A survey of Semantic Web Services formalisms

Abstract

Summary The field of Semantic Web Services (SWS) has been recognized as one of the most promising areas of emergent research within the Semantic Web initiative, exhibiting an extensive commercial potential and attracting significant attention from both industry and the research community. Currently, there exist several different frameworks and languages for formally describing a Web Service: Web Ontology Language for Services (OWL‐S), Web Service Modelling Ontology (WSMO) and Semantic Annotations for the Web Services Description Language (SAWSDL) are the most important approaches. To the inexperienced user, choosing the appropriate platform for a specific SWS application may prove to be challenging, given a lack of clear separation between the ideas promoted by the associated research communities. In this paper, we systematically compare OWL‐S, WSMO and SAWSDL from various standpoints, namely, that of the service requester and provider as well as the broker‐based view. The comparison is meant to help users to better understand the strengths and limitations of these different approaches to formalizing SWS, and to choose the most suitable solution for a given application. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

A Knowledge-Based Approach to Enhance Provision of Location-Based Services in Wireless Environments

“…Moreover, our approach is aimed at providing location-based services, using all the available resources (i.e., locally integrated knowledge, the distributed architecture of devices, or even third-party services -which might include Web Services). Thus, instead of adopting an existing formalism [45] to extend it and complexly define our services, we have advocated for keeping a simpler model, relying on the simplicity of our schema to both: 1) make it possible to perform a light-weight yet flexible service discovery instead of using more complex approaches [46] which might overload mobile devices; and 2) make the definition of services easier for service providers. The proposed model is not aimed at matchmaking or automatic service composition (a provider has to provide the workflow if a composed service is required), but at providing a context-aware search of relevant services within a distributed architecture which lacks of a previously global and shared schema (which is achieve via knowledge sharing among devices).…”

Semantics, knowledge and grids

“…The eighth paper reviews the field of semantic web services, compares web ontology language for services, web service modelling ontology and semantic annotations for the web services description language from the views of the service requester, provider and the broker. The comparison helps users to better understand the strengths and limitations of these approaches to formalizing semantic web services and to choose the most suitable solution for an application .…”

Formal modeling and verification of cloud‐based web service composition

“…A major benefit of web service composition is reusability and cost effectiveness, ie, we use the already developed web services and provide the new functionality rather than developing a new functionality from scratch. An important challenge is to combine these services in order to create new value‐added web services in such a reliable way 6,7 . For this reason, a range of methods have been suggested for modeling and verifying web service composition, and these are divided into three different categories 8 .…”