Wright State University CORE Scholar The Ohio Center of Excellence in Knowledge- Kno.e.sis Publications Enabled Computing (Kno.e.sis) 7-2004 Discovery of Web Services in a Federated Registry Environment Kaarthik Sivashanmugam Kunal Verma Wright State University - Main Campus Amit P. Sheth Wright State University - Main Campus, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://corescholar.libraries.wright.edu/knoesis Part of the Bioinformatics Commons, Communication Technology and New Media Commons, Databases and Information Systems Commons, OS and Networks Commons, and the Science and Technology Studies Commons Repository Citation Sivashanmugam, K., Verma, K., & Sheth, A. P. (2004). Discovery of Web Services in a Federated Registry Environment. Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Web Services, 270-278. https://corescholar.libraries.wright.edu/knoesis/735 This Conference Proceeding is brought to you for free and open access by the The Ohio Center of Excellence in Knowledge-Enabled Computing (Kno.e.sis) at CORE Scholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in Kno.e.sis Publications by an authorized administrator of CORE Scholar. For more information, please contact library- [email protected]. Discovery of Web Services in a Federated Registry Environment Kaarthik Sivashanmugam, Kunal Verma, Amit Sheth Large Scale Distributed Information Systems (LSDIS) Lab Department of Computer Science, University of Georgia Athens, GA 30602 {verma, amit}@cs.uga.edu Abstract suppliers or it may want to contact a marketplace to find similar services. Assuming that partners maintain similar The potential of a large scale growth of private and semi- private registries, this process can be automated by private registries is creating the need for an infrastructure forming registries federations, where the registry owners which can support discovery and publication over a group give only members of the federation access to their of autonomous registries. Recent versions of UDDI have registries. Forming a federation of registries will allow made changes to accommodate interactions between businesses to share their data while maintaining their distributed registries. In this paper, we discuss METEOR-S privacy. Web Service Discovery Infrastructure, which provides an ontology based infrastructure to provide access to In this paper, we leverage the METEOR-S Web Service registries divided based on business domains and grouped Discovery Infrastructure (MWSDI) [Verma et al., 2004] into federations. We also discuss how Web service for providing transparent access to private and public Web discovery is carried out within a federation. service registries. The focus of this paper is the creation of registry federations. We present a discussion of registry Keywords: Web services Discovery, peer to peer, federations and characterize them in the dimensions of Decentralized UDDI distribution, autonomy and heterogeneity. In order provide efficient access to the registries we store semantic 1. Introduction metadata Web service registry community in the Extended Registries Ontology (XTRO). We also discuss the different There has been a significant change in focus of the vision kinds of querying possible using our infrastructure. This of UDDI [UDDI, 2002] since its inception. This was work was done as part of the METEOR-S project, which evident in the release of version 3 [UDDI, 2003], which aims to create an infrastructure for complete lifecycle has several new features to augment the centralized management of Semantic Web processes. paradigm of UBR to facilitate interaction between the UBR and private and semi-private registries. The current We briefly describe the need for decentralization in section search facilities offered by the latest version of UDDI do 2. The technical details of MWSDI are described in section not offer any special features for finding Web service 3. The classes and relationships of the XTRO are shown in registries. As a result, it is assumed that Web service section 4. In section 5, we discuss and analyze Registry clients have prior knowledge of the location of the Federations. In section 6, we have discussed registries. In this paper, we present our implementation of implementation details in distributed registries with the a peer to peer network of private semi-private and public help of tModels. Service publication and discovery have UDDI registries, which allows transparent access to other been discussed in sections 7 and 8. Section 9 discusses registries based on registry federations or domains. We use related work. Conclusions and future work are mentioned an ontology based approach to classify registries and in section 10. locate them based on the users’ requirements. 2. Need for Decentralization Let us consider the following scenario which illustrates the benefits of private registries and having the ability to One of the main reasons that the UDDI specifications interact with other private registries. We can imagine a decided to acknowledge replication model for data in manufacturer that maintains a private registry to maintain registries instead of distribution is to enable inspection of details about its suppliers and other partners. Now consider data in UDDI along multiple perspectives. There can be a case when its suppliers are unable to meet its demands potentially several facets to distribute data in UDDI, such either due to adverse circumstances or large orders, and the as those related to geographical location, nature of manufacturer has to locate other suppliers. Due to trust registered services, business functionality, technical issues, the manufacturer may not want to search the UBR specifications and so on. The data partitioning on the other and find just any supplier. It may however want to request dimension could be hierarchical or non-hierarchical. With its partners or competitors for references about the trusted such distribution architecture, it should be possible not only to locate appropriate registry (by processing all kinds We have implemented MWSDI as a peer to peer network. of data distribution facets and data partitioning criteria) but Based on the different kinds of functionality, we have also to aggregate search results from different candidate implemented different peer types. They are the following. registries. Replication was chosen in UDDI because Gateway Peer: Gateway Peer acts as an entry point for creating a scalable model for distribution of data is registries to join MWSDI. It is responsible for updating the inherently difficult. However, in version 3 of the UDDI XTRO when new registries join the network. Gateway specifications, the need for data partitioning and affiliation Peer is the only peer that can update the XTRO or initiate among registries have been acknowledged. In MWSDI, we new peers. It is also responsible for propagating any advocate data distribution (as opposed to data replication) updates in the XTRO to all the other peers. and support any kind of data distribution among multiple Operator Peer: The role of the Operator Peer is to operate registries1. The data partitioning criteria is stored in the a UDDI registry and to provide Operator Services for its Extended Registries Ontology (XTRO) in MWSDI. registry. Operator Services are the value added services like semantic discovery and publication of Web services, 3. MWSDI provided by the registry operators. The Operator Peer also acts as a provider for the XTRO to all other peers who In this section, we briefly describe the conceptual need it. foundations and implementation of MWSDI which Auxiliary Peer: Auxiliary Peers act as providers of the provides the infrastructure for the work presented in this XTRO to make it highly available which is critical to the paper. Detailed descriptions of the architecture, performance of the infrastructure. In event of failure of the implementation and protocols can be found in [Verma et Gateway Peer, one of the auxiliary peers starts to act as the al., 2004]. The aim of MWSDI is to provide clients with an Gateway peer. efficient publication and discovery mechanism in a multi Client Peer: The Client Peers are transient members of the registry environment. We use semantic metadata stored in peer-to-peer network, as they are instantiated only to allow the XTRO to identify appropriate registries and direct the users to utilize the capabilities of the MWSDI. queries to them. Each time, a new registry is added to MWSDI, the XTRO is updated with the relevant details of MWSDI has been implemented on a cluster of SUN the new registry. We show the interaction of MWSDI, workstations as peer to peer network using the JXTA registries and clients in Figure 1. [JXTA] framework. Any peer can be a JXTA peer if it implements one or more JXTA protocols. While there are a number of such protocols, we have used the Peer Discovery Protocol and the Pipe Binding Protocol. In addition to the protocols available in JXTA framework we have implemented two MWSDI specific protocols. They are: Operator Peer Initiation Protocol: It defines the protocol involved in adding a new registry to the MWSDI system. It involves creating a new registry instance in XTRO. In some cases it may involve creating new federation or a domain. Client Peer Interaction Protocol: It defines the protocol for accessing registries for publication and discovery. Details of these protocols are available in [Verma et al., 2004]. 4. Extended Registries Ontology (XTRO) In our initial, naïve implementation registries could only Figure