A Practical Approach to Services Composition Through Light Semantic Descriptions

  • Marco CremaschiEmail author
  • Flavio De Paoli
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11116)


Services composition has been much investigated over the last decade without reaching shared and consolidated results mainly for the lack of interoperable descriptions of services and the consequent need of extensive user intervention. In this paper, we propose a light and practical approach to create machine-readable descriptions of output data that can be merged or used (as-is or adapted) as input data to other services. The solution relies on the popular and standard OpenAPI descriptions augmented with annotations based on JSON-LD format. Services descriptions are created by table annotations techniques applied on sets of given or retrieved output values. The approach has been implemented in a tool and validated with a set of real services.


  1. 1.
    Chinnici, R., Moreau, J.J., Ryman, A., Weerawarana, S.: Web services description language (WSDL) version 2.0 Part 1: Core language. W3C Recommendation 26, 19 (2007)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chowdhury, G.G.: Natural language processing. Ann. Rev. Inf. Sci. Technol. 37(1), 51–89 (2003)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cremaschi, M., De Paoli, F.: Toward automatic semantic API descriptions to support services composition. In: De Paoli, F., Schulte, S., Broch Johnsen, E. (eds.) ESOCC 2017. LNCS, vol. 10465, pp. 159–167. Springer, Cham (2017). Scholar
  4. 4.
    Euzenat, J., Shvaiko, P.: Ontology Matching. Springer, Heidelberg (2007). Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gomadam, K., Ranabahu, A., Sheth, A.: SA-REST: semantic annotation of web resources. W3C Member Submission 5, 52 (2010)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kopeckỳ, J., Vitvar, T., Fensel, D., Gomadam, K.: hRESTS & MicroWSMO. Technical report, STI International (2009)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lausen, H., Farrell, J.: Semantic annotations for WSDL and XML schema. W3C Recommendation, W3C 69 (2007)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lucky, M.N., Cremaschi, M., Lodigiani, B., Menolascina, A., De Paoli, F.: Enriching API descriptions by adding API profiles through semantic annotation. In: Sheng, Q.Z., Stroulia, E., Tata, S., Bhiri, S. (eds.) ICSOC 2016. LNCS, vol. 9936, pp. 780–794. Springer, Cham (2016). Scholar
  9. 9.
    Manning, C., Surdeanu, M., Bauer, J., Finkel, J., Bethard, S., McClosky, D.: The Stanford CoreNLP natural language processing toolkit. In: Proceedings of 52nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: System Demonstrations, pp. 55–60. Association for Computational Linguistics (2014)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Martin, D., et al.: OWL-S: semantic markup for web services. W3C Member Submission 22, 2007–04 (2004)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Paulraj, D., Swamynathan, S., Madhaiyan, M.: Process model-based atomic service discovery and composition of composite semantic web services using web ontology language for services (OWL-S). Enterp. Inf. Syst. 6(4), 445–471 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rao, J., Su, X.: A survey of automated web service composition methods. In: Cardoso, J., Sheth, A. (eds.) SWSWPC 2004. LNCS, vol. 3387, pp. 43–54. Springer, Heidelberg (2005). Scholar
  13. 13.
    Roman, D., Kopeck, J., Vitvar, T., Domingue, J., Fensel, D.: WSMO-lite and hRESTS: lightweight semantic annotations for web services and restful APIs. Web Semant. Sci. Serv. Agents World Wide Web 31, 39–58 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sheng, Q.Z., Qiao, X., Vasilakos, A.V., Szabo, C., Bourne, S., Xu, X.: Web services composition: a decades overview. Inf. Sci. 280, 218–238 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Tsouroplis, R., Petychakis, M., Alvertis, I., Biliri, E., Lampathaki, F., Askounis, D.: Community-based API builder to manage APIs and their connections with cloud-based services. In: CAiSE Forum (2015)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Weerawarana, S., Curbera, F., Leymann, F., Storey, T., Ferguson, D.F.: Web Services Platform Architecture: SOAP, WSDL, WS-Policy, WS-Addressing, WS-BPEL, WS-Reliable Messaging and More. Prentice Hall PTR, Upper Saddle River (2005)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Zhang, Z.: Effective and efficient semantic table interpretation using TableMiner+. Semant. Web 8(6), 921–957 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Informatics, Systems and CommunicationUniversity of Milan - BicoccaMilanItaly

Personalised recommendations