30th Annual International Computer Software and Applications Conference (COMPSAC'06) 2006
DOI: 10.1109/compsac.2006.127
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Discovery and Scoring of Semantic Web Services based on Client Requirement(s) through a Semantic Search Agent

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
8
0

Year Published

2008
2008
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 16 publications
(8 citation statements)
references
References 1 publication
0
8
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Apparently, approaches with a higher quadrant ranking are likely to have higher evaluation points, even though there are some exceptions: For instance, the Semantic Agent [49] approach reveals that including only reasoning capabilities is not enough for an autonomic service discovery, but that the consideration of other criteria is important as well. In turn, the Stratus [44], P2P USQL search engine [45], Discovery by Composition [39], and Fuzzy Model [28] approaches come out on top of the approaches based on centralized respectively distributed architectures, as they additionally provide semantic service descriptions and reasoning capabilities.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Apparently, approaches with a higher quadrant ranking are likely to have higher evaluation points, even though there are some exceptions: For instance, the Semantic Agent [49] approach reveals that including only reasoning capabilities is not enough for an autonomic service discovery, but that the consideration of other criteria is important as well. In turn, the Stratus [44], P2P USQL search engine [45], Discovery by Composition [39], and Fuzzy Model [28] approaches come out on top of the approaches based on centralized respectively distributed architectures, as they additionally provide semantic service descriptions and reasoning capabilities.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A semantic agent [49] can enrich search keywords through an ontology database. First, the agent sends the keywords to an ontology database and retrieves an ontology which includes the keywords.…”
Section: Surveymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…So, the proposal is a set-based approach using OWL-S. Any reasoning done is for determining subsumption relationships. An implementation of a matcher using the OWL-S/UDDI matchmaker is given by Celik and Elci (2006).…”
Section: Related Work On Matchingmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Others proposed the utilization of lexical affinities to automatically refine queries [13], and the usage of both the text surrounding the query terms in the search results and the text surrounding the query term in the document being read [16]. Recently, there have been efforts that utilize ontologies for finding query related terms in order to improve retrieval efficiency [14,19]. However, when it comes to large-scale web search engines, the utilization of ontologies in query construction methods is difficult for three reasons [5]: (i) integration is extremely hard, (ii) the web imposes scalability and performance restrictions and (iii) there is a cultural divide between the semantic Web and information retrieval disciplines.…”
Section: Query Refinementmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The mechanics of their corresponding autosuggest services are not formally disclosed. However, according to various insights, 14 such suggestions most likely derive from some kind of statistical analysis of the queries that have been addressed towards the search engine over time. Thus, it seems that a typical autosuggest service performs well when the searcher picks query suggestions that correspond to:…”
Section: Qualitative Analysis Of the Proposed Autosuggest Functionalitymentioning
confidence: 99%