Provider-Composer Negotiations for Semantic Robustness in Service Compositions

  • Nikolay Mehandjiev
  • Freddy Lécué
  • Usman Wajid
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5900)


Research in automating service composition is rarely concerned with service providers, apart from work in quality guarantees and contracts. This perspective is arguably valid for comparatively static and cheap web services, which do not warrant continuous involvement of their providers in the process of service procurement and use by service consumers. However, opportunities for optimisation and fine-tuning of compositions are thus missed. We have created an approach which uses automated agent-based negotiation between service composer and service providers to address the issue of semantic robustness in large-scale service compositions by preventing cases where the wrong type of data is passed on from one service to the next. Starting from a service composition template which is not semantically robust, we allow the selection of semantically robust combinations of actual services. The approach is characterised with a linear complexity and also allows service providers to tune their services to the requirements of service compositions which may be lucrative business opportunities.


service composition semantic services semantic robustness autonomic agents negotiation template-based composition 


  1. 1.
    Bennett, K., Munro, M., Xu, J., Gold, N., Layzell, P., Mehandjiev, N., Budgen, D., Brereton, P.: Prototype implementations of an architectural model for service-based flexible software. In: Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, vol. 3, p. 76b (2002)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wielinga, B., Schreiber, G.: Configuration-design problem solving. IEEE Expert: Intelligent Systems and Their Applications 12(2), 49–56 (1997)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Motta, E.: Parametric Design Problem Solving - Reusable Components for Knowledge Modelling Case Studies. IOS Press, Amsterdam (1999)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lécué, F., Mehandjiev, N.: Towards scalability of quality driven semantic web service composition. In: ICWS (2009)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sycara, K.P., Paolucci, M., Ankolekar, A., Srinivasan, N.: Automated discovery, interaction and composition of semantic web services. J. Web Sem. 1(1), 27–46 (2003)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Baader, F., Nutt, W.: The Description Logic Handbook: Theory, Implementation, and Applications (2003)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ankolenkar, A., Paolucci, M., Srinivasan, N., Sycara, K.: The owl-s coalition, owl-s 1.1. Technical report (2004)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fensel, D., Kifer, M., de Bruijn, J., Domingue, J.: Web service modeling ontology submission, w3c submission (2005)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sivashanmugam, K., Verma, K., Sheth, A., Miller, J.: Adding semantics to web services standards. In: ICWS, pp. 395–401 (2003)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Smith, M.K., Welty, C., McGuinness, D.L.: Owl web ontology language guide. W3c recommendation, W3C (2004)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Berners-Lee, T., Hendler, J., Lassila, O.: The semantic web. Scientific American 284(5), 34–43 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lécué, F., Delteil, A., Léger, A.: Applying abduction in semantic web service composition. In: ICWS, pp. 94–101 (2007)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    McIlraith, S.A., Son, T.C.: Adapting golog for composition of semantic web services. In: KR, pp. 482–496 (2002)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    ten Teije, A., van Harmelen, F., Wielinga, B.: Configuration of web services as parametric design. In: Motta, E., Shadbolt, N.R., Stutt, A., Gibbins, N. (eds.) EKAW 2004. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3257, pp. 321–336. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lécué, F., Léger, A.: A formal model for semantic web service composition. In: Cruz, I., Decker, S., Allemang, D., Preist, C., Schwabe, D., Mika, P., Uschold, M., Aroyo, L.M. (eds.) ISWC 2006. LNCS, vol. 4273, pp. 385–398. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Horrocks, I.: Using an expressive description logic: Fact or fiction? In: KR, pp. 636–649 (1998)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Paolucci, M., Kawamura, T., Payne, T., Sycara, K.: Semantic matching of web services capabilities. In: Horrocks, I., Hendler, J. (eds.) ISWC 2002. LNCS, vol. 2342, pp. 333–347. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Li, L., Horrocks, I.: A software framework for matchmaking based on semantic web technology. In: WWW, pp. 331–339 (2003)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lécué, F., Delteil, A.: Making the difference in semantic web service composition. In: AAAI, pp. 1383–1388 (2007)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Colucci, S., Noia, T.D., Sciascio, E.D., Donini, F., Mongiello, M.: Concept abduction and contraction for semantic-based discovery of matches and negotiation spaces in an e-marketplace. In: ECRA, vol. 4, pp. 41–50 (2005)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Muller, I., Kowalczyk, R., Braun, P.: Towards agent-based coalition formation for service composition. In: IAT 2006: Proceedings of the IEEE/WIC/ACM international conference on Intelligent Agent Technology, Washington, DC, USA, pp. 73–80. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Shehory, O., Kraus, S.: Methods for task allocation via agent coalition formation. Artif. Intell. 101(1-2), 165–200 (1998)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hassine, A.B., Matsubara, S., Ishida, T.: A constraint-based approach to horizontal web service composition. In: Cruz, I., Decker, S., Allemang, D., Preist, C., Schwabe, D., Mika, P., Uschold, M., Aroyo, L.M. (eds.) ISWC 2006. LNCS, vol. 4273, pp. 130–143. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nikolay Mehandjiev
    • 1
  • Freddy Lécué
    • 1
  • Usman Wajid
    • 1
  1. 1.The University of ManchesterManchesterUK

Personalised recommendations