A Generic Evaluation Model for Semantic Web Services

  • Omair ShafiqEmail author
Conference paper


Semantic Web Services research has gained momentum over the last few Years and by now several realizations exist. They are being used in a number of industrial use-cases. Soon software developers will be expected to use this infrastructure to build their B2B applications requiring dynamic integration. However, there is still a lack of guidelines for the evaluation of tools developed to realize Semantic Web Services and applications built on top of them. In normal software engineering practice such guidelines can already be found for traditional component-based systems. Also some efforts are being made to build performance models for servicebased systems. Drawing on these related efforts in component-oriented and servicebased systems, we identified the need for a generic evaluation model for Semantic Web Services applicable to any realization. The generic evaluation model will help users and customers to orient their systems and solutions towards using Semantic Web Services. In this chapter, we have presented the requirements for the generic evaluation model for Semantic Web Services and further discussed the initial steps that we took to sketch such a model. Finally, we discuss related activities for evaluating semantic technologies.


Service Discovery Semantic Description Simple Object Access Protocol Semantic Technology Generic Evaluation Model 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    D. Fensel, Triple-space computing: Semantic Web Services based on persistent publication of information: In Proceedings of the IFIP International Conference on Intelligence in Communication Systems, INTELLCOMM 2004, Bangkok, Thailand, November 23-26, 2004.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    C. Bussler et. al., Web Service Execution Environment (WSMX), W3C Member Submis-sion, June 2005. Available at
  3. 3.
    O. Shafiq, M. Zaremba and D. Fensel,”On communication and coordination issues of Semantic Web Services”, in the proceedings of IEEE International Conference Web Services (ICWS 2007), July 9-13, 2007, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    O. Shafiq, M. Moran, E. Cimpian, A. Mocan, M. Zaremba and D. Fensel,”Investigating Semantic Web Services execution environments: A comparison between WSMX and OWL-S tools”, in proceedings of 2nd International Conference on Internet and Web Applications and Services (ICIW 2007), May, 2007, Morne, Mauritius.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    O. Shafiq, R. Krummenacher, F. Martin-Recuerda, Y. Ding, D. Fensel,”Triple Space Computing middleware for Semantic Web Services”, The 2006 Middleware for Web Services (MWS 2006) Workshop at 10th IEEE International Enterprise Computing Conference (EDOC 2006), 16-20 October 2006, Hong Kong.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    D. Roman, U. Keller, H. Lausen, J. de Bruijn, R. Lara, M. Stollberg, A. Polleres, C. Feier, C. Bussler, and D. Fensel: Web Service Modeling Ontology, Applied Ontology, 1(1): 77 - 106, 2005.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    A. Wahler, E. Oren, B. Schreder, A. Balaban, Mich. Zaremba, Mar. Zaremba,”Demonstrating WSMX: Least Cost Supply Management”, WIW 2004, 1st WSMO Implementation Workshop, held at Frankfurt, Germany, September 2004.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    D. Karastoyanova,”A Methodology for Development of Web Service-based Business Processes”, at 1st Australian Workshop on Engineering Service-Oriented Systems (AWESOS 2004), Australian Software Engineering Conference - ASWEC, April 2004, Melbourne, Australia.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    A. Bertolino, R. Mirandola: Towards Component-Based Software Performance Engineering, in Proceedings of the 6th ICSE Workshop on Component-Based Software Engineering, held at Portland, Oregon, USA May, 2003.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    C. U. Smith, Performance Engineering of Software Systems, Addison-Wesley, 1990.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    M. Nottingham, Web Service Scalability and Performance with Optimizing Intermediaries, W3C workshop on Web services: Position papers 11-12 April 2001, San Jose, CA, USA.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Z. Huang, F. van Harmelen, and A. ten Teije, Reasoning with Inconsistent Ontologies, in the proceedings of International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 2005), July 2005, held at Edinburgh, Scotland.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    STI (Semantic Technology Institute) International Test Beds and Challenges Services.
  14. 14.
    Y. Hu, C. Yeh, W. Laun, G. Governatori, J. Hall, A. Paschke (editors):”RuleML-2009 Challenge”, in proceedings of the 3rd International RuleML-2009 Challenge, collocated with the 3rd International Symposium on Rules, Applications and Interoperability (RuleML-2009), Las Vegas, Nevada, USA, November 5-7, 2009. CEUR Proceedings, Volume 549.
  15. 15.
    David Martin (editor),”OWL-S: Semantic Markup for Web Services”, W3C Member Submission, 22 November 2004. Available at
  16. 16.
    R. Akkiraju, J. Farrell, J. Miller, M. Nagarajan, M. Schmidt, A. Sheth, K. Verma,”Web Service Semantics - WSDL-S”, W3C Member Submission, 7 November 2005,
  17. 17.
    Joel Farrell and Holger Lausen,”Semantic Annotations for WSDL and XML Schema”, W3C Recommendation, 28 August 2007. Available at

Copyright information

© Springer US 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of CalgaryCalgaryCanada

Personalised recommendations