Advertisement

A Semantic Service Environment: A Case Study in Bioinformatics

  • Stephen Potter
  • Stuart Aitken
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3532)

Abstract

In recent years, web services have become increasingly important components of the scientific methodology of certain domains. Currently, however, the description and use of most these is purely ‘syntactic’; that is, the semantics of the services are left to the human user to infer or acquire by other means before deciding whether and how to use a service. Consequently, there are opportunities to bridge this semantic gap through the application of emerging semantic web and semantic web service technologies in these domains, thereby enriching and expanding a user’s service interactions. This paper presents its authors’ experiences of the application and use of these emerging technologies in a displicine in which web services already play a key role: bioinformatics.

Keywords

Simple Object Access Protocol Simple Object Access Protocol Message Description Logic Reasoner Ontology Extension Bioinformatics Service 
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.
    Bellwood, T., et al.: UDDI technical white paper, http://uddi.org/pubs/uddi-v3.00-published-20020719.htm
  2. 2.
    Birney, E., et al.: An overview of ensembl. Genome Research 14, 925–928 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brazma, A., et al.: Minimum information about a microarray experiment (miame): toward standards for microarray data. Nature Genetics 29(4), 365–371 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Christensen, E., Curbera, F., Meredith, G., Weerawarana, S.: Web services description language, WSDL (2001), http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/NOTE-wsdl-20010315
  5. 5.
    The OWL Services Coalition. OWL-S: Semantic markup for web services (v1.1), http://www.daml.org/services/owl-s/1.1/
  6. 6.
    The MINDSWAP Group. OWL-S API, http://www.mindswap.org/2004/owl-s/api/
  7. 7.
    The Web Ontology Working Group. OWL web ontology language reference, http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-ref/
  8. 8.
    Grover, C., Halpin, H., Klein, E., Leidner, J.L., Potter, S., Riedel, S., Scrutchin, S., Tobin, R.: A framework for text mining services. In: Cox, S.J. (ed.) Proceedings of the UK e-Science Programme All Hands Meeting 2004 (AHM 2004), Nottingham, UK, August 31 - September 3, pp. 878–885 (2004)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gudgin, M., Hadley, M., Mendelsohn, N., Moreau, J.-J., Nielsen, H.F.: Simple object access protocol (SOAP), http://www.w3.org/TR/soap12-part1/
  10. 10.
    Haarslev, V., Möller, R.: RACER system description. In: Goré, R.P., Leitsch, A., Nipkow, T. (eds.) IJCAR 2001. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2083, pp. 701–706. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hull, D., Stevens, R., Lord, P., Wroe, C., Goble, C.: Treating shimantic web syndrome with ontologies. In: First AKT workshop on Semantic Web Services (AKT-SWS 2004), KMI, The Open University, Milton Keynes (2004)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Li, L., Horrocks, I.: A software framework for matchmaking based on semantic web technology. In: Proc. of the Twelfth International World Wide Web Conference (WWW 2003), pp. 331–339. ACM, New York (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lord, P., Bechhofer, S., Wilkinson, M.D., Schiltz, G., Gessler, D., Hull, D., Goble, C., Stein, L.: Applying semantic web services to bioinformatics: Experiences gained, lessons learnt. In: McIlraith, S.A., Plexousakis, D., van Harmelen, F. (eds.) ISWC 2004. LNCS, vol. 3298, pp. 350–364. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Masuoka, R., Labrou, Y., Parsia, B., Sirin, E.: Ontology-enabled pervasive computing applications. IEEE Intelligent Systems 18(5), 68–72 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Oinn, T., Addis, M., Ferris, J., Marvin, D., Senger, M., Greenwood, M., Carver, T., Glover, K., Pocock, M.R., Wipat, A., Li, P.: Taverna: A tool for the composition and enactment of bioinformatics workflows. Bioinformatics Journal 20(17), 3045–3054 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Potter, S.C., et al.: The ensembl analysis pipeline. Genome Research 14, 934–941 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sivashanmugam, K., Verma, K., Sheth, A., Miller, J.: Adding semantics to web services standards. In: Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Web Services (ICWS 2003), Las Vegas, Nevada, June 2003, pp. 395–401 (2003)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Stein, L.: Creating a bioinformatics nation. Nature, 417 (2002)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Stevens, R., McEntire, R., Goble, C.A., Greenwood, M., Zhao, J., Wipat, A., Li, P.: myGrid and the drug discovery process. Drug Discovery Today: BIOSILICO 2(4), 140–148 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stephen Potter
    • 1
  • Stuart Aitken
    • 1
  1. 1.School of InformaticsThe University of EdinburghEdinburghUK

Personalised recommendations