Advertisement

Optimally Distributing Interactions Between Composed Semantic Web Services

  • Ion Constantinescu
  • Walter Binder
  • Boi Faltings
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3532)

Abstract

When information services are organized to provide some composed functionality, their interactions can be formally represented as workflows. Traditionally, workflows are executed by centralized engines that invoke the necessary services and collect results. If services are clustered (e.g., based on geographic criteria), locally routing intermediary results between services in the same cluster can be more efficient.

This paper has several contributions: First, it presents a framework allowing the execution of workflow parts to be mediated by special execution sites. Second, we describe a trigger-based mechanism allowing partial results to be routed between execution sites.Finally, we present an approach for optimally computing the distribution of workflow parts to execution sites accordingly to an integrated cost model for workflow execution. The model is created by merging cost-models provided by individual execution sites trough a Contract Net task brokering protocol. The models consider cost measures for service activation, parameter transfer, and service execution.

Keywords

Service composition service execution distributed computing invocation triggers workflows 

References

  1. 1.
    Binder, W., Constantinescu, I., Faltings, B.: Efficiently distributing interactions etween composed information agents. In: Second European Workshop on Multi-Agent Systems (EUMAS 2004), Barcelona, Spain (December 2004)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Constantinescu, I., Faltings, B., Binder, W.: Large scale, type-compatible service composition. In: IEEE International Conference on Web Services (ICWS 2004), San Diego, CA, USA (July 2004)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    McIlraith, S.A., Son, T.C.: Adapting Golog for composition of semantic web services. In: Fensel, D., Giunchiglia, F., McGuinness, D., Williams, M.-A. (eds.) Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Principles and Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR 2002), pp. 482–496. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, San Francisco (2002)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ponnekanti, S.R., Fox, A.: Sword: A developer toolkit for web service composition. In: 11th World Wide Web Conference (Web Engineering Track) (2002)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sheng, Q.Z., Benatallah, B., Dumas, M., Mak, E.O.-Y.: Self-serv: A platform for rapid composition of web services in a peer-to-peer environment. In: VLDB, pp. 1051–1054 (2002)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Stoica, I., Adkins, D., Zhuang, S., Shenker, S., Surana, S.: Internet indirection infrastructure. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking 12(2), 205–218 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Thakkar, S., Knoblock, C.A., Ambite, J.L., Shahabi, C.: Dynamically composing web services from on-line sources. In: Proceeding of the AAAI 2002 Workshop on Intelligent Service Integration, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, July 2002, pp. 1–7 (2002)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    W3C. Simple object access protocol (SOAP), http://www.w3.org/tr/soap/
  9. 9.
    Wu, D., Parsia, B., Sirin, E., Hendler, J., Nau, D.: Automating DAML-S web services composition using SHOP2. In: Fensel, D., Sycara, K., Mylopoulos, J. (eds.) ISWC 2003. LNCS, vol. 2870, pp. 195–210. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ion Constantinescu
    • 1
  • Walter Binder
    • 1
  • Boi Faltings
    • 1
  1. 1.Artificial Intelligence LaboratoryEcole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL)LausanneSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations