Semantic Web Services-A Survey

International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, Volume 4, Issue 6, June-2013 76 ISSN 2229-5518

Gayathridevi.M and Manikandan.R

Abstract-- The technology where the meaning of the information and the service of the web is defined by making the web to understand and satisfies the request of the people is called Semantic Web Services. That is the idea of having data on the web defined and linked in a way that it can be used by machines not just for display purpose, but for automation, integration and reuse of data across various application .The idea of the semantic is raised to overcome the limitation of the Web services such as Average WWW searches examines only about 25% of potentially relevant sites and return a lot of unwanted information, Information on web is not suitable for software agent and Doubling of size. It is built on top of the Web Services extended with rich semantic representations along with capabilities for automatic reasoning developed in the field of artificial intelligence. This survey attempts to give an overview of the underlying concepts and technologies along with the categorization, selection and discovery of services based on semantic.

1 INTRODUCTION Web Services are self-contained application that is used for the communication between electronic devices over internet. It uses XML- based interfaces for communication Service Publish which includes the operation like publish, bind, find of the Provider services by the service role. Bind The Semantic web used to categories the services and WSDL WSDL retrieves those services from UDDI based on meaning that enable dynamic, execution-time discovery, composition, and invocation of Services[1] and machine to use the web Service Service content. Supplier WSDL Reques The goal of Semantic Web Services is to satisfy the user by providing services from web. [1] Basically, Web services Find structure a service oriented architecture where the service register (UDDI) has predefinedIJSER categories (syntactic) that are specified by the service provider. As a result, similar Figure 1: Architecture of Web Service services may be listed under different categories in existing UDDI infrastructure. This may involve searching a large Service Requester is a person or organization that number of categorize to find appropriate services. requests the provider to their entity’s web service. The Therefore, need of categorize web service based on their provider gives appropriate agent to implement particular semantic rather than classification of service provider. service. Service Requester locates the desired service; its A Web Service is an application component accessible client binds with the service at the service provider and over open protocols which are intended to solve three main then invokes the services. problems such as Interoperability, Firewall traversal, Web Services uses four protocol stacks that used to Complexity. define, locate, implement, and make web service to interact An application component that Communicates via open with each other. They are: Transport Protocol – Responsible protocols (HTTP, SMTP, etc.) ,Processes XML messages to transporting message between network application and framed using SOAP ,Describes its messages using XML it include protocol such as HTTP, SMTP, and FTP. Schema , Provides an endpoint description using WSDL Messaging Protocol -Encode the message in XML format and can be discovered using UDDI. and include the protocol such as XML RPC, WS addressing, and SOAP. Description protocol –Used to describing the The Web Services architecture (fig:1) is based upon the public interface to specific web service by using WSDL. interactions between three roles [2]: Service provider, Discovery protocol –Centralizes services into common Service registry, Service requestor. The interactions involve registry by using UDDI. with the help of three main operations such as Publish, Find, and Bind. A SOAP message is an ordinary XML document containing the following elements: A required Envelope element that identifies the XML document as a SOAP IJSER © 2013 http://www.ijser.org International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, Volume 4, Issue 6, June-2013 77 ISSN 2229-5518 message. An optional Header element that contains header Web Service Description Language [1] is an XML information. A required Body element that contains call vocabulary for describing Web services that allows and response information. An optional Fault element that developers to describe Web Services and their capabilities, provides information about errors that occurred while in a standard manner. processing the message. Ontology is the language used to define vocabularies UDDI is platform independent, Extensible Markup and establish the word and this is constructing by RDF Language based registry by which different services listed Schema. Logic is used to establish the consistency and on internet [3]. This is provided by Organization for correctness of data set and proof is used to explain the steps advancement of structured information standards. Core of for reasoning [1].The top layer the trust which provides the web services standards designed to be interrogated by authentication and trustworthiness of services, agent and SOAP message and provide access to WSDL describing the agent [1]. protocol bindings. The message formats required to interact with web service listed in the directory. UDDI nodes are 3 SEMANTIC WEB SERVICES servers that support UDDI specification and UDDI registry The development of Semantic Web Services is to enrich the has one or more nodes. underlying Web Services [5].Since all the web resources have one or more themes along with some number of

concepts .If these concepts can be discovered and matched 2 THE SEMANTIC WEB with the concept contained in a query then this will be the best method of retrieval of information from web and this The Semantic Web provides a common framework that can be achieved by Semantic Web Services [13]. allows data to be shared and reused across application, enterprise, and community boundaries [12]. It is an effort to Categorization of services based on semantic from a enhance current web so that computers can process the hierarchical by using Association rule and register in UDDI. information presented on World Wide Web, interpret and Selection can be done in two steps 1) Parameters-Based connect it, to help humans to find required knowledge service refinement 2) Semantic similarity-based matching. [4].semantic web is intended to form a huge distributed Let we discuss about the techniques to Coordination, knowledge based system. Matching, Discovery of services. 3.1 Framework Representation Of Semantic Web In the architecture (fig:2), URI and Unicode, follows the Services important features of the existing World Wide Web. Unicode is a standard of encoding international character To work with Semantic Web Services there needs to define sets and it allows that all human languages can be used the relevant information reasoning problems and solutions (written and read) on the web using one standardized form. to the problems in a consistent manner. Three large Uniform Resource Identifier is a string of a standardized proposals for such representation frameworks have been form that allows to uniquelyIJSER identifying resources. A presented: OWL-S, WSMO, and SWSF. subset of URI is Uniform Resource Locator, which contains OWL-S uses description logic (OWL) as the basic access mechanism and a network location of a document. language for service ontology. WSMO stresses the loose Another subset of URI is URN that allows identifying a coupling between services and attempts to achieve this resource without implying its location and means of with separate goal and service ontologies and advanced dereferencing it. mediator architecture. SWSF is based on OWL-S but

improves its process model by incorporating an existing TRUST ontology, Process Specification Language (PSL). LOGIC AND PROOF 3.2 Semantic Web Service Coordination

ONTOLOGY The coordination of web services includes the matching of RDF AND RDF SCHEMA services and discovery. Semantic service matching XML AND XML SCHEMA determines whether the semantics of a desired service conform to that of an established service. A current Figure 2: Architecture Of Semantic Web approach to semantic service matching depends on non- The layer of the semantic web as follows(fig:1.2): The logic-based or logic based reasoning or a hybrid lowest layer is XML and XML schema responsible common combination of both, within or outside the respective schema, data type and structures [1].RDF and RDF schema service description framework. describes the resource type and metadata that uses the Table 1. Supported semantic web service description XML notation to represent pieces of information as formats propositions and that can form general graph-like structures. Propositions are represented in the form of Name of the Features subject predicate-object -triplets and terms used are Techniques uniquely identified with URIs.

 OWL-S 1) Logic based non- Matchmakers semantic functional.[16] Matchmakers for OWL-S service are the

OWLSM and Based on the above mentioned description formats OWLS-UDDI different techniques is framed for service matching [8]. As focusing on follows service IO

matching.

2)PCEM that converts Table 2. Different techniques for service matching OWL-S service to PDDL for S.No Name Of The Features /Limitations matching.[14] Techniques  WSML This 1. Service profile and 1)profile matching Matchmakers encompass process model called as a “ black box “ with WSMO- matching determines the MX (hybrid semantic semantic correspondence Matchmaker) , between the service GLUE(Logic 2)This encompass based) input, output, pre, post syntactic conditions, non search engine functional aspects, and in P2P also Operational networks.[15] behavior[20]. 1)Tool used  WSDL- here is 2. Logic- based semantic 1)Based on descriptive S/SAWSDL METEOR-S service profile format, logic based Matchmakers WSDI matching semantic matchmakers discovery perform deductive infrastructure reasoning on semantic and UDDI service basedIJSER 2)To implement this Lumina3. logical concept , rules 2)It is Key will be framed from the word based ontologies as first order searching. or rule based theories. Supported 3)Based on this theories semantic web frames the matching service degree. description 4)Monolithic logic formats based service matching and service specification matching  MonolithicDL- Semantic based service are the two type matching based on this Matchmakers matching is done within type of techniques[21]. the logic 3. Service signature and 1)Semantic theory that is IOPE Matching matching(Logic) of performed by service signatures RACER, called service profile MaMaS4.Now IO-matching. it is 2)It is stateless implemented matching of declarative in OWL-DL data semantic by logical extended with reasoning[22] .

4. Non- logic based Based on description semantic profile format it do not 3.3.2 AI-Planning-Based Web Service Composition matching perform logical The service composition problem is the state-based inference on service planning problem in AI .Classical AI planning-based semantics but they composition performed under the assumption, no compute the degree of condition focuses on the description of services as matching. deterministic state transitions (actions) with preconditions 5. Hybrid semantic 1)Itis combination of and state altering (physical) effects. Actions are applicable profile matching crisp logic based and to actual world states based on the evaluation of non-logic based preconditions and yield new (simulated) states where the semantic matching. effects are valid. 2)LARKS has been the

first hybrid semantic

service IOPE 3.4 CLASSIFICATION OF SEMANTIC SERVICE matchmaker. COMPOSITION PLANNERS 3)It uses selected token based string similarity In general, any AI planning framework for Semantic Web metric to calculate the service composition can be characterized by 1) the degree of text similarity representation of the planning domain and problem to based matching. allow for automated reasoning on actions and states. 2) The service semantic method is the planning method applied to 6. Logic-based semantic Matching of process solve the given composition problem in the domain. process matching models of OWL0S We can classify Semantic Web service composition services grounded in planners according to the two criteria, which yields the WSDL inorder to following classes. reduce to the match of corresponding WSDL  Dynamic or static Semantic Web service composition service orchestrations in planners depending on whether the plan BPEL. generation and execution are inherently 7. Non-Logic based and 1)Framing dependency interleaved in the sense that actions (services) can hybrid semantic graphs based on be executed at planning time, or not. process model syntactic similarity  Functional-level or process-level Semantic Web matching measurement. service composition planners depending on 2)Based on workflow whether the plan generation relies on the service IJSERprofile semantics only, or the process model operation and logic match between input semantics in addition. and output connect the Table 3. Composition of the Services service node of the graph. S.N Name of Features/ o the Limitations Technique 3.3 Semantic Web Service Composition s Semantic Web service composition is the process of 1 Static and 1)GOAL,MetaCo combining or bundling the services to meet the needs of a Dynamic mp, user. Automating this process is desirable to improve speed Compositi PLCP,RPCLM- and efficiency of user responses. on SCPand AGORA- SCP are static 3.3.1 Web Service Composition classical planners. In general, Web service composition is similar to the 2)The dynamic composition of workflows used by the existing techniques composition .The user need to give the query which can be partially planners allow to relate to the required services [11].In particular, the execution of approach to composition is to have a single entity information (orchestration and choreography) between WSDL services gathering but no in BPEL. In fact, the majority of composition planners for word state Semantic Web services based on logic-based AI planning altering services. .In the following, we focus on these approaches to Semantic 3)But during Web service composition followed by discovery of services. planning,

advanced and observable reactive dynamic domain at design composition time. planners takes 3)Classical AI non-deterministic planners are static world state since their plan changes[23] . generation and execution is strictly 2 Functional 1)Functional decoupled. –level level(FLC) 5 Dynamic 1)This include compositio consider the compositio restricted , n service as atomic n planners advanced and or composite reactive dynamic black box action. planning under 2)The function is uncertainty. to execute in a 2)Restricted simple request- Dynamic response without planning : Action interaction execution at patterns. planning time is 3)This generates a restricted to sequence of information semantic web gathering about service base on uncertain action their profile that outcomes to add matches with the a new desired service. knowledge. 4)This uses 3)Advanced proprietary Dynamic composability Planning: This rules for method allow to generating react on arbitrary possible plans of changes in the hybrid IJSERsemantic world state . IO matching[24]. 3 Process – 1)Process level 4)Its interleaved level extends FLC execution of compositio planning planning with n 2)That is this world state include the altering service is internal complex prohibited to behavior of prevent exiting inconsistencies 4 Static 1)The class of and conflicts. semantic static Ai planning 5)Reactive service –based Dynamic compositio composition Planning: It n planners covers classical produce set of and non-classical condition action planning or reaction rules approaches. for every 2)This plan under situation. the assumption of 6)Interleaved a closed, perfect planning and world with execution is deterministic derived from action and state condition

with help of Explicit and rules. Implicit 5)Explicit context 3.4 SEMANTIC WEB SERVICE DISCOVERY is provide directly by user A web service discovery process is carried out in three during major steps. First step is advertisement of web service by matchmaker developers. Providers advertise web services in public process. repositories by registering their web services using web 6)Implicit context service description file written in WSDL [9]. Second step is is collected in web service request by user. User sends web service request automatic or specifying the requirement in predefined format to web semantic manner service repository. and not directly Web service matcher which is core part of web service provided by user. discovery model, matches user request with available web 7)According to services and finds a set of web service candidates. Final context collected step is selection and invocation of one of the retrieved web it further divided service (fig:3) The different techniques to discover the into profile services are tabulated as follows [9][10]. oriented context, usage history User Request oriented context, process oriented context and other Service Matcher context.[18]

2 Publish 1)In this, request

Subscribe is provided with

Web Services Model the priority to discovery.

2)This uses Figure 3: Discovery Of Services Semantic based Table 4. Techniques for discovery of services web service matching and by S.N Name of using concept o the Features/ matching it rank Technique LimitationIJSER the services. s 3)Divides the 1 Context 1)The format of system in to aware web request is fixed in Subscription service web service so phase and discovery there is some notification chance of loss of phase. information. 4)Information is 2)This can be used from the overcome by knowledge base context aware and matching is discovery. performed. 3)This techniques 5)Limitation is it are useful for adds overhead in request developing and optimization, maintain new result components in optimization, system personalization architecture. and better than 3 Keyword 1)It calculate keyword clustering similarity matrix matching of words in techniques. domain ontology 4)Context is based on pareto dived into IJSER © 2013 http://www.ijser.org International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, Volume 4, Issue 6, June-2013 82 ISSN 2229-5518

principal. behavior graph 2)And by were regular semantic nodes is the reasoning finds activities , the matching connectors are service. splits and join 3)Bipartite graph rules. is constructed 3)The algorithm using Kuhn- traverses the munkres nested structure algorithm to find of BPEL control the match. flow in a top- down and apply 4 Service 1)In this, build transformation request the request vector procedure Expansion and training set 4)It also handle of the LSI by five structural combining activity sequence, service request flow, switch, and latent while and pick. semantic 5)Ranked in indexing. decreasing order 2)LSI includes to calculate singular Value distance between Decomposition(S the graph and VD) original web service. matrix is approximated by 6 Layer 1)By applying a linear based filters searching combination of a semantic is divided into decomposition web three layers. 3)By using cosine discovery 2)The layers are measure service category similarities are matching, service found IJSERand functionality linking of matching, quality ontology is done of service by semi matching. automated 7 Service 1)Interoperability approaches. discovery should be ensure 4)The cost of in in heterogeneous computing LSI Heterogen network by using and string SVD is eous service discovery high is the networks gateways limitation of this between the technique. domain that translates 5 BPEL 1)If the service between different processes does not match service discovery Ranking exactly then environment. using service matcher 2)To enhance graph suggested the this, have matching approximation implemented a matching. gateway 2)In this case, prototype solving BPEL transparent specification interoperability transform to between WS-

Discovery and a 2)Overall cross –layer similarity solution between query 8 Agent 1)By using Qos and web services based parameter, we is calculated as discovery can select best weighted sum considerin service among using association g QoS multiple services. rule. 2)Web service 3)This gives the discovery better result than framework has a the text based separate agent approach. for ranking the

services on the basis of QoS 4 CONCLUSION which verify and The research around Web Services is intense and there is a certify the lot of interest in finding ways to create an infrastructure services. where services could be described that should allow 3)Time required dynamic discovery, composition and invocation even the for selecting the web service standards and recommendations become web service complex. Many concepts and methods from artificial based on QoS intelligence research have been brought into the work. The decreases the development of the Semantic Web has been characterized time. by the input from the knowledge representation 9 Peer-to 1)Discovery is community and AI Planning research has had a big impact. Peer based on the However the aim to satisfy the people by providing easy discovery process behavior. surfing over the web and also retrieving the information 2)The web service from the large distributed web resources. p is a triple,

p=(I,S,R), were,I is the 5 REFERENCES implementation, [1] cerc.wvu.edu/download/.../2011%20CD%20papers/SWW4061.pd S is the service, R f is the set of [2] http://www.webservice.org/specificstion .html,2010. request.IJSER [3] http://www.uddi.org/specification.html, 2012. 3)All service is [4] Grigoris Antonious and Frank van Harmelen”Semantic Web represent using Primer”,2010. finite automata [5] Seppo T¨orm¨ a, Jukka Villstedt, Ville Lehtinen, Ian Oliver, and matching can Vesa Luukkala“SEMANTIC WEB SERVICES — A be found by SURVEY”,2008. sending PFA. [6] Shalini Batra, Seema Bawa” Semantic Categorization of Web 4)Matching is Services”,2009. again done [7] Schahram Dustdar* and Wolfgang Schreiner” A survey on against S by web services composition”2005. hashing the finite [8] Yiqiao Wang and Eleni Stroulia “Semantic Structure automaton on to Matching for Assessing Web-Service Similarity” the chord ring. [9] Shalini Batra, Dr. Seema Bawa” Review of Machine Learning 5)Chord is the Approaches to Semantic Web Service Discovery” JOURNAL peer to peer OF ADVANCES IN INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY,2010. system for [10] Debajyoti Mukhopadhyay and Archana Chougule” A routing a query Survey on Web Service Discovery Approaches” on hops using [11] J. Lu, Y. Yu, D. Roy, and D. Saha, “Web Service hash table. Composition: A Reality Check,” Proc. Eighth Int’l Conf. Web 10 Hybrid 1)Discovery of Information Systems Eng. (WISE ’07) Dec. 2007. Approach services based on [12] http://www.semwebcentral.org keyword based [13] http://www.daml.org/services and ontology [14] http://aaaipress.org/Papers/Symposia/Fall/2005/FS-05- based. 01/FS05-01-011.pdf

[15] http://disi.unitn.it/~p2p/RelatedWork/Matching/WSMOMX- wias-revised.pdf [16] http://www.springer.com/978-3-7643-8574-3 [17] Thomas B.Passin “Explorer’s Guide to the Semantic Web”2004. [18] http://www.ijaest.iserp.org/archieves/16-Aug-1-15-11/Vol- No.9-Issue-No.2/15.IJAEST-Vol-No-9-Issue-No-2-Context- Aware-Match-Making-in-Semantic-Web-Service-Discovery- 243-247.pdf [19] citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi...1... - United States [20] http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.jsp?tp=&arnumber=59451 63&url=http%3A%2F%2Fieeexplore.ieee.org%2Fxpls%2Fabs _all.jsp%3Farnumber%3D5945163 [21] http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1670683.1670695 [22] http://www.computer.org/csdl/proceedings/compsac/2008/3 262/00/3262a993-abs.html [23] http://d_mukhopadhyay.tripod.com/CUBE2012-ACM- Mukhopadhyay.pdf [24] http://books.google.co.in/books?id=OFQ2DdCPJjMC&pg=P A81&lpg=PA81&dq=Functional+%E2%80%93level+composit ion+of+semantic+web&source=bl&ots=67XC5rgV98&sig=3d3 RLLVwamdymc53s7npw63qSmk&hl=en&sa=X&ei=vYLRUK OsI8fnrAeQk4DgCg&ved=0CGsQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q= Functional%20%E2%80%93level%20composition%20of%20s emantic%20web&f=false [25] http://mx1.websemanticsjournal.org/index.php/ps/article/vie wFile/162/160

IJSER