitions have been made, of which the most used is the
21 Web Services Discovery, Web Services Composition (Nacer-Talantikite 87
one given by Perez et al. (2004). Several operations are possible
22 et al., 2009), Web Services Selection (Mohd et al., 2011; Guangjun and 88
on ontology, such as Mapping, Matching, Alignment, Transfor-
23 Fei, 2011), Web Services Interrogation (Benna et al., 2008), Web 89
mation, Merging and Integration.
24 Services Security (Nacer-Talantikite and Aissani, 2010; Kagal et al., 90
Semantic annotation: An annotation assigns to an entity, which
25 2004; Story et al., 2009), etc. Both intelligent human properties and 91
is in the text, a link to its semantic description. A semantic
26 powerful and structured mechanisms, in the current Web, are needed. 92
annotation is referred to an ontology. The idea is to have data
27 It is obvious that there is a lack of semantics in XML Web services 93
through the Web defined and linked in such a way that its
28 infrastructure. Nevertheless, recent developments in semantic Web 94
meaning is explicitly interpretable by software processes rather
29 provided better and new solutions to issues unsolved by the XML Web 95
than just being implicitly interpretable by humans. Semantic
30 services technology. XML Web services related to semantic annota- 96
annotation can be applied to any resource (File, Image, Web
31 tions become Semantic Web services (SWS). 97
page, etc.).
32 98
33 2.3. Semantic annotations 99
34 100
35 Semantic Web services are at the convergence of two significant 2.3.2. Semantic description languages 101
36 fields of research which are technologies of the Internet and XML Languages which support semantic meta-data representation are 102
37 Web services. The purpose of semantic Web services is to create a required so that any resource over the Web becomes accessible by 103
38 semantic Web of services whose properties, interfaces and effects any user. Various works about semantic description have already 104
39 are described in a non-ambiguous and exploitable way by software been proposed like RDF (Resource Description Framework) (Baget et 105
40 agents. The word “semantic Web” (Lee et al., 2001) refers to the al., 2003), RDFS (RDF Schema) (Charlet et al., 2003), OIL (Ontology 106
41 vision of the future Web like a vast space of exchange of resources Inference Layer), DAML (Darpa Agent Markup Language (Lacot), OWL 107
42 containing great volumes of information and interaction between (Web Ontology Language) (http://www.daml.org/ontologies), OWL-S 108
43 humans and software agents allowing an effective exploitation of (Ontology Web Language for Services) (Martin et al.; http://www.w3. 109
44 resources. The main goal of the semantic Web is to extend current org/Submission/OWL-S), WSML (Web Service Modeling Language) 110
45 111
46 112
47 Table 1
113
48 Comparison between semantic description languages. 114
49 115
50 Approach Resource Property Concept Research 116
51 117
RDF Any URI Functional XML, Triple (object, attribute,value) Knowledge engineering, semantic Web (WSem), etc.
52 RDFS Any URI Functional RDF, classes and sub-properties, constraints WSem, categorization, indexing, etc. 118
53 Non-functional 119
54 OIL Any URI / Frame, DL WSem, intelligence artificial, inter-ontology relations, etc. 120
55 DAML þOIL Any URI / XML-S, RDFS extended RelationShip, DL Ontology sharing, ontology construction vocabulary, etc. 121
OWL Any URI Functional W3c's adaptation of DAML þOIL WSem, interoperability knowledge sharing, capabilities, etc.
56 Non-functional
122
57 OWL-S WSDL1.0 Functional OWL ontology WS discovery, composition, execution, monitoring, etc. 123
58 WSDL1.1 Non-functional 124
59 WSML WSDL1.0 Functional Logical formalisms Interoperability, WS, etc. 125
WSDL1.1 Non-functional
60 126
WSMO WSDL1.0 Functional WSML ontology WS discovery, composition, etc.
61 WSDL1.1 Non-functional 127
62 WSDL-S WSDL1.2 Functional OWL ontology WS discovery, composition, etc. 128
63 UDDI3.0 Non-functional 129
64 SAWSDL WSDL1.1 Functional Independent of any semantic model WS discovery, invocation, WS-policy, BPEL, etc. 130
WSDL2.0
65 XML-S
131
66 132
1 Table 2 67
2 Comparison between semantic annotations tools. 68
3 69
Tools Interpretation Type ResType
4 70
5 Annotea Human Manual HTML,XML 71
6 Yawas Human Manual HTML,Text,XML 72
7 Shoe Software agent Manual HTML 73
Aero-Daml Software agent Automatic Text
8 Smore Human, software agent Manual HTML, email, image
74
9 Kim Human, software agent Automatic Structured documents or no 75
10 Cohse Human, software agent Manual, automatic HTML 76
11 Mnm Human, software agent Manual, semi-automatic, automatic HTML 77
OntoMat Software agent Manual, semi-automatic HTML
12 78
Meteor-S Software agent Manual, semi-automatic XML, WSDL, UDDI
13 79
14 80
15 81
16 82
17 Table 3 Table 4 83
18 Comparison between semantic annotations tools. Comparison between semantic annotations tools. 84
19 85
Tools Language Storage Ontology Tools Technology Extraction
20 86
21 Annotea RDF External RDF Annotea HTTP servers, annotation interface /
87
22 Yawas Text Local DataBase Yawas JAVA using DOM / 88
23 Shoe HTML Local Shoe Shoe Autonomous application in JAVA / 89
24 Aero-Daml DAML þ OIL External DAML þ OIL Aero-Daml Autonomous application Aero text and training 90
Smore RDF, OWL External RDF, OWL Smore Specific server /
25 91
Kim RDF, OWL LITE External PROTON, KIMLO, KIMSO Kim GATE, SESAME, LUCENE, KIM KBþ LUCENE
26 Cohse RDF, DAMLþ OIL External DAML þ OIL Web user interface, etc. 92
27 Mnm RDF External RDFS, DAML þ OIL, KMI, OCML Cohse Complexe architecture Cohse agent DLRS,training 93
28 OntoMat RDF Local, external OWL Mnm Complexe architecture AMICLARE engine 94
Meteor-S JAVA External RDFS, DAML, OWL OntoMat Autonomous application in JAVA AMICLARE engine
29 95
Meteor-S / Several matching algorithms
30 96
31 97
32 98
33 (Domingue et al., 2004; http://www.wsmo.org/wsml), WSMO (Web 99
34 Service Modeling Ontology) (http://www.wsmo.org), WSDL-S (Web the expected properties for an annotations' system. Furthermore, 100
35 Services Description Language Semantic) (Akkiraju et al.) and we can find in the literature other tools which concentrated 101
36 SAWSDL (Semantic Annotations for Web Services Description Lan- specially on Web services annotation as Meteor-S tool. These tools 102
37 guage) (http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/REC-sawsdl-20070828). Table 1 are ASSAM (Hess et al., 2004), EIDOS (Carman and Knoblock, 103
38 illustrates a comparative study between the above semantic descrip- 2007), EDITOR (Belhajjame et al., 2008), etc. In addition to these 104
39 tion languages regarding the following criteria: tools, many plug-ins provide user's interface to annotate Web 105
40 services (from WSDL to OWL-S). The characteristics' list of the 106
41 Resource: It identifies the resource type over the Web (a Web following plug-in is described in a call to candidature for a 107
42 page, a Web service, etc.). Each Web resource can be identified recommendation by W3C (http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/REC- 108
43 by a URI. sawsdl-20070828): 109
44 Property: It identified the used property type in the document: 110
45 Functional properties (such as Resource, Inputs), or non- 1. Woden4SAWSDL and Radiant of Laboratory Lumina of Univer- 111
46 functional properties (such as Implementation, RelationShip). sity Georgia. 112
47 Concept: It describes the basic property of the semantic model 2. WSMO4J Grounding, WSMO Studio, WSMO Grounding and 113
48 if it exists or not (RDF, DL5 (http://dl.kr.org), XML-S6, etc.). WSMO-Lite of DRI. 114
49 Research: It specifies the research area. 3. SAWSDL4J of any specific organization. 115
50 4. OWL-S of SAWSDL prospect. 116
51 5. Semantic Tools for Web services of IBM Alpha Works, RDF 117
52 Mapping Implementation. 118
53 2.3.3. Semantic annotations tools 119
54 A comparative study of several tools of semantic annotations is The above semantic annotations tools were studied according 120
55 presented in Tables 2–4. We take into account the following most to the following criteria: 121
56 popular tools: Annotea (Kahan et al., 2001), Kim (Popov et al., 122
57 2003; Kiryakov et al., 2005), Yawas (Denoue), Shoe (SHOE), Smore Interpretation: It identifies the annotation's user (human, soft- 123
58 (SMORE), Cohse (COHSE), MnM (Vera et al., 2002), OntoMat ware agent). 124
59 (Annotizer) and Meteor-S (Patil et al., 2004). This study shows Type: It defines the operation of the semantic annotation 125
60 that the systems of semantic annotations vary in their architec- process (manual, semi-automatic, automatic). 126
61 ture, tools for information extraction, methods and annotations' ResType: It defines the annotated resource type (HTML, Text, 127
62 languages. These tools depend on their use (Collaboration, Search, etc.). 128
63 Integration, etc.) and they do not gather all the performances and Language: It describes the programming language. 129
64 Storage: Annotations can be stored either locally (Local) or in 130
65 5
Description logic. annotations' servers (External). 131
66 6
XML Schema. Ontology: It describes the semantic model (RDF, OWL, etc.). 132
1 Table 5 67
2 The advantages and the drawbacks of the different semantic annotations tools. 68
3 69
Tools Advantages Drawbacks Application cases
4 70
5 Annotea Semi-structured documents Manual User's collaboration over the Web 71
6 External ontologies 72
7 Yawas Any kind of documents Manual Search engines 73
Local ontologies
8 Shoe / Manual Creating ontoglogies, adding semantics to Web pages, describing Web resources
74
9 HTML 75
10 Local ontologies 76
11 Aero-Daml Automatic Text Content analysis applications, graphical tools, application knowledge bases 77
External ontologies
12 78
Smore Multimedia Manual
14 Kim Automatic / Knowledge management, classification, filtering application 80
15 Any kind of documents 81
Cohse Hybrid HTML Automation of link generation, distributed information management, keyword recognition
17 External ontologies
83
18 Mnm Hybrid HTML Training data, information extraction engine 84
20 OntoMat Hybrid HTML A wide range of applications in the semantic Web 86
External ontologies
21 87
Meteor-S Semi-automatic / Adding semantics to WSDL files
22 Structured documents 88
24 90
25 91
26 Technology: It specifies the used technology (GATE, SESAME,7 etc.). Model: It specifies the used model such as ITL,9 (LOOM) and 92
27 Extraction engine: It describes the information extraction KIF,10 or a syntactic model such as WSDL. 93
28 engine and training (LUCENE,8 AMICLARE, etc.) Composition: It specifies if the composition is possible (Yes or No). 94
29 Result: It specifies the result of the request. 95
30 At the end of this comparative analysis between the different 96
31 semantic tools, we summarize the advantages, the drawbacks and 97
32 the applications cases for each tool in Table 5. 3.2. Synthesis of web services composition 98
33 99
34 An automatic and dynamic Web services composition is a 100
35 3. Applications: Web services interrogation, functional highly complex task. On one hand, the proposed standards (XML, 101
36 properties based Web services composition and QoS based Web WSDL, UDDI, and SOAP) of XML Web services technology do not 102
37 services composition answer the problems of Web services discovery and composition 103
38 by a software agent. And on the other hand, the semantic 104
39 As a new technology, Web services paradigm is more than just a annotations for Web services and requests are not yet mature. 105
40 distributed system, it provides the software foundation for next To understand the Web services composition, it is instructive to 106
41 generation companies. It offers companies the capabilities to integ- consider the basic definition of a composition. Several available 107
42 rate distributed Web services into a business process, for example, Web services, developed by different providers, may be combined 108
43 interrogation, discovery, composition and selection of Web to create a Virtual Web service. According to Tari et al. (2009), 109
44 services. Virtual services provide a different view of existing services, a view 110
45 that can be useful to provide more availability for an existing 111
46 service, or to create a specialized service for a particular applica- 112
47 tion. According to Gardarin (2002), Web services composition is a 113
48 3.1. Web services interrogation and exploration 114
technique which assembles Web services in order to achieve a
49 particular goal, via primitives of control (Test, Treatment of 115
50 We present in this section a comparative study between several 116
languages of interrogation Web services such as LARKS (Language Exception, etc.) and exchange (Sending and Reception of Mes-
51 sages). According to Fensel et al. (2002), the composition is a 117
52 for Advertisement and Request for Knowledge Sharing) (Syncar 118
et al.), SwellQ (Condack and Schwabe, 2005) and XSRL (XML process which functions, in an intelligent way, in order to discover
53 services automatically, to negotiate between them and to compose 119
54 Service Request Language) (Papazoglou et al., 2002) in Table 6 120
according to the following criteria: them in more complex services.
55 121
56 122
57
Concept: The basic principle of the language (Frame, Xquery, 3.2.1. Properties of composition 123
58 etc.). Web services composition includes two processes: 124
59
Property: It defines the properties (Functional properties such 125
60 as Inputs, Outputs or non-Functional properties such as Imple- 1. Discovery of user's goals: A process which translates the goals of 126
61 mentation and QoS). a user into precis and formal goals; 127
62
Semantic: It defines if the service is described semantically 2. Composition of discovered services: A process which meets the 128
63 (Yes or No). awaited needs for a user. 129
64 130
65 7
RDF Registry. 9
Information Terminological Language. 131
66 8
Search Engine of textual information. 10
Knowledge Interchange Format. 132
1 Table 6 67
2 Comparison between Web services interrogation languages. 68
3 69
Language SwellQl Approach based on LARKS XSRL
4 70
5 Concept Interrogation of an ontology Use of frame Exploitation of Xquery or AI Planing 71
6 Property Functional Functional Attributes, property of XML 72
7 Non-functional Non-functional 73
Semantic Yes Yes No
8 Model SwellOnt Ontology, other ITL, LOOM, KIF languages WSDL
74
9 Composition No Yes Orchestration 75
10 Result Concepts of SwellOnt / XML document 76
11 Ontology 77
12 78
13 79
14 80
15 Request "R" Case 8: The user's goals are disjoined of the announced 81
16 possibilities of all existing Web services. 82
CASE1: Satisfaction Response: exact match
17 83
Response: satisfaction by composition
18 CASE2: 84
19 Satisfaction Response: large satisfaction 3.2.2. Literature review on Web services composition 85
CASE 3: Difference
20 Like all Internet based computer applications, composition Web 86
Response: large satisfaction by composition
21 CASE 4: Difference
services are some of the most common concerns for interoperability 87
22 CASE 5: Satisfaction Response: partial answer and distributed middleware. There have been several research efforts 88
23 CASE 6: Response: partial satisfaction by composition on Web services composition. We surveyed the Web services 89
24 composition development literature from these last years. Many 90
CASE 7: Difference Satisfaction Fail
25 industry standards have been developed, such as BPEL4WS (Business 91
26 CASE 8: Difference Fail Process Execution Language for Web Services) and BPML (Business 92
27 Process Modeling Language). BPEL4WS provides a language for the 93
Fig. 3. Various possible answers to a submitted request: the matching between the
28 formal specification of business processes and business interaction 94
request R and the discovered Web services gives eight cases. Case 1: an exact
29 simple Web service that satisfies the request, Case 2: an exact composite Web protocols. BPML is an XML-based meta-language developed by the 95
30 service that satisfies the request, Case 3: a simple Web service containing addition Business Process Management Initiative (BPMI) as a means of 96
31 information with regard to the request, Case 4: a composite Web service containing modeling business processes. BPML supports advanced semantics 97
32 addition information regarding the request, Case 5: a simple Web service which 98
does not satisfy completely the request, Case 6: a composite Web service which
such as nested processes and complex compensated transactions
33 does not satisfy completely the request, Case 7: a simple Web service contains a that are not addressed by BPEL4WS. Besides business process 99
34 part that satisfies the request and a part that does not satisfy the request, and Case standard specifications proposed by industry, many academic 100
35 8: a simple Web service that does not satisfy the request. research activities have also been resolved by various models: Petri 101
36 Nets (Hamadi and Benatallah, 2003), Logical Programming 102
37 (Lammermann, 2002; Rao and Su, 2004; Waldinger, 2001), Markov 103
38 Process (Prashant et al., 2005), Matching Algorithm or Chaining (Hull 104
39 The response to a request's user may be one of the eight and Su, 2005; Medjahed et al., 2003; Sirin et al., 2003; Han et al., 105
40 following cases; see Fig. 3 2008), AI Planning (Peer, 2004; Wu et al., 2004), Graphs (Hashemian 106
41 and Mavaddat, 2005), Semantic Network (Nacer-Talantikite et al., 107
42 Case 1: The user's goals are completely covered by a single 2009), States Machine or Finite States Automaton (Berardi, 2005; 108
43 Web service (the user's needs and the announced possibilities Bultan et al., 2003; Esmaeilsabzali, 2004), Workflow techniques 109
44 of the single service are perfectly matched). (Casati et al., 2001; Georgakopoulos et al., 2002), Genetic Algorithms 110
45 Case 2: The user's goals are completely covered by several Web (Michael and Gero, 2007; Canfora et al., 2005), and KP (Tao et al.; Tao 111
46 services (the user's needs and the announced possibilities of and Kwei-Jay, 2005). 112
47 services composition are perfectly matched). Figure 4 shows our proposed classification of the most known 113
48 Case 3: The user's goals can be completely covered by a single approaches of Web services composition. 114
49 Web service. However, the user can receive objects which are Functional properties based Web services composition: We limit 115
50 not suitable for him (Opposite subsumption). ourselves to some existing techniques and we present a compara- 116
51 Case 4: The user's goals can be completely covered by several tive study in Table 7 according to the following criteria: 117
52 Web services. However, the user can receive services which are 118
53 not suitable for him (Opposite subsumption). Interaction (I): It indicates the used model of interaction (Behav 119
54 Case 5: The user's goals cannot be completely covered by a (Behavioral),11 atomic12). 120
55 single Web service (the user's needs and the announced Representation (R): It illustrates the used formalism to model a 121
56 possibilities of the single service are partially equivalent (Sub- Web service (Tree, Petri Nets, etc.). 122
57 sumption)). Nevertheless, the discovered service does not Description (Dp): It explains the used description language 123
58 provide any non-suitable object for the user. (Syntactic, Semantic). 124
59 Case 6: The user's goals cannot be completely covered by Discovery (D): It specifies if the step of Web services discovery 125
60 several Web services (the user's needs and the announced is included or not. 126
61 possibilities of several services are partially matched). Never- 127
62 theless, the discovered services do not provide any non- 128
11
63 suitable object for the user (Subsumption). Web services, based on a behavioral model, are often known under the name 129
of “gray box”, i.e. they are described by the ordering of the execution of their
64 Case 7: The user's goals are completely covered by a single Web 130
operations (Berardi, 2005).
65 service. Nevertheless, the discovered service provides non- 12
Atomic Web services are seen as “black box entities”, i.e. they are described 131
66 suitable object for the user. by their parameters (Inputs, Outputs, Conditions and Effects) (Sirin et al., 2003). 132
1 67
Services Composition
2 68
Approaches
3 69
4 70
5 71
6 72
7 73
8 Academia Approach Industry Approach 74
9 75
10 76
11 77
12 No−Functional based 78
Functional based approach Executable Workflow
13 Approach 79
14 80
15 81
16 BPML 82
17 BPL4WS, .... 83
18 Syntactic Semantic Global Local 84
19 based based Strategy Strategy 85
20 86
21 87
Semantic KP (Knapsack Problem)
22 88
Genetic Algorithm
23 SAW 89
Graph Theory Logic Optimal Path
24 Euclidean Distance 90
Linear Programming
25 AI−Planning 91
26 Workflow 92
27 Matching 93
28 94
Fig. 4. Classification of Web services composition approaches. Two big classes are defined in Web services composition: industry based approaches and academia based
29 95
approaches. A tremendous number of research papers had been published, focusing on different aspects of the Web services composition. The research tends to focus on
30 issues related to the non-Functional properties and Functional properties. We divided them into two groups: first, approaches considering only the syntactic description and
96
31 second, approaches considering semantic description. These usually deal also with a specific model of interaction such as graph theory, AI-Planning, Workflow, Matching, 97
32 and Logic. The approaches based on non-functional properties concern the quality of the execution process affected by the QoS (Quality of Service) attributes which are non- 98
33 functional properties of services. 99
34 100
35 101
36 102
37 Algorithm (A): It describes the used tools to assemble Web academia have addressed the QoS management for Web services 103
38 services. using different algorithms. 104
39 Typology (T): It defines the composition type. Moreover, we give a comparative study of these approaches in 105
40 Table 8 according to the following criteria: 106
41 107
42 Note: DPDL: Deterministic Propositional Dynamic Logic, Struc- Strat: It defines the strategy of Web services selection (Local 108
43 ture: Structure Property of Petri Nets, Exploration: Algorithms of optimization, Global optimization). 109
44 graph exploration, Conversation: Flow of interaction between Sem: QoS ontology (Semantic Quality) is established to overcome 110
45 services, Chaining: Algorithms of chaining, Composability: Rules the ontological conflicts that may occur between users and 111
46 of composition, Hybrid: Structure property of semantic networks providers. QoS ontology defines the QoS properties and their 112
47 and chaining algorithm. relationships, and it establishes shared conceptions between 113
48 QoS based Web services composition: For composite services, users and providers. 114
49 one of the QoS issues is to identify the optimal service selection to C_Quant: Quantitative QoS may include a number of non- 115
50 meet user's QoS requirement (User's constraints). Several Web functional properties such as cost, response time, availability 116
51 services may share similar functionalities, but possess different and reputation. 117
52 non-functional properties. When discovering and composing Web C_Qualt: Qualitative QoS may include a number of non-functional 118
53 services, it is essential to take into account non-functional proper- properties annotated semantically by an ontology. 119
54 ties. QoS based Web services selection, which is a part of Web Contr: The approach's ability to accept both kinds of users' 120
55 services composition problem, is a multi-criteria decision mechan- constraints (Equality, Inequality) is a key to satisfying user's 121
56 ism that requires Knowledge about services and their QoS descrip- requirements. 122
57 tion. This problem is known to be NP-hard (Lee, 2003; Zeng and Algorithm: The used algorithm in selection process (SAW 123
58 Benatallah, 2004; Canfora et al., 2005). Quality of a Web service is (Simple Additive Weighting), Exhaustive Search, etc.). 124
59 a set of non-functional attributes that may impact the quality 125
60 offered by the Web service. Each QoS attribute is measured by one In the literature, it has been stated that current Web services 126
61 or more constraints. It can represent the execution time of a composition does not have a reference model. Several classification 127
62 service, the cost of a service, even the available security features, works of Web services composition can be found in several survey 128
63 etc. QoS research for Web services is an active research area papers (Chakraborty and Joshi, 2001; Medjahed, 2004; Rao and Su, 129
64 (Alrifai et al., 2009; Bartalos and Bieliková, 2009, 2010; Jiang et al., 2004; Dustdar and Schreiner, 2005; Bucchiarone and Gnesi, 2006; 130
65 2010; Tao et al.; Tao and Kwei-Jay, 2005; Michael and Gero, 2007; Zheng et al., 2010; Bartalos and Bielikova, 2011; Portchelvi et al., 2012; 131
66 Canfora et al., 2005). Many works from both industry and Cherifi et al., 2013). Nevertheless, these classifications are either 132
1 Table 7 67
2 Synthesis of functional properties based Web services composition approaches. 68
3 69
Ref. I R Dp D A T
4 70
5 Casati et al. (2000, 2001) Atomic Process Syntactic Yes E-flow Dynamic 71
6 Waldinger (2001) Atomic Theorem Syntactic / Program synthesis Automatic 72
7 Georgakopoulos et al. (2002) / Business Syntactic / Multi-enterprise process (MEP) Dynamic 73
Process
8 Lammermann (2002) Atomic Propositional Syntactic Structural synthesis of Automatic
74
9 programs (SSPs) 75
10 Logic 76
11 Hamadi and Benatallah (2003) Behav Petris-Nets Syntactic No Petri Net based algebra Automatic 77
Medjahed et al. (2003), Medjahed (2004) Atomic Direct graph Semantic Yes Composability model Automatic
12 78
Sirin et al. (2003) Atomic Service profile Semantic No Inference engine based matching Semi-automatic
13 Benatallah et al. (2003) Atomic Interface Semantic Yes Conversation Automatic 79
14 Bultan et al. (2003) Behav Mealy machine (FSM) Syntactic No Conversation Automatic 80
15 Wu et al. (2004) Atomic Process Semantic No HTN Planning Automatic 81
16 Peer (2004) Atomic PDDL Semantic No AI-Planning Automatic 82
Esmaeilsabzali (2004) Berardi (2005) Behav FSM Automaton Syntactic No Synthesis of FSM Automatic
17 Aversano et al. (2004) Atomic / Semantic Yes Matching Automatic
83
18 Arpinar et al. (2005) Atomic Interface Semantic Yes Matching Semi-automatic 84
19 Gerber and Schmidt (2005) Atomic PDDL Semantic No AI Planning, Xplan Automatic 85
20 Shin and Lee (2007) Atomic Graph Semantic / Graphsearch Automatic 86
Nacer-Talantikite et al. (2009) Atomic Semantic networks Semantic Yes Inference engine Automatic
21 87
Han et al. (2008) Atomic Process Semantic context Yes / Automatic
22 Gehlot and Edupuganti (2009) Atomic Colored Petri Nets (CPNs) Syntactic No CPN tools Automatic 88
23 Liu et al. (2010) Atomic DDLa Semantic Yes Matching Automatic 89
24 Yue et al. (2010) Atomic Direct weighted graph Syntactic No Matching Automatic 90
25 Durcik (2010) Atomic PDDL Semantic No AI Planning Automatic 91
Lee et al. (2010) Atomic / / No AI Planning Automatic
26 Cherifi et al. (2011) Behav Graph Syntactic Yes Matching Automatic
92
27 Vadivelou et al. (2011) Atomic Graph Semantic Yes Graph Search Automatic 93
28 Hashemian and Mavaddat (2005), Atomic Graph Semantic Yes Graph Search Automatic 94
29 Elmaghraoui et al. (2011) 95
Samuel and Sasipraba (2011) Atomic Graph Syntactic Yes Weighted planning graph Automatic
30 96
Henni and Atmani (2012) Atomic PDDL Semantic No AI Planning Automatic
31 Cherifi et al. (2013) Behav Graph Syntactic Yes Graph Search Automatic 97
32 98
a
33 Dynamic description logic. 99
34 100
35 101
36 102
37 Table 8 103
38 Synthesis of non-functional properties based Web services composition approaches. 104
39 105
Ref. Strat Sem C_Quant C_Qualt Contr Algorithm
40 106
41 Jaeger and Muhl (2006) Local No Yes No No SAW 107
42 Liu et al. (2004) Local No Yes No No SAW 108
43 Taher et al. (2005) Local No Yes No No Euclidean distance 109
Huang et al. (2009) Global No Yes No No Linear programming
44 Mohd et al. (2011) Global No Yes No No SAW þ Optimal path
110
45 Li et al. (2007) Global No Yes No Yes H_MCWS 111
46 Tao et al. and Tao and Kwei-Jay (2005) Global No Yes No Yes MCSP, MCSP-K 112
47 Tao and Kwei-Jay (2004) Global No Yes No One constraint on the cost Exhaustive search 113
Tao and Kwei-Jay (2004) Global No Yes No One constraint on the cost Dynamic programming
48 114
Tao and Kwei-Jay (2004) Global No Yes No One constraint on the cost Pisinger
49 Tao et al. Global No Yes No Yes BBLP 115
50 Tao et al. Global No Yes No Yes WS_HEU 116
51 Michael and Gero (2007) Global No Yes No Yes Genetic algorithm 117
52 Canfora et al. (2005) Global No Yes No Yes Genetic algorithm 118
Geetha and Sathyavathy (2005) and Rajendran et al. (2010) Local Yes Yes Yes Yes Matching
53 Guangjun and Fei (2011) and Wang et al. (2006) Local Yes Yes Yes Constraint of equality Matching þ SAW
119
54 Ren et al. (2007) Local No Yes No No SAW 120
55 121
56 122
57 123
58 incomplete or ambiguous. Firstly, none of the existing classifications ‘out-line’ of available services, assembled in advance in order to create 124
59 are based on the representation model of a Web service, on the model new services, (ii) Reactive composition which refers to a process of 125
60 of interaction in the Composition, on the functional based approaches, virtual Web services creation on-line, (iii) Mandatory composite 126
61 or on the non-functional based approaches. Secondly, the terminology service which corresponds to the class of virtual Web services, where 127
62 is vague in some composition classifications. And finally, the lack of all the component services must take part in the execution of virtual 128
63 clear classification targets is the most significant weakness of the services and (iv) Optional composite services which allow us to satisfy 129
64 existing classification works of Web services composition. According the user's request without the participation of some services. Accord- 130
65 to Chakraborty and Joshi (2001), the composition approaches can ing to Medjahed (2004), four kinds of compositions are identified: 131
66 be classified into (i) Proactive composition, which is a composition (i) Static composition and (ii) Dynamic composition, which concerns 132
1 the moment when Web services are composed, (iii) Manual composi- 67
2 tion and (iv) Automatic composition, which defines the way in which − Methodes Class instance 68
3 the composition is obtained. In Rao and Su (2004), Rao et al. evaluated − Attributes = 69
Object
4 the Web services composition frame works based on the concept of 70
5 services composition life-cycle. In Dustdar and Schreiner (2005), − Distributed Component 71
6 Dustdar et al. presented several different composition strategies, based − Heterogenous Plateforms 72
7 on some currently existing composition platforms and frameworks. − Industrilization
73
8 This classification represents the first implementations of state-of-the- Service 74
− SOA
9 art technologies. In Bucchiarone and Gnesi (2006), Bucchiarone et al. 75
10 focused more on Web services composition languages. In Zheng et al. − Standards of Web 76
11 (2010), Zheng et al. proposed an effort-oriented classification matrix − Autonomous Annotated Service 77
− Autonomy of Information Systems
12 for Web services composition, which distinguishes between the 78
13 context and the technology dimension. The context dimension is − Ontologies 79
14 aimed at analyzing the environment influence on the effort of Web − Semantic Annotation 80
15 services composition, while the technology dimension focuses on the 81
Fig. 5. The concept of distributed objects: in these last decades the concept evolved
16 technique influence on the effort. In Bartalos and Bielikova (2011), 82
of an object to a component to a service and today to an annotated service in order
17 Bartalos and Bielikova provided an overview of several existing to ensure interoperability in large environments for any user. 83
18 approaches dealing with the basic problem of Web services composi- 84
19 tion. They divided them into three groups: (i) approaches considering 85
20 only the I/O during services chaining, (ii) approaches considering Moreover, nowadays one of the main problems faced by the 86
21 additional meta-data of services, and (iii) approaches that allow designers and the software developers is to make the right choice 87
22 defining also soft constraints to the composition goal or used services. concerning which middleware to use over the Intranet or over the 88
23 In Portchelvi et al. (2012), Portchelvi et al. classified the approaches Internet. The choice includes features such as Performances, 89
24 into several groups based on various composition development Scalability, Maturity, Support for legacy systems and Easiness of 90
25 aspects: (i) Industry approaches and (ii) Academia approaches which development. 91
26 contain syntactic and semantic approaches. These latter ones are also In this section, we present the advantages and the disadvan- 92
27 classified into AI planning and Agent technology. tages of each middleware and we present a guideline and a 93
28 In this paper, we put an effort in presenting a comprehensive performance comparison according to the following criteria, see 94
29 survey of Web services composition. This has been done by Fig. 5 and Tables 9 and 10. 95
30 identifying various groups of techniques. The proposed classifica- 96
31 tion enabled us to understand the evolution of the Web services Technology: It specifies the middleware name (DCE, JAVA 97
32 composition approaches. We propose that Web services composi- RMI, etc.). 98
33 tion should be studied from a software engineering point of view: Origin: It gives the origin of the middleware. 99
34 Academia, Industry, Functional, non-functional, Syntactic, Seman- Standard: It defines if the middleware is a standard (Yes or No). 100
35 tic, and Model of Web service, Model of interaction (Graph Theory, Concept: It points out if the middleware is based on “Distributed 101
36 AI-Planning, Workflow, Logic, Matching, etc.). Furthermore, we Object” concept, or “Component” concept or “Service” concept. 102
37 identified a number of research questions, in Web services, which OS: It specifies the used Operating System. 103
38 need to be answered as follows: Interoperability: It is the ability of different services to work 104
39 together. A major reason for the adoption of SOA is the inter- 105
40 How do you manage and how do you organize a huge number operability which allows an easy integration of business function- 106
41 of Web services in UDDI? (Candia, 2004; Wang and Vassileva, ality over the Internet. 107
42 2007; Malik and Bouguettaya, 2009) Flexibility: Organizations should be able to adapt to new tech- 108
43 How do you manage the increased competitiveness of providers? nologies without any substantial redesign and re-engineering. 109
44 How do you model the users' context? (Sheng and Benatallah, Integration: It refers to the possibility to integrate the existing 110
45 2005; Bao et al., 2010; Hervás et al., 2010) systems with new technologies. The idea is to preserve the 111
46 How do you adapt discovered Web services to the users' context? main part of the applications, to gradually make evolve and/or 112
47 (Rajendran et al., 2010; Huang et al., 2009; Mohd et al., 2011) to migrate the applications to new technologies. 113
48 How do you ensure security of composite Web services coming Autonomy: It permits the separation between the private 114
49 from homogeneous to heterogeneous systems? (Nacer-Talantikite process of organizations and the public process of coordination. 115
50 and Aissani, 2010; Tabatabaei et al., 2010; Rouached, 2012; Coupled component (Coupled): In software development, cou- 116
51 Balasubramanian and Ruba, 2012) pling refers to the dependency between software components/ 117
52 etc. modules (Tightly, Slightly). A tightly coupled system implies 118
53 that the client and the server logic are closely tied to each 119
54 other; that means if one interface changes, the other must also 120
55 4. Challenges be updated. 121
56 Internet: It shows that if the middleware is suited for large scale 122
57 Interoperability between different organizations is a complex Internet deployments. 123
58 problem that should be addressed both from business and from Complexity: It relates to the development and to the cost. 124
59 technological points of view. Several middlewares have been pro- Communication: A communication protocol is a set of rules and 125
60 posed to address the above challenge, for example, DCE, JAVA-RMI constraints managing a communication between several entities, 126
61 (JAVASOFT, 1998; Juric et al., 2000), CORBA (CORBA; Emmerich, such as CORBA IIOP (Internet Inter-ORB Protocol), SOAP, JRMP 127
62 2000), DCOM (Seinturier, 2007) and XML Web services. However, (JAVA Remote Method Protocol), and ORPC (Object Remote 128
63 one way to deal with the heterogeneity problem may be the use of Procedure Call). 129
64 Semantic Web Services paradigm. This latter one seems to be a Language: It relates to the used programming language(s). 130
65 suitable framework and makes heterogeneous systems interoperable, IDL: It provides constructs for specification of types, interfaces, 131
66 and even more challenging, compared to the above middleware. modules and object state. Generally, a mapping from IDL (Interface 132
1 Table 9 67
2 Comparison between the main known middlewares. 68
3 69
Technology DCE JAVA RMI CORBA
4 70
5 Origin OSF SUN OMG 71
6 Standard Consortium / Yes 72
7 Concept / Distributed object Distributed object, component 73
OS Independence Microsoft's DCOM, ODBC systems Virtual Machine Independence
8 Interoperability / JAVA to JAVA to ORB (Object Request Broken)
74
9 Flexibility / Yes Any datatype 75
10 Integration Weak Strong / 76
11 Autonomy No No With Specification Corba 77
Coupled / Tightly Tightly
12 78
Internet Failure Failure Failure
13 Complexity Strong Simple Strong 79
14 Communication DCE/RPC JRMP IIOP 80
15 RMI-IIOP 81
16 Language Cþ þ JAVA Multi-Language 82
IDL Socket JAVA objects CORBA IDL
17 Portability No / IDL
83
18 Semantic No No No 84
19 85
20 86
21 87
22 Table 10
88
23 Comparison between the main known middlewares. 89
24 90
25 Technology COM/DCOM/COMþ WS SWS 91
26 92
Origin Microsoft W3C /
27 Standard Yes Yes No 93
28 Concept Distributed object component Service Annotated service 94
29 OS Win32 Independence Independence 95
30 Interoperability Windows environment Any environment Any environment 96
COM: Local machine
31 DCOM: Remote server distributed
97
32 Flexibility No Yes Yes 98
33 Integration Average Strong Strong 99
34 Autonomy No Yes Yes 100
Coupled / Slightly Slightly
35 101
Internet Failure Suited Suited
36 Complexity Simple Simple Simple 102
37 Communication RPC/ORPC SOAP SOAP 103
38 Language Microsoft's Languages Multi-Languages Multi-Languages 104
39 IDL Microsoft IDL (MIDL) WSDL OWL-S 105
Portability No XML XML
40 Semantic No No Yes
106
41 107
42 108
43 Definition Language) to standard programming languages is a part offers, suffers deeply from the problem of interoperability which is 109
44 of an IDL definition. the main need with distributed applications. Second, JAVA is a 110
45 Portability of code (Portability): It specifies the used inter- programming language, but it also has its own component object 111
46 operable language. model with a distinction between objects and interfaces. JAVA RMI 112
47 Semantic: It describes middleware capabilities and their con- provides another solution to the problem that both COM and 113
48 tents in a computer-interpretable language. CORBA address. The major drawback of JAVA RMI is that it is 114
49 restricted to JAVA and does not apply to components written in 115
50 Note: OCF: Open System Foundation (OCF); OMG: Object other programming languages. JAVA RMI represents the most 116
51 Management Group (OMG). suitable and simplest choice to implement distributed applica- 117
52 Most of the existing middlewares are tied too closely to the tions, for JAVA objects systems, that need to communicate over 118
53 programming models for which they were originally designed. distributed systems. However, this solution is valid for small 119
54 This closeness limits their ability to interoperate with alternate specific isolated applications because it does not support the rise 120
55 environments which makes their use in heterogeneous systems in charge and can be hardly integrated in large scale information 121
56 unsuitable. However, Semantic Web Services differ from several systems. Third, for COM/DCOM, it is a closed choice to represent a 122
57 middlewares in the fact that they use the old “remote service” validated solution in the future, but it is the best choice for a 123
58 model similar to DCE. Furthermore, Semantic Web services do not Microsoft based environment. COM defines its component object 124
59 have the concept of an object reference but they are defined model with a simple binary standard and it cannot be used in most 125
60 simply by an end-point that supports various operations by using Web environments due to protection policies. Finally, CORBA 126
61 ontologies. Semantic Web services can be used in any Web which actually includes CCM (Component Model) allows applica- 127
62 environment without having to worry about firewalls. Though tions to communicate with each other independent of their 128
63 semantic Web services could be used regardless of firewalls and location and their design. The interface is completely independent 129
64 they are supported by various operating systems and languages, of the object's localization, the programming language, etc. Pro- 130
65 they have serious overheads that are caused by XML-creation. viding a common representation is also a central key of CORBA 131
66 First, DCE, in spite of its diffusibility and various services that it which uses IDL. However, the complexity of CORBA and its high 132
1 cost are considered as drawbacks by specialists. As a result many P1 67

Service of
2 projects are widely rejected in practice. Translator Security naming Security
68
Resquests mu1 mu6
3 mu2 mu7 69
Landa
4 4.1. Performance comparison of JAVA RMI, CORBA and semantic Web 70
5 services P3 P2 71
6 72
7 We propose an approach, using discrete event, for simulating 73
8 P4 74
distributed middleware (JAVA RMI, CORBA, semantic Web ser-
9 vices) through the Intranet and the Internet. To our Knowledge, a 75
10 large number of comparison and performance studies of Web 76
mu3 mu6 m4 mu9
11 based applications have been proposed in the literature (Eggen ORB Client Security Security
P5 77
ORB Server
12 and Eggen, 2001; Gray, 2004, 2005; Juric et al., 2004; Wang et al., 78
13 2004; Lee et al., 2006; Hwnag and Jun, 2007; Yu et al., 2008; Li and 79
14 Cheng, 2011; Artemio et al., 2012; Narang et al., 2006; Khawlani, 80
mu5 m10
15 2012; Mangal and Mahajan, 2012), but there was a need for a 81
ORB Server Security
16 generalized approach for performance analysis and estimation of 82
17 semantic Web services. Fig. 7. Modeling CORBA architecture. 83
18 84
19 Repertory 85
4.1.1. Performance model Providers
20 Requests UDDI P1 86
We use networks of queueing stations to model the above mu2
21 87
middelwares in order to simulate systems processing and mes-
22 Landa 88
sages communication. M=M=1=N queueing system has been used P2
23 89
to model queueing stations in the several networks where the
24 mu1 90
arrival process of the users' requests follows a Poisson distribution
25 91
(M), and we assumed that the transmission time of users' requests
26 P3 92
at each server is based on an exponential distribution (M).
27 93
Each queueing station in the networks comprises a finite Fig. 8. Modeling Web services architecture.
28 94
capacity buffer (N) to temporarily hold the arriving messages, and
29 95
a single server to process the messages. The Poisson distribution is
30 following: μ1, μ6, μ2, μ3, μ8, μ4, μ9, μ5, and μ10. P1 represents 96
expressed by a single parameter 1=λ to represent the arrival rate,
31 the probability that a request is rejected and P3 represents the 97
and the exponential distribution is expressed by μ to represent the
32 probability that a request is not satisfied and returned to the 98
message processing time.
33 queuing. P 2 represents the probability that a request is taken into 99
As illustrated in Fig. 6, we assume that the traffic arriving to the
34 account and it entered the other stations. In this case, the request 100
different stations in the JAVA architecture is modeled as a poisson
35 is satisfied with P4 or it is redirected with P5 to another ORB. 101
process with rate λ, and the treatment time is exponential.
36 102
The stations are the following: Translator, Security, RMI Registry, Translator: It translates a general request to a CORBA request.
37 103
Security, Server and Security, for which the treatments time are Security: A server of security.
38 104
the following: μ1, μ2, μ3, μ4, μ5, and μ6. Naming service: It defines the system level object framework.
39 105
40 The basic functions of the ORB with services are naming, event, 106
Translator: It translates a general request to a JAVA request.
41 life-cycle, transaction, relation, etc. 107
Security: A server of security.
42 Security: A server of security. 108
Register RMI : The register RMI contains several object-references.
43 ORB Client: Object request broker is the main component of the 109
44 architecture. It hides all the details of the communication 110
Server: It contains the remote object.
45 between the two objects (Client, Server). ORB is the object bus. 111
46 112
47 As illustrated in Fig. 8, we assume that the traffic arriving to the 113
48 As illustrated in Fig. 7, we assume that the traffic arriving at UDDI of semantic Web services is modeled as a Poisson process 114
49 different stations in the CORBA architecture is modeled as a with rate λ. The station 2 represents the server where the Web 115
50 Poisson process with rate λ and the treatment time is exponential. service is developed. We suppose that the arrival process to the 116
51 The stations are the following: Translator, Security, Naming station 2 is a Poisson process and the treatment time is exponen- 117
52 service, Security, ORB Client, Security, ORB Server, Security, ORB tial. P1 represents the probability that a request is rejected, P 2 118
53 Server, and Security, for which the treatments time are the represents the probability that a request is satisfied and P3 119
P1
54 represents the probability that a request is not satisfied and 120
55 Translator Security Security returned to the queuing. 121
Resquests mu1 mu4 mu2 mu5
56 122
UDDI : A registry of semantic Web services.
Landa
57 123
58 Register Server: It is the server of the provider where the semantic Web 124
RMI P2
59 service is developed. 125
60 126
61 There are three types of performance analyses: analytic per- 127
62 formance analysis, test based performance analysis and simulation 128
63 based performance analysis. The first performance analysis is fast 129
64 mu3 mu6 but inaccurate for the proposed models because they are complex. 130
Server Security
65 The second approach for performance analysis is accurate for a 131
66 Fig. 6. Modeling JAVA RMI architecture. dedicated application. However, the third approach that we used 132
1 for the proposed models, representing the middleware as a Table 13 67

2 discrete event simulation model, simulates their execution on The number of satisfied requests with varying middlewares through the intranet: 68
JAVA is more powerful than the two other middlewares. However, in a certain
3 various conditions, and it is fast, accurate and valid on a large 69
threshold of the λ, the values of the request' number for JAVA and CORBA converge
4 scale. faster. However, for semantic Web services, the number of satisfied requests does 70
5 not decrease quickly. This is due to the kind of request in the queue: simple in the 71
6 two middlewares and by group in semantic Web services. 72
7 73
4.1.2. Experimental results λ¼1 λ ¼ 103 λ ¼ 106 λ ¼ 6n107 λ ¼ 36n108
8 74
9 We realized a simulator using discrete event using Matlab and 75
JAVA RMI 7.0174 0.0095 0.0017 0.0016 0.0016
10 Windows XP as software, on a machine having the Pentium 4 76
CORBA 2.08094 0.0026 0.0003 0.0003 0.0002
11 2.17 GHz and 3 GB RAM as hardware. The simulator reproduces Semantic Web services 1.95 1.6 1.5500 1.2500 1.2750 77
12 the behavior of the proposed models of queueing stations. The 78
13 goal of the proposed simulator is to analyze the impact of 79
14 incoming users' requests on the stationary characteristics of the 80
Table 14
15 systems. For this purpose, we considered three situations such as Discovery time for requests with varying middlewares through the intranet (ms): 81
16 Response time, Number of satisfied requests and Discovery time. JAVA performs CORBA and semantic Web services. In a certain threshold of the λ, 82
17 For that, we considered several variations of 1=λ as they are the values of the discovery time for JAVA, CORBA and Semantic Web services
83
18 illustrated in Tables 12–14 and μ as it is illustrated in Table 11. converge faster. However, we can classify the three middlewares concerning the
84
discovery time in RMI register with JAVA RMI, in the naming service with CORBA,
19 After several executions of the simulator for the three cases and in UDDI with Semantic Web services as follows: JAVA-RMI, CORBA and at the 85
20 considered below, for various values of Tmax, we noted that the end semantic Web services. This is due to the fact that the capacity of UDDI is 86
21 steady state distribution is reached for Tmax 4 ¼ 7; 000 μs simula- bigger than the RMI register.
87
22 tion time units. As a result, the experiments show an average of 40 88
λ¼1 λ ¼ 103 λ ¼ 106 λ ¼ 6n107 λ ¼ 36n108
23 repetitions of the calls, Tmax ¼10,000 and N ¼ 100. 89
24 First situation: This experiment computes a response time of 90
JAVA RMI 0.8002 0.0899 0.0480 0.0436 0.0510
25 each distributed middleware in the Intranet. In this experiment, CORBA 1.0720 0.0015 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 91
26 we considered only the processing time at each server. The time Semantic Web services 1.6333 0.3037 0.0615 0.0252 0.0001
92
27 response represents the average time between the arrival of the 93
28 request in the system and its exit out of the system. Response time 94
29 is computed by taking into account different traffic loads. We performs better than CORBA and semantic Web services in the 95
30 considered different arrival rates of requests as shown in Table 12. case of a larger number of methods or services. 96
31 It is observed that the JAVA RMI outperforms CORBA and Web The simulation results, obtained by the proposed comparison 97
32 Services in response time. JAVA RMI reduces the response time using discrete events, can be checked and validated with theore- 98
33 under different traffic loads. tical results using an analytical method in a future work on a large 99
34 Second situation: This experiment considers the same middle- scale. To our best Knowledge, few works have studied perfor- 100
35 ware as experiment 1. Here, we take into account the number of mance evaluation of Web based applications using discrete events, 101
36 satisfied requests in the Intranet. We considered different arrival see the research works proposed by Shen (2000), Gong et al. 102
37 rates of users' requests as shown in Table 13. It is observed that (2010), Ala et al. (2012), and our previous works in the context of 103
38 JAVA RMI outperforms CORBA and semantic Web Services in the semantic Web services (Nacer et al., 2011, 2012, 2013). 104
39 number of satisfied requests. Semantic Web services are evaluated in comparison to the 105
40 Third situation: The aim of this experiment is to check how the existing middlewares through various simulation experiments 106
41 above middleware affects the discovery delay of the methods over the Intranet. These experiments are conducted by considering 107
42 (JAVA RMI, CORBA) or the service (Web Service) through the various traffic loads. All these experiments show that JAVA RMI 108
43 Intranet. The discovery time is calculated under different traffic appears to be more performant. As illustrated in Tables 12 and 14, 109
44 loads as shown in Table 14. This experiment shows that JAVA RMI the time response is longer and the discovery time of semantic 110
45 Web services is the worst. One of the reasons is the fact that Web 111
Table 11
46 services are not optimized using a larger registry UDDI. However, 112
The Different values of treatment time μ.
47Q11 the discovery service in the CORBA naming service or in the JAVA 113
48 μ1 μ2 μ3 μ4 μ5 μ6 μ7 μ8 μ9 μ10 RMI registry is the fastest. Semantic Web Services lose perfor- 114
49 mance in favor of an easy learning curve. Through the Internet, 115
50 CORBA 103 104 106 105 103 104 105 105 104 103 JAVA RMI and CORBA do not fulfill today's requirements of 116
JAVA RMI 103 104 106 104 105 104 / / / /
51 Semantic Web services 104 106 / / / / / / / /
interoperability; they were more suitable for intra-organizations 117
52 environments, whereas the technical features and choices of Web 118
53 services make semantic Web services more reusable, and thus 119
54 more appropriate for inter-organizations and large environments. 120
Table 12
55 It is interesting to note that there are two responses to address 121
Measured time response for requests with varying middlewares through the
56 intranet (ms): the response time makes it possible to specify the necessary average interoperability problems in the literature: 122
57 duration between the arrival of a request and its final departure. It represents the 123
58 average duration in the system (queue and the various servers). The difference Middleware community: The community proposed standards- 124
between these responses time is due to the simplicity of JAVA, the concept of
59 based approaches, i.e. common protocols and interface descrip- 125
package in semantic Web services and the complexity in CORBA. JAVA RMI
60 performs semantic Web services which perform CORBA.
tion languages. CORBA, DCOM, and XML Web services are 126
61 effective examples (Nakazawa et al., 2006; Cortesand et al., 127
62 λ¼1 λ ¼ 103 λ ¼ 106 λ ¼ 6n107 λ ¼ 36n108 2011; Bromberg et al., 2011); 128
63 Semantic Web community: The semantic Web community's 129
64 JAVA RMI 0.11 0.11 0.006 0.006 0.005 responses to the interoperability problem are based on the 130
CORBA 2.1167 0.5951 0.0885 0.0420 0.0001
65 Web services 2.8094 0.0026 0.0002 0.0002 0.0003
principles of reasoning about ontologies and understanding 131
66 how different systems can work together. The work in semantic 132
1 Web services demonstrates how ontologies can be used to experiments through the Intranet show that JAVA RMI solution 67
2 address interoperability problems at the application level. appears to be better than CORBA and semantic Web services. 68
3 Specifically, ontologies have been used during discovery to In this paper, we have outlined research results and practical 69
4 express the capabilities of services, as well as the requests for developments, and we have discussed open research issues of 70
5 capabilities; in this case, the proof theory recognizes whether a semantic Web services paradigm. This latter one includes relevant 71
6 given capability fits a given request (Gordon et al., 2011; topics, such as Competencies's Management, Search Engines, 72
7 Mokhtar et al., 2008, 2010; Nundloll et al., 2011). Knowledge Discovery tools, Quality of Services, Companies's 73
8 Collaboration and Negotiation. Semantic Web services can help 74
9 According to Gordon et al. (2011), semantic technologies and users to locate relevant documents and assemble relevant Knowl- 75
10 interoperability middleware have mostly been developed in iso- edge for effective-making, and improve continuously their cap- 76
11 lation by distinct communities. The middleware community made abilities . However, several research works remain to be conducted 77
12 assumptions on common application interfaces and focused on in order to cope with the existing obstacles, like heterogeneity, 78
13 middleware behavior and data heterogeneity. The semantic Web languages complexity, semantic annotations, and adaptation to 79
14 community made the opposite assumption that there exists a client's context. Furthermore, users need new tools to help 80
15 common middleware, and the solutions focused on differences in themselves to discover and to compose services into processes 81
16 application behavior and data. However, these solutions are not for an easier and better quality workflow execution. Semantic Web 82
17 suited to today's highly complex distributed systems that exhibit services paradigm, viewed as a distributed system, may be a 83
18 extreme heterogeneity and dynamic behavior. promising solution in large environments. Semantic Web services 84
19 In our view, the paradigm of semantic Web services seems to paradigm presents another alternative of distributed computing 85
20 be a good choice for loosely coupled architectures. Its success infrastructure: an alternative that is being strongly promoted over 86
21 and its popularity are mainly due on one hand to SOA and SOAP distributed objects such as JAVA RMI or CORBA. Indeed, the use of 87
22 protocols, and on the other hand to semantic annotations as HTTP and XML text documents supports increased interoperabil- 88
23 follows: ity, and also presents a significant increase in run-time cost for 89
24 Web Services solutions compared to JAVA RMI or CORBA solutions. 90
25 SOA (Functional Interoperability): The SOA principles are rea- As a conclusion of this work, we can address some suggestions 91
26 lized by Web services standards and technologies based on that can be considered as a solution to realize the interoperability 92
27 XML (UDDI, WSDL, and SOAP). over the Web. 93
28 SOAP protocol (Technical Interoperability): Web services can be 94
29 accessed through HTTP and HTTPS (Secure Hyper Text Transfer 1. First: Representing any Knowledge by semantic Web services in 95
30 Protocol) protocols and they utilize XML to exchange data. This order to achieve Functional Interoperability. SOA is an inter- 96
31 implies that Web services are independent of any platform, any operability mechanism. SOA has characteristics that make 97
32 programming language and any network infrastructure. Web effective interoperability easier, such as loose coupling, pub- 98
33 protocols are usually allowed through a firewall and the lished interfaces, and a standard communication model (http:// 99
34 associated computational cost may be relatively low, due to www.w3.org; Oaks and HOfstede, 2007; Dong et al., 2013; 100
35 the possibility of selective encryption and/or signature of SOAP Gayathridevi and Manikandan, 2013). 101
36 messages. By using SOAP, different applications can read and 2. Second: Using standards of XML Web services technology for 102
37 send messages over HTTP to each other. communication and publication in order to achieve Technical 103
38 Semantic annotation (operational interoperability): It facilitates Interoperability. The most common form of SOA is XML Web 104
39 semantic interoperability of data because they refer to ontol- services. The goal of XML Web services architecture is to allow 105
40 ogies' describing. Semantically described, services will enable heterogeneous software applications to smoothly work together 106
41 better service discovery and allow easier interoperation and by using the standards (UDDI, WSDL, SOAP) (http://www.w3. 107
42 composition. Research in semantic Web has shown that anno- org/TR/wsdl; http://www.WebServices.org; http://www.ws-i. 108
43 tation with meta-data can help us to solve the problem of org; Kadima and Monfort, 2004; Akkiraju et al.; Burstein et al., 109
44 inefficient keyword based search in the current Web. The 2005; Willy; Wang et al., 2004). 110
45 concept of annotation can be extended to Web services to 3. Third: Adding semantic annotations for description Knowledge in 111
46 envision semantic Web services. order to achieve Semantic interoperability. Semantic interoperabil- 112
47 ity depends on how the interfaces to a service are described and 113
48 how the meaning of the information is shared with relevant 114
49 5. Conclusion clients of the service. Ontologies can facilitate semantic interoper- 115
50 ability by aligning different terms that might be used in different 116
51 In recent years the number of middlewares, proposed in the applications (http://www.w3.org/Submission/OWL-S; http:// 117
52 literature, which are based on the same principles and have to www.w3.org/TR/2007/REC-sawsdl-20070828; http://www.daml. 118
53 solve similar issues, has remarkably increased. More and more, the org/ontologies; http://www.wsmo.org; Fensel et al., 2002; 119
54 coupling of XML Web services and semantic Web technologies Akkiraju et al.; Kiryakov et al., 2005; Burstein et al., 2005; 120
55 becomes an important research direction. Most complex tasks on Nacer-Talantikite et al., 2009; Mohebbi et al., 2012; Dong et al., 121
56 XML Web services still fail to satisfy a software agent, but new 2013). 122
57 providers should be able to offer suitable Web services. Thus, they 123
58 must annotate and describe semantically their services, and the XML Web services need to be improved in order to achieve the 124
59 user must deliver a significant request without ambiguity. Seman- discovery and composition of Web services required by interoper- 125
60 tic Web services paradigm represents a vision of the future where ability through the Internet (Benna et al., 2008; Nacer-Talantikite 126
61 we will be surrounded by software agents. The obtained results, et al., 2009, 2011). 127
62 from a comparison study, provide useful guidelines for the design The goal of using semantic Web services is to describe Knowl- 128
63 of distributed systems. Through the Internet, the semantic Web edge in a computer interpretable language including semantic 129
64 services solution appears to be the best solution over most existing Web services interrogation, discovery, selection and composition 130
65 middlewares. However, the new paradigm semantic Web services by any user. Semantic Web services can dynamically integrate 131
66 also have drawbacks through the Intranet. All the simulation different platforms and solve the communication problem: It can 132
1 let different platforms co-operate smoothly. To assess the results, Cardoso J, Sheth A. Introduction to semantic web services and web process 67
2 there is a direction in which we will focus our future work: we will composition in semantic web process: powering next generation of processes 68
with semantic and web services, Lecture notes in computer science; 2005.
3 try to develop a real distributed application using the above Carman M-J, Knoblock C-A. Learning semantic definitions of online information
69
4 middelwares. Distributed applications may gain high levels of sources. J Artif Intell Res 2007;30:1–50. 70
5 interoperability, flexibility and reuse by relying on semantic Web Casati F, ILnicki S, Jin L-J, et al. An open flexible and configurable system for service 71
composition, HPL 2000-41; 2000.
6 services paradigm. 72
Casati F, Sayal M, Shan M-C. Developing e-composing e-services. In: Proceedings of
7 13th international conference on advanced information systems engineering 73
8 (CAiSE), Interlaken, Switzerland. Lecture notes in computer science, vol. 2068; 74
9 2001. p. 171–86. 75
References
Chakraborty D, Joshi A. Dynamic service composition: state of the art and research
10 directions, Technical report, CS, Department of Computer Science and Electrical
76
11 Akkiraju R, Farell J, Miller J-A, et al. Web service semantics-WSDL-S. UGA-IBM Engineering, University of Maryland; December 2001. 77
12 Technical Note, File URL 〈http://www.w3.org/2005/04/FSWS/Submissions/17/ Chappell D, Jewell T. JAVA Web services. o'reilly Edition; 2002. Q9 78
Q8
13 Q7 WSDL-S.htm〉. Charlet J, Laublet P, Reynaud C. Action web sémantique spécifique (in french).
79
Ala F-M, Mohan S, Fowler J-W, et al. A discrete event simulation tool for Technical report, V3, 32 CNRS/STIC; 2003.
14 performance management of web-based application systems. J Simul Chein M, Mugnier M-L. Conceptual graphs: fundamental notions. Intell Artif 80
15 2012;6:21–32. 1992;6:365–406. 81
16 Alrifai M, Risse T, Dolog P, Nejdl W. A scalable approach for QoS-based web service Cherifi C, Labatut V, Santucci J. On flexible web services composition networks. In: 82
selection. In: Proceedings of the service-oriented computing; 2009. p. 190–9. Proceedings of the international conference on digital information and com-
17 AMICLARE, Tool for textual extraction of information. File URL 〈http://nlp.shef.ac. munication technology and its applications (DICTAP), Dijon, France; 2011. p. 83
18 uk/amiclare〉. 45–59. 84
19 Annotizer O. File URL 〈http://annotation.semanticWeb.org/ontomat/index.html〉. Cherifi C, Rivierre Y, Santucci J. A community based algorithm for large scale web 85
Arpinar I, Aleman-Meza B, Zhang R, et al. Ontology-driven web services composi- service composition. J Converg Inf Technol 2013;8(4):148–57.
20 tion platform. Inf Syst E Bus Manag J 2005;3(2):175–99. COHSE, Conceptual open hypermedia services environment. File URL 〈http://www.
86
21 Artemio S, Leonardo B, Hugo J, et al. Evaluation of CORBA and web services in aktors.org/technologies/cohse〉. 87
22 distributed applications. In: Proceedings 22nd international conference on Condack J, Schwabe D. Swell annotating and searching semantic web services. In: 88
electrical communications and computers, Mexico; 2012. p. 97–100. Proceedings of the third Latin American Web Congress LA-WEB, Buenos Aires,
23 Aversano L, Canfora G, Ciampi A. An algorithm for web service discovery through
89
Argentina; 2005. p. 102–5.
24 their composition. In: Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on web CORBA, By example. File URL 〈http://corba.developpez.com/presentation/exemple/LI〉. 90
25 services (ICWS), CA, USA; 2004. p. 332–41. Cortesand C, Grace P, Blair G. Sedim: A middleware framework for interoperable 91
Baget J, Canaud E, Euzenat J, et al. Les langages du web sémantique (in french). service discovery in heterogeneous networks. ACM Trans Auton Adapt Syst
26 92
Technical report, INRIA Rhône-Alpes and LIRIS FRE 2672 CNRS University of 2011;6(1):1–8.
27 Claude Bernard Lyon 1; 2003. Cruz I, Xiao H. Using a layered approach for interoperability on the semantic web.
93
28 Balasubramanian N, Ruba A. Security: a major threat for web services. In: Proceedings In: Proceedings of the 4th international conference on web information 94
of the IEEE international conference on advanced communication control and systems engineering, 2003. p. 221–32.
29 95
computing technologies (ICACCCT), Tamilnadu, India; 2012. p. 104–9. Davenport T, Prusak L. Working knowledge: how organizations manage what they
30 Bao J, Tao J, Deborah L, Context representation for the semantic web. In: Proceed- 96
know; 1998.
31 ings of the web science conference, North Carolina, USA, 2010. p. 206–12. Denoue L. Yet, another Web annotation system. File URL 〈http://www.fxpal.com/ 97
32 Bartalos P, Bieliková M. Semantic web service composition framework based on people.denoue/yawas〉. 98
parallel processing. In: Proceedings on E-commerce technology, IEEE CS; 2009. Dodani M-H. From objects to services: a journey in search of component reuse
33 p. 495–8. 99
nirvana. J Object Technol 2004;3(8):49–54.
34 Bartalos P, Bieliková M. QoS aware semantic web service composition approach Domingue J, Cabral L, Hakimpour H, Sell D, et al. IRS-III: a platform and infrastructure 100
35 considering pre/postconditions. In: Proceedings on web services, IEEE CS; 2010. for creating WSMO- based semantic web services. In: Proceedings of the work- 101
p. 345–452.
36 shop on WSMO implementations (WIW), vol. 113, Frankfurt, Germany; 2004. p. 102
Bartalos P, Bielikova M. Automatic dynamic web services composition: a survey and
29–30.
37 problem formalization. Comput Inf J 2011;30:793–827.
Dong H, Hussain F-K, Chang E. Semantic web service matchmakers: state of the art
103
38 Beau S, Taouil F-T, Hassanaly P. Collaborate to co-elaborate knowledge between 104
and challenges. Concurr Comput Practic Exp 2013;25(7):961–88.
necessity and opportunity. In: Proceedings of the third international conference
39 of information systems and economic intelligence (SIIE), Sousse, Tunisia; 2010.
Durcik Z. Automated web service composition with knowledge approach. Inf Sci 105
40 Technol Bull ACM Slovak 2010;2:35–42. 106
p. 317–30.
Dustdar S, Schreiner W. A survey on web services composition. Int J Web Grid Serv
41 Belhajjame K, Embury S-M, Paton N-W, et al. Automatic annotation of web services 107
2005;1:1–30.
Q2 based on workflow definitions. ACM Trans Web 2008.
42 Benatallah B, Sheng Q, Dumas M. The self-serv environment for web services
Eggen R, Eggen M. Efficiency of distributed parallel processing using java rmi, 108
43 sockets and corba 2001. p. 888–93. 109
composition. IEEE Internet Comput 2003;7(1):40–8.
Elmaghraoui H, Zaoui I, Chiadmi D, Benhlima L. Graph based e-government web
44 Benna A, Boudjlida N, Nacer-talantikite H. SAWSDL, mediation and XQUERY for web
service composition. J Comput Sci Issues 2011;8(1):103–10.
110
services. In: Proceedings of the eighth international conference on new
45 Emmerich W. Engineering distributed objects. John Wiley and Sons Edition; 2000. 111
technologies in distributed systems (NOTER), vol. 1. Lyon, France: ACM; 2008.
46 Esmaeilsabzali S. An interface approach to discovery and composition of web 112
p. 23–37.
services [Master's thesis]. University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Canada; July 2004.
47 Berardi D, Automatic service composition, models, techniques and tools [Ph.D. 113
Fensel D, Bussler C, Maedche A. Semantic web enabled web services. ACM SIGMOD
48 thesis]. Department of Data Processing, University la Sapienza, Rome; 2005. 114
Bouchaib F, Boudjlida N, Nacer-talantikite H. Generic model of knowledge and Rec 2002;31(4):1–2.
49 competence of domains. In: Proceedings of the third international conference Gardarin G. XML des bases de données aux services Web (in French). dunod 115
50 on web and information technologies, Marrakech, Marocco; 2010. p. 209–20. Edition; 2002. 116
Boudries A, Boudjlida N, Nacer-talantikite H. Annotation semantiques et web Gasmi B, Boudjlida N, Nacer-Talantikite H. Conceptual graphs for competence. In:
51 Proceedings of the third international conference of information systems and 117
services (in french). In: Proceedings of the first international conference of
52 information systems and economic intelligence (SIIE), Hammamet, Tunisia; economic intelligence (SIIE), Sousse, Tunisia; 2010. p. 505–14. 118
53 2008. p. 589–601. GATE, General architecture for text engineering. File URL 〈http://gate.ac.uc〉. 119
Bromberg Y, Grace P, Reveillere L. Starlink: runtime intereoperability between Gayathridevi M, Manikandan R. Semantic web services—a survey. Int J Sci Eng Res
54 2013;4(6).
120
heterogeneous middleware protocols. In: Proceedings of the 31st IEEE inter-
55 national conference on distributed computing systems, Minneapolis, USA; 2011. Geetha T, Sathyavathy P. Semantic and QoS based web service selection using a 121
56 Bucchiarone A, Gnesi S. A survey on services composition languages and models. multi agent system. In: Proceedings of the second Indian international 122
57 In: Proceedings of international workshop on web services modeling and conference on artificial intelligence (IICAI), Pune, India; 2005. p. 2521–33. 123
testing; 2006. p. 51–63. Gehlot V, Edupuganti K. Use of colored petri nets to model, analyze, and evaluate
58 Bultan T, Fu X, Hull R, et al., A new approach to design and analysis of e-service service composition and orchestration. In: Proceedings of the 42nd Hawaii 124
59 composition. In: Proceedings of the 12nd international World Wide Web international conference on system sciences (HICSS), Hawaii; 2009. p. 1–8. 125
60 conference. NY, USA: ACM; 2003. p. 403–10. Georgakopoulos D, Schuster H, Cichocki A, et al. Process-based e-service composi- 126
Burstein M, Bussler C, TF, et al., A semantic web services architecture. IEEE Internet tion for modelling and automating zero latency supply chains. Inf. Syst Front
61 2002;4.
127
Comput 2005;9(5):72–81.
62 Candia T. Benefits of federated identity to government, White paper, Liberty Gerber MKA, Schmidt M. Semantic web service composition planning with OWLs- 128
63 Alliance Project; 2004. XPlan. In: Proceedings of the AAAI fall symposium on semantic web and agents, 129
Canfora G, Di-Penta M, Esposito R, et al. An approach for QoS-aware service Arlington, VA, USA; 2005. p. 55–62.
64 130
composition based on genetic algorithms. In: Proceedings of the international Gong L, Feng L-G, Zhong L, et al. An opened model with web service in discrete
65 conference on genetic and evolutionary computation (GECCO), Washington, event simulation. In: Proceedings of the second international conference on 131
66 USA; 2005. p. 1069–75. future computer and communication (ICFCC); 2010. p. 383–6. 132
1 Gordon B-S, Bennaceur A, Georgantas N, et al. The role of ontologies in emergent Liu Y, Ngu H, Liangzhao Z. QoS computation and policing in dynamic web service 67
2 middleware: supporting interoperability in complex distributed systems. In: selection. In: WWW (Alternate Track Papers & Posters); 2004. p. 66–73. 68
Proceedings of the 12th international middleware conference, Lisbon, Portugal; Liu W, Du Y, Guo B, et al. A fast algorithm for web service composition based on
3 2011. p. 410–30. dynamic description logic. Inf Technol J 2010;9(6):1150–7. 69
4 Gray NA, Comparison of web services, JAVA RMI, and CORBA service implementa- LOOM, A concept language. File URL 〈http://www.isi.edu/isd/LOOM〉. 70
5 tion. In: Proceedings of the 5th Australasian workshop on software and system Malik Z, Bouguettaya A. Rateweb: reputation assessment for trust establishment 71
acchitecture, 2004. among web services. VLDB J 2009;18(4):885–911.
6 Gray N-A. Performance of JAVA middleware JAVA RMI, JAXRPC and Corba. In: Mangal D, Mahajan R-P. A novel approach for performance estimation of soap-
72
7 Proceedings of the sixth Australasian workshop on software and system based web services. Int J Emerg Technol Adv Eng 2012;2(2). 73
8 architectures, Australia; 2005. p. 31–9. Martin D, Ankolekar A, MB, et al. OWL-S release. File URL 〈http://www.daml.org/ 74
Group OM. The common object request broker: architecture and specification. services/owl-s/〉.
9 75
Chichester: Wiley; 1998. McIlraith S-A, Son T-C, Zeng H. Semantic web services. IEEE Intell Syst 2001;16
10 Guangjun G, Fei Y. A method for semantic web service selection based on ontology. (2):46–53. 76
11 J Comput 2011;6:377–86. Medjahed B. Semantic web enabled composition of web services [Ph.D. thesis]. 77
12 Hamadi R, Benatallah B. A petri net-based model for web service composition. In: Computer Science and Applications Faculty of Virginia Polytechnic Institute, 78
Proceedings of the 14th Australasian database conference (ADC), vol. 17, USA; 2004.
13 Australia. ACM; 2003. p. 191–200. Medjahed B, Bouguettaya A, Elmagarmid AK. Semantic web enabled composition of 79
14 Han W, Shi X, Chen R. Process-context aware matchmaking for web service web services. VLDB J 2003;12(4):333–51. 80
15 composition. J Netw Comput Appl 2008;31:559–76. Michael C, Gero M. QoS-based selection of services: the implementation of a 81
Harold E-R, Means W-S. XML in a nutshell. o'reilly Edition; 2004. genetic algorithm. In: Proceeding of the international conference on service
16 Hashemian S-V, Mavaddat F. A graph-based approach to web services composition. oriented architectures and service oriented computing (SOA/SOC), Bern, Swit- 82
17 In: Proceedings of IEEE-IPSJ international symposium on applications and the zerland; 2007. p. 1–12. 83
18 internet (SAINT), Trento, Italy; 2005. p. 183–9. Mohd F, Fudzee M, Abawajy H. QoS-based adaptation service selection broker. 84
Heflin J, Hendler J. Semantic interoperability on the web. In: Proceedings of Future Gener Comput Syst 2011;27:256–64.
19 extreme markup languages; 2000. p. 111–20. Mohebbi K, Ibrahim S, Idris N-B. Comtemporary semantic web service frameworks:
85
20 Henni F, Atmani B. Dynamic web service composition: use of case based reasoning an overview and comparisons. Int J Web Serv Comput 2012;3(3):961–88. 86
21 and ai planning. In: Proceedings of the fourth international conference on web Mokhtar SB, Preuveneers D, Georgantas N, et al. Easy: efficient semantic service 87
and information technologies (ICWIT), Sidi Bel Abbes, Algeria; 2012. p. 22–29. discovery in pervasive computing environments with QoS and context support.
22 88
Hervás R, Bravo J, Fontecha J. A context model based on ontological languages: a J Syst Softw 2008;8(5):785–808.
23 proposal for information visualization. J Univers Comput Sci 2010;16:1539–55. Mokhtar SB, Raverdy P-G, AU, et al. Sedim: a middleware framework for interoper- 89
24 Hess A, Johnston E, Kushmerick N. Assam: a tool for semi-automatically annotating able service discovery in heterogeneous networks. Int J Ambient Comput Intell 90
25 semantic web services. In: Proceedings of international semantic web con- 2010;2(4): 13–32. 91
ference, Hiroshima, Japan; 2004. p. 320–35. Nacer H, Aissani D, Adel K. Performance evaluation in virtual web services. In:
26 Huang F, Lan C-W, Stephen Y. An optimal QoS-based web service selection scheme. Proceedings of the 15th Austrian–French–German conference on optimization 92
27 Inf Sci 2009;179(19):3309–22. (AFG), Toulouse, France; 2011. 93
28 Hull R, Su J. Tools for composite web services. ACM SIGMOD Rec 2005;34(2):86–95. Nacer H, Aissani D, Adel K. Performance analysis in semantic web services 94
Hwnag Y, Jun S. The performance evaluations and enhancements of GIS web composition. In: Proceedings of the third international conference on industrial
29 services. In: Proceedings of the international conference on multimedia and engineering and operations management (IEOM), Istanbul, Turkey; 2012. 95
30 ubiqutious engineering; 2007. Nacer H, Adel K, Aissani D. The simulation design and analysis of distributed 96
31 Jaeger M-C, Muhl G. Soft real-time aspects for service-oriented architectures. In: systems: Java-rmi, corba and web services. In: Proceedings of the EURO/ 97
Proceeding of the IEEE joint conference on E-commerce technology and INFORMS 26th conference, Italy, Roma; 2013.
32 enterprise computing, E-commerce and E-services (CEC/EEE), San Francisco, Nacer-Talantikite H, Aissani D. A security model for virtual web services. In:
98
33 USA; 2006. p. 5. Proceedings of strategic advantage of computing information systems in 99
34 Jasper R, Uschold M. A framework for understanding and classifying ontology enterprise management, Athens, Greece; 2010. p. 273–86. 100
applications. In: Proceedings of the IJCAI99 workshop on ontologies and Nacer-talantikite H, Aissani D, Boudjlida N. Semantic annotations for web services
35 101
problem-solving methods; 1999. discovery and composition. Comput Stand Interfaces J 2009;31(6):1108–17.
36 JAVASOFT, JAVA remote. method invocation specification, revision. 1st ed.; 1998. Nacer-Talantikite H, Aissani D, Boudjlida N. Les web services complexes (in French). 102
37 Jiang W, Zhang C, Huang Z, Chen M, et al. A tool for QoS-aware automatic service Européenne Edition; 2011. 103
38 composition. In: Proceedings on web services, IEEE CS; 2010. p. 42–9. Nakazawa J, Tokuda H, Edwards W, et al. A bridging framework for universal 104
Juric M-B, Rozman I, Hericko M. Performance comparison of Corba and RMI. Inf interoperability in pervasive systems. In: Proceedings of 26th IEEE international
39 Softw Technol 2000;42:915–33. conference on distributed computing systems, Lisbon, Portuga; 2006. 105
40 Juric M-B, Kezmah B, Hericko M. Java RMI, RMI tunneling and web services Narang V, Pulusani P, Thakkar H. Comparison of communication protocols in 106
41 comparison and performance analysis. J ACM SIGPLAN Not 2004;39(5):58–65. distributed environment. J Comput Sci 2006;218:1–19. 107
Kadima H, Monfort V. Les services Web, techniques, démarches et outils XML, Nester C, Philippsen M, Haumacher B. A more efficient RMI for JAVA. In: Proceed-
42 WSDL, SOAP, UDDI, ROSETTANet, UML (in French). dunod Edition; 2004. ings of the ACM conference on JAVA Grande, New York, NY, USA; 1999. p. 152–9. 108
43 Kagal L, Paolucci M, Srinivasan N, et al. Authorization and privacy for semantic web Niu W, Li G, Zhao Z, et al. Multi-granularity context model for dynamic web service 109
44 services. IEEE Intell Syst 2004;19(4):50–6. composition. J Netw Comput Appl 2011;34:312–26. 110
Kahan J, Koivunen M-R, Hommeaux P, et al., Annotea: an open RDF infrastructure Nonaka I, Takeuchi H. The knowledge creating company. Oxford University Press
45 for shared web annotations. In: Proceedings of the 10th international World Edition; 1995.
111
46 Wide Web conference, Hong Kong, China; 2001. p. 623–32. Nundloll V, Grace P, Blair G. The role of ontology in enabling dynamic interoper- 112
47 Karimi O. Security model for service-oriented architecture. Adv Comput: Int J 2011. ability. In: Proceedings of the 11th IFIP international conference on distributed 113
Khawlani M-MA. Web services: a bridge between Corba and DCOM. J Sci Technol applications and interoperable systems, Reykjavik, Iceland; 2011.
48 114
2012:1–2. Oaks P, HOfstede A. Guided interaction: a mechanism to enable ad hoc service
49 Kiryakov A, Popov B, Terziev I, et al. Semantic annotation, indexing and retrieval. interaction. Inf Syst Front 2007;9(1):29–51. 115
50 Web Semant J 2005;2(1):1–39. OCF, Open system foundation. File URL 〈http://www.osf.org〉. 116
51 Lacot X. Introduction à OWL, Un langage XML d'ontologies Web, enjeux, objectifs et OMG, Object management group. File URL 〈http://www.omg.org〉. 117
mise en oeuvre, File URL 〈http://www.lacot.org/public/owl〉. Orfali R, Harkey D. Client/Server programming with JAVA and CORBA. Chichester:
52 Lammermann S. Runtime service composition via logic-based program synthesis Wiley; 1997. 118
53 [Ph.D. thesis]. Department of Micro Electronics and Information Technology, Papazoglou MP, Georgakopoulos D. Service-oriented computing. Commun ACM 119
54 Royal Institute of Technology; June 2002. 2003. 120
Lee J. Matching algorithms for composing business process solutions with web Papazoglou M, Aiello M, Pistore M, et al., XSRL: an xml web-service request
55 services. In: Proceedings of the fourth international conference on E-commerce language. Technical report, DIT-02-0079. University of Trento; 2002. 121
56 and web technologies (ECWEB 03), Prague, Czechoslovakia; 2003. p. 393–02. Patil A, Oundhakar S, Sheth A, et al. Meteor-s web service annotation framework. 122
57 Lee T-B, Hendle J, Lassila O. The semantic web. Sci Am 2001;5(284):34–43. In: Proceedings of the 13th international World Wide Web conference, NY, 123
Lee S, Lee K-W, Ryu K-D, et al. Deployment-time binding selection to improve the USA; 2004. p. 553–62.
58Q10 performance of distributed applications. Report RC23861; 2006. Peer J. A PDDL based tool for automatic web services composition. In: Proceedings
124
59 Lee C-L, Liu A, Huang H. Using planning and case-based reasoning for service of the second workshop on principles and practice of semantic web reasoning 125
60 composition. Adv Comput Intell Intell Inf 2010;14:540–8. (PPSWR) at the 20th international conference on logic programming, Berlin, 126
Li C, Cheng B. A web service performance evaluation approach based on user Germany; 2004. p. 149–63.
61 127
experience. In: Proceedings of international conference on web services; 2011. Perez A-G, Fernandez M., Corcho O. Ontology tools. In: Ontological engineering.
62 Li L, Wei J, Huang T., High performance approach for multi-QoS constrained web British library Edition; 2004 [chapters 1, 5]. 128
63 services selection. In: Proceedings of the fifth international conference on Popov B, Kiryakov A, Kirilov A, et al., Kim, semantic annotation platform. In: 129
64 service-oriented computing; 2007. p. 283–94. Proceedings of the second international semantic web conference (ISWC), vol. 130
Lin Y, Ding H. Ontology based semantic annotation for semantic interoperability of 2870, FL, USA; 2003. p. 484–99.
65 process models. In: Proceedings of international conference on computational Portchelvi V, Venkatesan VP, Undaram GS. Achieving web services composition—a 131
66 intelligence for modelling, control and automation; 2005. p. 162–7. survey. Softw Eng 2012;2(5):195–202. 132
1 Prashant D, Goodwin R, Akkiraju R, et al. Dynamic workflow composition using Tari A, Elgedawy I, Dahmani A. A dual-layered model for web services representa- 47
2 Markov decision process. Web Serv Res J 2005;2(1):1–17. tion and composition. J Intell Inf Syst 2009;32:237–65. 48
Rajendran T, Balasubramanie P, Cherian R. An efficient WS-QoS broker based Tsai W. Ontology-based dynamic process collaboration in service-oriented archi-
3 architecture for web services selection. Int J Comput Appl 2010;1:75–80. tecture. In: Proceedings of IEEE international conference on service-oriented
49
4 Rao J, Su X. A survey of automated web service composition methods. In: computing and applications; 2007. p. 39–46. 50
5 Proceedings of the first international workshop on semantic web services Vadivelou G, IIavarasan E, Prasanna S. Algorithm for web service composition using 51
and web process composition (SWSWPC), San Diego, USA. Lecture notes in multi-agents. Int J Comput Appl 2011;13(8):40–5.
6 computer science, vol. 3387; 2004. p. 43–54.
52
Vera M-V, Motta E, Domingue J, et al. MnM: Ontology driven, semi-automatic and
7 Ren K, Chen J, Chen T, et al. Grid-based semantic web service discovery model with automatic support for semantic markup. In: Proceedings of the 13th interna-
53
8 QoS constraints. In: Proceedings of the third international conference on tional conference on knowledge engineering and management (EKAW), Lecture 54
semantics, knowledge and grid; 2007. p. 479–82.
9 Rouached M. Security analysis for web services compositions. Int J Sci Eng Res
notes in computer science, vol. 2473; 2002. p. 379–91. 55
10 W3C, The World Wide Web consortium. File URL 〈http://www.WebServices.org/〉. 56
2012;3(5).
W3C, The World Wide Web consortium. File URL 〈http://www.w3.org/〉.
11 Samuel SJ, Sasipraba T. An approach for graph based planning and quality driven
W3C, Web services description language (WSDL). File URL 〈http://www.w3.org/TR/ 57
composition of web services. Indian J Comput Sci Eng 2011;2(5):672–9.
12 wsdl〉. 58
Seinturier L. Distributed component object model DCOM/COMþ . Technical report.
13 W3C, Semantic annotations for WSDL and XML schema. File URL 〈http://www.w3. 59
University Pierre and Marie Curie; 2007. File URL 〈http://arcad.essi.fr/arcad/
org/TR/2007/REC-sawsdl-20070828〉.
14 livrables/proceedings-JC2002.pdf〉. 60
Wache H. A survey of existing approaches. In: Proceedings of the workshop on
15 Shen C-C. Discrete event simulation on the internet and the web. Future Gener 61
Comput Syst 2000;17(2):187–96. ontologies and information sharing, Seattle, USA; 2001. p. 108–17.
16 Sheng QZ, Benatallah B. A UML based modeling language for model-driven Waldinger R. Web agents cooperating deductively. In: Proceedings of the first 62
17 development of context-aware web services. In: Proceedings of the interna- international workshop formal approaches to agent-based systems (FAABS), 63
tional conference on mobile business, Washington, USA; 2005. p. 206–12. Greenbelt, USA. Lecture notes in computer science, vol. 1871; 2001. p. 250–62.
18 Wang Y, Vassileva J. Toward trust and reputation based web service selection: a
64
Shin D, Lee K. An automated composition of information web services based on
19 functional semantics. In: Proceedings of the IEEE congress on services; 2007. survey. Int Trans Syst Sci Appl J 2007;3(2):118–32. 65
20 p. 300–7. Wang H, Huangc J, Qub Y, Xie J. Web services: problems and future directions. 66
21 SHOE, Knowledge annotator. File URL 〈http://www.cs.umd.edu/projects/plus/SHOE/ J Web Semant 2004;1(3):309–20. 67
KnowledgeAnnotator.html〉. Wang X, Vitvar T, MK, et al. A QoS-aware selection model for semantic web services.
22 Sinderen V. Editorial: challenges and solutions in enterprise computing. Enterp Inf In: Proceeding of the fourth international conference on service oriented 68
23 Syst 2008;2(4):341–6. computing (ICSOC), Berlin, Heidelberg; 2006. p. 390–401. 69
24 Sirin E, Hendler J, Parsia B. Semi-automatic composition of web services using Web-Site, Common object request broker architecture. File URL 〈http://www.omg.org〉. 70
semantic descriptions. In: Proceedings of workshop of web services: modelling, Web-Site, Remote method invocation. File URL 〈http://JAVA.sun.com/j2se/1.4.2/
25 architecture and infrastructure (ICEIS), Angers; 2003. p. 17–24.
71
docs/guide/rmi/index.html〉.
26 SMORE, Tool for textual extraction of information. File URL 〈http://annotation. Web-Site, Web services interoperability organization. File URL 〈http://www.ws-i.org/〉. 72
27 semanticWeb.org/tools/〉. Web-Site, DAML ontology library. File URL 〈http://www.daml.org/ontologies/〉. 73
Soley R-M, Stone C. Object management group. Object management architecture Web-Site, The OWL services coalition, OWL-S: semantic murkup for web services.
28 74
guide. Chichester: Wiley; 1995. File URL 〈http://www.w3.org/Submission/OWL-S/〉.
29 Story H, Harbulot B, Jacobi I, et al. FOAF þSSL: restful authentication for distributed Web-Site, Web service modelling language. File URL 〈http://www.wsmo.org/wsml/〉. 75
30 social networks. In: Proceedings of the first international workshop on trust Web-Site, Web services modelling ontology. File URL 〈http://www.wsmo.org/〉. 76
31 and privacy on the social and semantic web (SPOT); 2009. Web-Site, Description logic. File URL 〈http://dl.kr.org/〉. 77
Syncar K-P, Widoff S, Klusch M, et al. Larks: dynamic matchmaking among Willy C. Technology SOA and web services. The performance paradox. File URL
32 heterogeneous software agents in cyberspace. Auton Agents Multi-Agent Syst 78
〈http://www.ca.com/us/whitepapers/collateral.aspx?cid=147947〉.
33 2002;5(2):173–203. Wu D, Sirin E, Hendler J, et al. Htn, planning for web service composition using 79
34 Tabatabaei S, Dastjerdi A, Kadir W, Ibrahim S, et al. Security conscious ai-planning- shop2. Web Semant J 2004;1(4):377–96. 80
based composition of semantic web services. Int J Web Inf Syst 2010;6(3). Yue K, Yue1 M, Liu W, Li X. A graph-based approach for type matching in web
35 Taher L, Khatib HE, Basha R. A framework and QoS matchmaking algorithm for 81
service composition. J Comput Inf Syst 2010;6(7):2141–9.
36 dynamic web services selection. In: Proceedings of the second international Yu Q, Liu X, Bouguettaya A, Medjahed B. Deploying and managing web services: 82
37 conference on innovations in information technology (IIT), UAE, Dubai; 2005. issues, solutions, and directions. VLDB J 2008;17(3):537–72. 83
Tao Y, Kwei-Jay L. Service selection algorithms for web services with end-to-end Zeng L, Benatallah B. Qos-aware middleware for web services composition. IEEE
38 QoS constraints. In: Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on E-
84
Trans Softw Eng 2004;30:311–27.
39 commerce technology (CEC), Washington, USA; 2004. p. 129–36. 85
Zheng L, O'Brien L, Keung J, Xiwei X. Effort-oriented classification matrix of web
40 Tao Y, Kwei-Jay L. Service selection algorithms for composing complex services 86
service composition. In: Proceedings of the fifth international conference on
with multiple qos constraints. In: Proceedings of the third international
41 internet and web application and services (ICIW), Barcelona, Spain; 2010. 87
conference on service oriented computing (ICSOC), Berlin, Heidelberg; 2005.
42 p. 130–43. p. 357–62. 88
Zhou Z, Yang L-T, Bhiri S, et al. Verifying mediated service interactions considering
43 Tao Y, Yue Z, Kwei-Jay L. Efficient algorithms for web services selection with end-to- 89
end QoS constraints. ACM Trans Web 1. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1232722. expected behaviours. J Netw Comput Appl 2011;34(4):1043–53.
44 90
1232728.
45 91
46

Semantic Web Services

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Semantic Web Services

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Semantic Web Services

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Network and Computer Applications ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎

1 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

1 4.1.1. Performance model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 67

1 Functional Technical Semantic 67

1 The basic infrastructure of XML Web services is illustrated in 67

1 cost are considered as drawbacks by specialists. As a result many P1 67

1 for the proposed models, representing the middleware as a Table 13 67

You might also like