Personalised Grid service discovery

Abstract

We take a broad view that ultimately Grid-or Web-services must be located via personalised, semantic-rich discovery processes. We argue that such processes must rely on the storage of arbitrary metadata about services that originates from both service providers and service users. Examples of such metadata are reliability metrics, quality of service data, or semantic service description markup. This paper presents uddi-m T , an extension to the standard uddi service directory approach that supports the storage of such metadata via a tunnelling technique that ties the metadata store to the original uddi directory. We also discuss the use of a rich, graph-based rdf query language for syntactic queries on this data. Finally, we analyse the performance of each of these contributions in our implementation.

A semantic approach to discovering learning services in grid-based collaborative systems

“…This way, service descriptions are simpler, although they argue that appears to be sufficient in the bioinformatics domain and it also reduces the computational power needed to perform a query. Besides, Feta also allows UDDI syntactic queries, such as other approaches in the literature: [28] combines OWL-S with UDDI in the e-commerce domain and [31] proposes an extension of UDDI to include arbitrary metadata for service discovery. Similar comments can be made about Biomoby [41], another semantic discovery architecture.…”

“…UDDI [33] is a method for publishing and discovering services. Although the UDDI standard was proposed for the popular Web Services [8] architecture, UDDI can also be used in other service architectures, such as OGSA [31].…”

Behavioural specification of grid services with the KAoS policy language

“…As part of the myGrid project (www.mygrid.org.uk), a service directory was designed for hosting semantic descriptions of services, including their functionality and their semantic inputs and outputs [15]. Semantic descriptions are currently expressed in an OWL ontology [24].…”

“…Semantic descriptions are currently expressed in an OWL ontology [24]. A key characteristics of our approach is that semantic descriptions need not be published by service providers, but can be made available by third party users [15]; such an approach supports collaborative practices, since users can utilise services because others found them useful or efficient to perform specific tasks.…”

“…(i) First, a Grid registry can be deployed as a standalone service, presenting the set of interfaces required by its deployer, and whose availability to clients is prescribed by its security policy. (ii) Second, users could deploy it as a "proxy" to a publicly available registry for which they do not have write access [15]; the proxy would typically tunnel queries to the public registry, but would hold locally any metadata information about registered services, and would therefore act as a personalised registry. (iii) Alternatively, the service could also federate entries from multiple registries.…”