Advertisement

Capabilities: Describing What Services Can Do

  • Phillipa Oaks
  • Arthur H. M. ter Hofstede
  • David Edmond
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2910)

Abstract

The ability of agents and services to automatically locate and interact with unknown partners is a goal for both the semantic web and web services. This, “serendipitous interoperability”, is hindered by the lack of an explicit means of describing what services (or agents) are able to do, that is, their capabilities. At present, informal descriptions of what services can do are found in “documentation” elements; or they are somehow encoded in operation names and signatures. We show, by reference to existing service examples, how ambiguous and imprecise capability descriptions hamper the attainment of automated interoperability goals in the open, global web environment. In this paper we propose a structured, machine readable description of capabilities, which may help to increase the recall and precision of service discovery mechanisms. Our capability description draws on previous work in capability and process modeling and allows the incorporation of external classification schemes. The capability description is presented as a conceptual meta model. The model supports conceptual queries and can be used as an extension to the DAML-S Service Profile.

Keywords

Noun Phrase Service Capability Conceptual Query Ontological Description Ontological Source 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    Haas, H., Orchard, D.: Web Services Architecture Usage Scenarios, W3C Working Draft July 30, 2002 (2002), Available from: http://www.w3.org/TR/ws-arch-scenarios/ (March 11, 2003)
  2. 2.
    Heflin, J.: Web Ontology Language (OWL) Use Cases and Requirements, W3C Working Draft March 31, 2003 (2003), Available from: http://www.w3.org/TR/webont-req/ (April 15, 2003)
  3. 3.
    O’Sullivan, J., Edmond, D., ter Hofstede, A.: What’s in a service? Towards accurate description of non-functional service properties. Distributed and Parallel Databases Journal - Special Issue on E-Services 12, 117–133 (2002)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sycara, K., Widoff, S., Klusch, M., Lu, J.: LARKS: Dynamic Matchmaking Among Heterogeneous Software Agents in Cyberspace. Autonomous Agents and Multi- Agent Systems, 173–203 (2002)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wickler, G., Tate, A.: Capability representations for brokering: A survey (1998) Submitted to Knowledge Engineering Review (December 1999), Available from: http://www.aiai.ed.ac.uk/~oplan/cdl/cdl-ker.ps (October 4, 2002)
  6. 6.
    Wickler, G.J.: Using Expressive and Flexible Action Representations to Reason about Capabilities for Intelligent Agent Cooperation. PhD thesis, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK (1999)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fillmore, C.: The Case for Case. Universals in Liguistic Theory. Holt, Rinehart and Winston (1968)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fillmore, C.J., Wooters, C., Baker, C.F.: Building a Large Lexical Databank Which Provides Deep Semantics. In: Proceedings of the Pacific Asian Conference on Language, Information and Computation, Hong Kong, Language Information Sciences Research Centre, City University of Hong Kong, PACLIC, vol. 15 (2001)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Swartout, W., Gil, Y., Valente, A.: Representing Capabilities of Problem-Solving Methods. In: Proceedings of 1999 IJCAI Workshop on Ontologies and Problem-Solving Methods, Stockholm, Sweden, CEUR Publications (1999), http://sunsite.informatik.rwth-aachen.de/Publications/CEUR-WS/Vol-18/
  10. 10.
    Gil, Y., Blythe, J.: How Can a Structured Representation of Capabilities Help in Planning? In: AAAI 2000 workshop on Representational Issues for Realworld Planning Systems (2000)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sycara, K.P., Klusch, M., Widoff, S., Lu, J.: Dynamic service matchmaking among agents in open information environments. SIGMOD Record 28, 47–53 (1999), citeseer.nj.nec.com/article/sycara99dynamic.html (February 1, 2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Girardi, M.R., Ibrahim, B.: Using English to Retrieve Software. The Journal of Systems and Software, Special Issue on Software Reusability 30, 249–270 (1995)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Girardi, M.R.: Classification and Retrieval of Software through their Descriptions in Natural Language. PhD thesis, University of Geneva, Ph.D. dissertation, No. 2782 (1995)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sugumaran, V., Storey, V.C.: A Semantic-Based Approach to Component Retrieval. The DATA BASE for Advances in Information Systems 34, 8–24 (2003); Quarterly publication of the Special Interest Group on Management Information Systems of the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM-SIGMIS)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Denker, G., Hobbs, J., Martin, D., Narayana, S., Waldinger, W.: Accessing Information and Services on the DAML-Enabled Web. In: Second International Workshop on the Semantic Web - SemWeb 2001, Workshop at WWW10, Hongkong (2001)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ankolekar, A., Burstein, M., Hobbs, J.R., Lassila, O., Martin, D.L., McIlraith, S.A., Narayanan, S., Paolucci, M., Payne, T., Sycara, K., Zeng, H.: DAML-S: Semantic Markup For Web Services. In: Proceedings of SWWS 2001 The First Semantic Web Working Symposium, pp. 411–430. Stanford University, CA (2001)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Paolucci, M., Sycara, K., Kawamura, T.: Delivering Semantic Web Services. In: Proceedings of the twelfth international conference on World Wide Web, WWW2003, Budapest, Hungary. ACM, ACM Press, New York (2003)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wroe, C., Stevens, R., Goble, C., Roberts, A., Greenwood, M.: A Suite of DAML+OIL Ontologies to Describe Bioinformatics Web Services and Data. International Journal of Cooperative Information Systems 12, 197–224 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sabou, M., Richards, D., van Splunter, S.: An experience report on using DAML-S. In: Proceedings of the Twelfth International World Wide Web Conference Workshop on E-Services and the Semantic Web (ESSW 2003), Budapest (2003)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kovitz, B.: Ambiguity and What to Do about it. In: Proceedings IEEE Joint International Conference on Requirements Engineering, Essen, p. 213. IEEE, Los Alamitos (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Halpin, T.: Information Modeling and Relational Databases: from conceptual analysis to logical design. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, San Diego (2001)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    ter Hofstede, A.H.M., van der Weide, T.P.: Deriving Identity from Extensionality. International Journal of Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering 8, 189–221 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Bloesch, A.C., Halpin, T.A.: ConQuer: A Conceptual Query Language. In: Thalheim, B. (ed.) ER 1996. LNCS, vol. 1157, pp. 121–133. Springer, Heidelberg (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bloesch, A.C., Halpin, T.A.: Conceptual Queries using ConQuer-II. In: Embley, D.W. (ed.) ER 1997. LNCS, vol. 1331, pp. 113–126. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lee, J., Pentland, B.T.: Grammatical Approach to Organizational Design (2000), Available from: http://ccs.mit.edu/papers/pdf/wp215.pdf (April 24, 2003)
  26. 26.
    Klein, M., Bernstein, A.: Searching for services on the semantic web using process ontologies. In: Proceedings of SWWS 2001 The First Semantic Web Working Symposium, Stanford University, California, pp. 431–446 (2001), http://www.daml.org/services/daml-s/2001/05/

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Phillipa Oaks
    • 1
  • Arthur H. M. ter Hofstede
    • 1
  • David Edmond
    • 1
  1. 1.Centre for Information Technology Innovation – Faculty of Information TechnologyQueensland University of TechnologyBrisbaneAustralia

Personalised recommendations