Semantic Structure Matching for Assessing Web-Service Similarity

  • Yiqiao Wang
  • Eleni Stroulia
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2910)


The web-services stack of standards is designed to support the reuse and interoperation of software components on the web. A critical step in the process of developing applications based on web services is service discovery, i.e., the identification of existing web services that can potentially be used in the context of a new web application. UDDI, the standard API for publishing web-services specifications, provides a simple browsing-by-business-category mechanism for developers to review and select published services. To support programmatic service discovery, we have developed a suite of methods that utilizes both the semantics of the identifiers of WSDL descriptions and the structure of their operations, messages and data types to assess the similarity of two WSDL files. Given only a textual description of the desired service, a semantic information-retrieval method can be used to identify and order the most similar service-description files. This step assesses the similarity of the provided description of the desired service with the available services. If a (potentially partial) specification of the desired service behavior is also available, this set of likely candidates can be further refined by a semantic structure-matching step assessing the structural similarity of the desired vs. the retrieved services and the semantic similarity of their identifier. In this paper, we describe and experimentally evaluate our suite of service-similarity assessment methods.


  1. 1.
    Cho, I., McGregor, J., Krause, L.: A protocol-based approach to specifying interoperability between objects. In: Proceedings of the 26th Technology of Object- Oriented Languages and Systems (TOOLS’26), Santa Barbara, CA, August 3-07, pp. 84–96. IEEE Press, Los Alamitos (1998)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    The DARPA Agent Markup Language Homepage,
  3. 3.
    Faloutsos, C., Oard, D.W.: A survey of Information Retrieval and Filtering Methods, University of Maryland. Technical Report CS-TR-3514 (August 1995)Google 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 5, 173–203 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Miller, G.A., Beckwith, R., Felbaum, C., Gross, D., Miller, K.: Introduction to WordNet: An On-line Lexical Database. International Journal of Lexicography 3(4), 235–244 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Miller, G.A.: Nouns in WordNet: A Lexical Inheritance System. International Journal of Lexicography 3(4), 245–264 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mandala, R., Takenobu, T., Hozumi, T.: The Use of WordNet in Information Retrieval. In: Proceedings of the COLING/ACL Workshop on Usage of WordNet in Natural Language Processing Systems, Montreal, pp. 31–37 (1998)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Purtilo, J., Atlee, J.M.: Module Reuse by Interface Adaptation. Software Practice and Experience 21(6), 539–556 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Richardson, R., Smeaton, A.F.: Using WordNet in a knowledge-based approach to information retrieval. Dublin City University School of Computer Applications Working Paper CA-0395Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Salton, G., Wong, A., Yang, C.S.: A vector-space model for information retrieval. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 18, 13–620 (1975)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Simple Object Access Protocol (SOAP),
  12. 12.
  13. 13.
    Voorhees, E.: Using WordNet for Text Retrieval. In: Fellbaum, C. (ed.) WordNet: An Electronic Lexical Database 1998, pp. 285–303. The MIT Press, Cambridge (1999)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wang, Y., Stroulia, E.: Flexible Interface Matching for Web-Service Discovery. In: Proceedings of 4th International Conference on Web Information Systems Engineering, December 10-12 (2003) (to appear)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Web Services Description Language (WSDL) (WSDL),
  16. 16.
  17. 17.
    XMethods homepage,
  18. 18.
    Zaremski, A.M., Wing, J.M.: Signature Matching: a Tool for Using Software Libraries. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology 4(2), 146–170 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Zaremski, A.M., Wing, J.M.: Specifications Matching of Software Components. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology 6(4), 333–369 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yiqiao Wang
    • 1
  • Eleni Stroulia
    • 1
  1. 1.Computer Science DepartmentUniversity of AlbertaEdmontonCanada

Personalised recommendations