Semantic Web Services Description _ Matching YASA4WSDL

Document Sample
Semantic Web Services Description _ Matching YASA4WSDL Powered By Docstoc
					    Semantic Web Services
   Description & Matching:
YASA4WSDL & YASA-Matchmaker
    Team meeting 3/26/2009
                      Content

• Context
• Brief state of the art:
   – Service Description
• New description approach:
   – YASA4WSDL & OTES ontology
• Brief state of the art:
   – Semantic Matching
• Ongoing work


                                 2
                      Content

• Context
• Brief state of the art:
   – Service Description
• New description approach:
   – YASA4WSDL & OTES ontology
• Brief state of the art:
   – Semantic Matching
• Ongoing work


                                 3
4
                    Descriptions




 Offered services


       Matching



Required service




                           5
                      Content

• Context
• Brief state of the art:
   – Service Description
• New description approach:
   – YASA4WSDL & OTES ontology
• Brief state of the art:
   – Semantic Matching
• Ongoing work


                                 6
01    <description>
02        <types>
03        <schema targetNamespace="http://cyl.com/reservation#" elementFormDefault="qualified">
04                   <element name="reserveFlightRequest" type="reservation">...</element>
05                   <element name="reserveFlightResponse" type="confirmation">...</element>
06                   ...
07        </schema>
08        </types>
09        <interface name="TripReservationInterface"
10        serviceConcept="&ServiceOntology;#interface"
11        modelReference="&TransportOntology;#reservation">
12             <operation name="reserveFlight" pattern="http://www.w3.org/ns/wsdl/in-out"
13              serviceConcept="&ServiceOntology;#precondition &ServiceOntology;#result"
14              modelReference="&TransportOntology;#validFlightInfo &TransportOntology;#reservationInfo">
15                            <input element="reserveFlightRequest"/>
16                            <output element="reserveFlightResponse"/>
17                  </operation>
18                  <operation name="reserveHotel"...>
19                  <operation name="reserveCar"...>
20      </interface>
21    <binding name="reservationSOAPBinding“ interface="TripReservation" type="http://www.w3.org/ns/wsdl/soap"...>
22                  <operation ref="reserveFlight"...>
23                  <operation ref="reserveHotel"...>
24                  <operation ref="reserveCar"...>
25     </binding>
26     <service name="reservationService" interface="TripReservationInterface"...>
27       <endpoint name="reservationEndpoint“ binding="reservationSOAPBinding"address="http://cyl.com/reservation"/>
28     </service>
29   </description>
                                                                                                             7
    SAWSDL (Chinnici & al., 2007)
•    It adds semantic annotations to various parts of a WSDL document like input and
     output message structures, interfaces, and operations.

•    It is inline with WSDL extensibility framework

•    New namespace called "sawsdl" and new extension attribute called "modelReference"

•    The modelReference attribute may contain a list of references, but actually, one can
     not know the nature or concept of each reference,


    OWL-S (Martin & al., 2004)
•   It proposes an ontology of services motivated by the need to provide:

     –   What does the service provide for prospective clients?
          • The “service profile”: preconditions, inputs, outputs, results, and service category.

     –   How service is used?
          • the “process model”: inputs, outputs, preconditions, effects and the behavior of the service

     –   How does one interact with it?
          • The “grounding” provides the needed details about transport protocols.
                                                                                                    8
    WSMO (ESSI WSMO working group, 2004)

•   Is a conceptual model for four top level elements: ontologies, services, mediators
    and goals

•   Descriptions of a WSMO service comprise non functional properties, a provided
    interface and a provided capability

•   A WSMO capability includes: non functional properties, pre-conditions, assumptions,
    post-conditions, and effects



    Composite Capabilities/Preference Profiles (Li &Wang, 2006)

•   Is extension of (Klyne et al., 2004), semantic information is added to the description

•   New CC/PP components and new attribute vocabularies (type of service, quality of
    service, location, and additional information, etc)

•   Capability is a useful concept but it does not satisfy all the user needs about service
    description such as process aspect of services or operation effects
                                                                                             9
Review
 •   Most related work to our contribution:
      – SAWSDL: Semantic Annotations for WSDL and XML Schema,
      – OWL-S: Semantic Markup for Web Services,
      – WSMO: Web Service Modeling Ontology , WSMO-Lite,
      – OWL-S + SAWSDL annotations
      – Composite Capabilities / Preference Profiles CC/PP
      – DIANE Service Description


•    WSMO proposes high-level objectives and approaches similar to those of OWL-S but WSMO
     focuses on goals, mediation and choreography.

•    OWL-S focuses on process model.

•    SAWSDL

      –   no explicit mention of precondition and effects, not dedicated to describe Web
          service behavior.

      –   independent of the used semantic representation language thanks to the separation
          of semantic annotation from representation.

      –   flexibility to developer community to select their favorite semantic representation
          language.
                                                                                             10
     Requirements and motivations
     •   Semantic-based description languages (OWL-S and WSMO) are closed approaches:
          –   only handle respectively OWL and WSML as type of ontologies (Ould Ahmed
              M’Bareck & Tata, 2008).
          –   specify a definite but limited set of concepts which is not easy to extend.
     •   WSMO contains some concepts that do not appear in OWL-S ontology and vice
         versa.
     •   In SAWSDL, when an operation is annotated using several semantic concepts in an
         ontology, one is not able to differentiate these concepts (condition, result, etc.)
     •   Differentiation of semantic annotation of WSDL elements can be used to enhance
         Web service discovery (differentiate each semantic property)




                Domain Ontology
                                                                                            11
Semantic Web Service
                      Content

• Context
• Brief state of the art:
   – Service Description
• New description approach:
   – YASA4WSDL & OTES ontology
• Brief state of the art:
   – Semantic Matching
• Ongoing work


                                 12
 Yet Another Semantic Annotation for WSDL

• In SAWSDL for a given WSDL element one can use many references to
  concepts in a domain ontology but !
<operation name="reserveFlight"
modelReference="validFlightInfo reservationInfo">
                                                    But there is no specification
                                                    But there is no specification
                  Semantic
                   Semantic                         of the semantic information
                                                    of the semantic information
    WSDL
    WSDL          Annotation
            +     Annotation                        nature: is it a precondition,
                                                    nature: is it a precondition,
                                                        an effect, a result? !!
                                                        an effect, a result? !!
                           SAWSDL
                           SAWSDL




• The main idea is to extend the W3C recommendation on semantics
  for Web services SAWSDL for enhancing expressiveness of description.

• Automatic generation from YASA4WSDL, descriptions like SAWSDL,
  OWL-S, or WSMO                                             13
serviceConcept: technical concept
   ...
         <interface name="TripReservationInterface"
         modelReference="&TransportOntology;#reservation">
   ...

                                     to give references to the technical concepts
                                  corresponding to the domain concepts listed in the
                                     original SAWSDL "modelReference" attribute.
+ serviceConcept
   ...
                                                                     Technical concepts
         <interface name="TripReservationInterface"
         serviceConcept="&ServiceOntology;#result"
         modelReference="&TransportOntology;#reservation">
   ...
                                                                     Domain concepts

                       Technical aspect
                              Enriched description
                              Accurate matching
                              Easy discovery
                                                                                 14
Technical Ontology & Domain Ontology

Contains several concepts defining
semantics of services' concepts and         Contains the semantics of the service
concepts describing their non functional    domain concepts (e.g. tourism, health,
properties (QoS, context…).                 trade...).




                                  Distinguish roles




                                                                                 15
Advantages

We can extend the Service Ontology by new concepts (new description elements,
more precise concepts,...)
 •   No impact on the annotation system.

No limited service ontology. The system of annotation is independent of
 •   the used semantic business domain representation language and ontology,

 •   the used semantic service representation language and ontology.

Flexibility to the developers’ community
 •   to select their favorite semantic representation language and their technical ontology,

 •   to reuse semantic domain models,

 •   to annotate descriptions using multiple ontologies.




                                                                                               16
 Construction of OTES: Technical Service Ontology
• Mapping and Merging ontologies:
   –   WSDL meta-model,
   –   « Upper Ontology for Services » of « OWL-S: Semantic Markup for Web Services »,
   –   « WSMO Web service descriptions » of « WSMO Top-Level Elements »
   –   Recurring concepts used in the semantic web services literature and recent
       research.




                                                                                    17
                      Content

• Context
• Brief state of the art:
   – Service Description
• New description approach:
   – YASA4WSDL & OTES ontology
• Brief state of the art:
   – Semantic Matching
• Ongoing work


                                 18
  Introduction to Semantic Service Matching

• What parts of service to match?
   – Process, Profile (functional, non-functional, etc.)
• How matching is be performed?
   – Non-logic
       • Text similarity measurement,
       • Structured graph matching,
       • Path-length-based similarity of concepts.
   – Logic
       • Deductive approach
   – Hybrid combination


                                                           19
Categories of existing Semantic Web
     Service matchmakers [9]




                                      20
Logic-based Matching

• We use
   – Logical concepts and rules
   – Ontologies (first-order or rule-based theories)
• IO-matching
   – OWLSM (IO) [2]
   – OWLS-UDDI (IO) [3]
   – Semantic Matching of Web Services Capabilities (IO) [4]
• PE-matching: service/request preconditions (P) and effects (E)
   – PCEM (Prolog)
   – WSMO-MX (F-Logic)
• IOPE-matching
   – Automatic Location of Services (IOPE) [5]
                                                                   21
                                                                 Semantic Matching of
 Degrees of matching in [4]                                         Web Services
                                                                     Capabilities
• Exact
    –    If Output(R) and Output(A) are equivalent,
    –    if Output(R) subclassOf Output(A) with Output(A) are consistent with every
         immediate subtype of Output(A).
• Plug-in
If Output(A) subsumes Output(R) than Output(A) is a set that includes Output(R),

• Subsumes
    –    If Output(R) subsumes Output(A),
         The provider does not completely fulfill the request.
         The requester may use the provider to achieve its goals, but it likely needs to
         modify its plan or perform other requests to complete its task.
• Fail      no subsumption relation between advertisement and request


                                                                                       22
                                                   Automatic Location
Degrees of matching in [5]                             of Services


• Match: The offer satisfies the request completely.

• PossMatch: The offer might satisfy the request completely, but
  due to the incompleteness of the descriptions this can not be
  guaranteed based upon the available information.

• ParMatch: The offer satisfies the request, but only partially.

• PossParMatch: The offer might satisfy the request partially, but
  due to the incompleteness of the descriptions this cannot be
  guaranteed based upon the available information.

• NoMatch: The offer is completely irrelevant to the request.


                                                                     23
                                                                 Evaluating Semantic Web

Degrees of matching in [6]                                         Service Matchmaking
                                                                  Effectiveness Based on
                                                                    Graded Relevance




•   Match ( satisfies )
•   PossMatch ( might satisfy , incompleteness of the descriptions )
•   ParMatch ( satisfies , but only partially )
•   PossParMatch ( might satisfy partially , incompleteness of the descriptions )

• RelationMatch: The offer does not provide services as requested,
  but related functionality. Thus, it could be useful in coordination
  with other offers.
• ExcessMatch: The offer is able to provide the requested services but
  would result in additional undesirable effects that are not requested
  by the client.
•   NoMatch ( irrelevant )


                                                                                      24
                 Non-logic-based Matching
• How
    –   Syntactic similarity measurement,
    –   Structured graph matching,
    –   Numeric concept distance computations
• Text similarity metrics
    –   Ranked keyword ; Structured XML search with XQuery, XIRQL or TeXQuery
• Idea
    –   exploit semantics that are implicit
         • patterns, sub-graphs, or relative frequencies of terms, etc
• iMatcher1 [9]
    –   It queries a set of OWL-S service profiles stored as serialized RDF graphs in a RDF
        database with an extension of RDQL: iRDQL
    –   4 metrics: Levenshtein measure, cosine vector measure, TFIDF, Jensen-Shannon
        information divergence,
• DSD matchmaker [8]
    –   Graph matching over state-based service descriptions
    –   It returns a numeric (fuzzy) degree                                              25
                   Hybrid Matching

• Syntactic matching techniques are first class candidates
  for the development of hybrid semantic service profile
  matching solutions

• These solutions combine means of both
   – crisp logic-based

   – non-logic-based semantic matching

• Alone, each approach would fail due to its limits   the
  second may tolerate this failure


                                                        26
            OWLS-MX [10] (2008)            WSMO-MX [15, 16] (2007)                    SAWSDL-MX [17] (2008)



Entries     OWL-S service                  WSML-Rule variant: WSML-MX                 SAWSDL service




Approach    _                              -OWLS-MX hybrid semantic matching          -OWLS-MX[10]
                                           [10]                                       -WSMO-MX[14]
                                           -Object-oriented graph matching of the
                                           matchmaker DSD-MM [8]
                                           -Intentional matching of services in [5]
Logic       logic-based reasoning          -Ontology-based type matching (logical     Logic-based matching
                                           concept subsumption),                      (subsumption reasoning)
                                           -Logical (instance-based) constraint
                                           matching in F-logic (LP)

Non-logic   content-based information      -Relation name matching                    IR-based (text retrieval) matching
            retrieval                      -Syntactic similarity measurement



Degree of   -Exact          -Subsumed-by   Equivalence                                -Exact           -Subsumed-by
matching    -Plug-in        -Nearest-      Plug-in                                    -Plug-in,        -Nearest-
            -Subsumes       neighbor       Inverse-plug-in                            -Subsumes,       neighbor
            -Logic-based    -Fail          Intersection                               -Subsumed-by     (hybrid)
            fail            (hybrid)       Fuzzy similarity                           (logic)
            (logic)                        Neutral                                                              27
                                           Disjunction (Fail)
  Recall-precision performance of logic based OWLS-M0
vs best hybrid OWLS-M4 vs IR based service I/O matching




                                                      28
              Evaluation & Summary
          Entries & Testing environment
• Evaluated Entries
   – OWL-S
       • OWLS-iMatcher2 (U Zurich, CH) – hybrid
       • OWLS-MX 2.0 (DFKI, D) – hybrid
       • JIAC-OWLSM (TU Berlin/DAI Lab, D) – hybrid
   – SAWSDL
       • URBE (Politecnico di Milano, I) – non-logic-based
       • SAWSDL-MX (DFKI, D) – hybrid

• Evaluation environment SME2 release 2.0
• OWLS-TC 2.2, SAWSDL-TC 1.0



                                                             29
    OWL-S Matchmakers (response time)

• Average query response time:

   – owls-imatcher: 22,94 secs


   – owls-mx: 5,26 secs


   – jiac-owlsm: 7,54 secs




                                        30
          SAWSDL Matchmakers (runtime)
• Total runtime
   – sawsdl-mx: 8,1
     min
   – urbe: 20,0 min
• Tasks
   – Service
     registrations
   – Service
     matching &
     ranking
     (selection)




                                         31
   SAWSDL Matchmakers (response time)

• Average query response
  time:


   – sawsdl-mx: 8,38 secs


   – urbe: 45,89 secs




                                        32
            Logic                                              Hybrid


            OWLS-M[2]     [4]     [5]             [6]          OWLS-MX         iMatcher2     FC-Match      SWSD/QoWSO   WSMO-MX             SAWSDL-MX


Matching    IO            IO      IOPE            IOPE         IO              IO            IO+NF         IO+NF        Goal                IOPE

Non-logic   _             _       _               _            IR similarity   Text          Dice          Semantic     Syntactic           IR-based
                                                               metric          similarity-   similarity    filtering    similarity          similarity
                                                                               based         coefficient   based on     measurement
                                                                               matching      (termino-     quality
                                                                               of            logical )
                                                                               unfolded
                                                                               service
                                                                               signatures
                                                                               and names
                                                                               (Sim-Pack)




Degree      -Equivalent   -EPSF   -Match          -MPPPN       -EPSF                                       -Success     -Equivalence        -EPSF
of          -Unknown              -PossMatch      -Relation-   -Subsumed-by                                -Fail        -Plug-in            -Subsumed-
matching    -Subsumes             -ParMatch       Match        -Logic-based                                             -Inverse-plug-in    by
            -Fail                 -PossParMatch   -Excess-     fail                                                     -Intersection       -Nearest-
                                  -NoMatch        Match        - Nearest-                                               -Fuzzy similarity   neighbor
                                  (MPPPN)                      neighbor                                                 -Neutral
                                                                                                                        -Disjunction
                                                                                                                        (fail)




User        yes           _       _               _            yes             yes           _             _            yes                 _




                                             EPSF: Exact, Plug-in, Subsumes, Fail                                                           33
 YASA-Matchmaker

      Ongoing work

         Hybrid approach
                =
    Logic Elementary Matching
                +
       Structural Matching
                +
Aggregation of Degrees of Matching
Questions




            35
    References
•   [Chinnici et al., 2007]Chinnici, Roberto, Weerawarana, Sanjiva, Moreau, Jean-Jacques, & Ryman, Arthur. 2007 (June). Web
    services description language (WSDL) version 2.0 part 1: Core language. W3C recommendation. W3C.
    http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/REC-wsdl20-20070626.

•   [ESSI WSMO working group, 2004]ESSI WSMO working group. 2004. Web Service Modeling Ontology. http://www.wsmo.org/.

•   [Fallside & Walmsley, 2004]Fallside, David C., & Walmsley, Priscilla. 2004 (Oct.). XML schema part 0: Primer second edition.
    W3C recommendation. W3C. http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-xmlschema-0-20041028/.

•   [Farrell & Lausen, 2007]Farrell, Joel, & Lausen, Holger. 2007 (Aug.). Semantic annotations for WSDL and XML schema. W3C
    recommendation. W3C. http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/REC-sawsdl-20070828/.

•   [Klan, 2006]Klan, Friederike. 2006. Context-aware service discovery, selection and usage. Pages 95–99 of: Grundlagen von
    datenbanken.

•   [Klein et al., 2005]Klein, Michael, Ries, Birgitta Konig, & Mussig, Michael. 2005. What is needed for semantic service
    descriptions, a proposal for suitable language constructs. Int. j. web grid serv., 1(3/4), 328–364.

•   [Klyne et al., 2004]Klyne, Graham, Butler, Mark H., Reynolds, Franklin, Ohto, Hidetaka, Woodrow, Chris, Hjelm, Johan, &
    Tran, Luu. 2004 (Jan.). Composite capability/preference profiles (CC/pp): Structure and vocabularies 1.0. W3C
    recommendation. W3C. http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-CCPP-struct-vocab-20040115/.

•   [Küster & Konig-Ries, 2007]Küster, U., & Konig-Ries, B. 2007. Semantic Mediation between Business Partners - A SWS-
    Challenge Solution Using DIANE Service Descriptions. Web Intelligence and Intelligent Agent Technology Workshops, 2007
    IEEE/WIC/ACM International Conferences on, Nov., 139–143.




                                                                                                                             36
    References
•   [Küster et al., 2007]Küster, Ulrich, K¨onig-Ries, Birgitta, Stern, Mirco, & Klein, Michael. 2007. DIANE: an integrated approach
    to automated service discovery, matchmaking and composition. Pages 1033–1042 of: Www ’07: Proceedings of the 16th
    international conference on world wide web. New York, NY, USA: ACM.

•   [Li & Wang, 2006]Li, Hui, & Wang, Haiyang. 2006. A Method of Service Description and Discovery in Pervasive Computing
    Environments. 1st International Symposium on Pervasive Computing and Applications, Xinjiang, China, 604–607.

•   [Martin et al., 2007a]Martin, David, Paolucci, Massimo, & Wagner, Matthias. 2007a. Bringing Semantic Annotations toWeb
    Services: OWL-S from the SAWSDL Perspective. Pages 340–352 of: ISWC/ASWC.

•   [Martin et al., 2007b]Martin, David, Paolucci, Massimo, & Wagner, Matthias. 2007b. Toward Semantic Annotations of Web
    Services: OWL-S from the SAWSDL Perspective. In: OWL-S: Experiences and Directions Workshop, the 4th European Semantic
    Web Conference (ESWC 2007), the Tyrol region of Innsbruck, Austria.

•   [Ould Ahmed M’Bareck & Tata, 2008]Ould Ahmed M’Bareck, Nomane, & Tata, Samir. 2008. Services Web : revue des
    approches de description sémantique. Conférence internationale ”Systèmes d’Information et Intelligence Economique”,
    Hammamet, Tunisie.

•   [Vitvar et al., 2007]Vitvar, Tomas, Kopeck´y, Jacek, Zaremba, Maciej, & Fensel, Dieter. 2007. WSMO-Lite: Lightweight
    Semantic Descriptions for Services on the Web. ECOWS ’07. Fifth IEEE European Conference on Web Services, Halle, Germany,
    Nov., 77–86.

•   [W3C, 2001]W3C. 2001. Web Services Description Language (WSDL). http://www.w3.org/TR/wsdl/.

•   [W3C, 2004]W3C. 2004. OWL-S: Semantic Markup for Web Services. http://www.w3.org/Submission/OWL-S/.




                                                                                                                                37
    References
[1] Ulrich KÄuster and Birgitta KÄonig-Ries, “Evaluating Semantic Web Service Matchmaking, Effectiveness Based on Graded Relevance”,
      International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC08)
[2] Michael C. Jaeger, Gregor Rojec-Goldmann, Christoph Liebetruth Gero Mühl, and Kurt Geihs2, “Ranked Matching for Service
      Descriptions using OWL-S”.
[3] Naveen Srinivasan, Massimo Paolucci , Katia Sycara, “Adding OWL-S to UDDI, implementation and throughput”, February, 2009
[4] Massimo Paolucci and Takahiro Kawamura and Terry R. Payne and Katia Sycara, “Semantic Matching of Web Services Capabilities”,
      2002
[5] Uwe Keller, Ruben Lara, Holger Lausen, Axel Polleres, and Dieter Fensel, “Automatic Location of Services”, ESWC, 2005
[6] http://www.semwebcentral.org/
[7] Ulrich Küster, Birgitta König-Ries, “Evaluating Semantic Web Service Matchmaking Effectiveness Based on Graded Relevance”,
      ISWC08
[8] Kuster, U.; Konig-Ries, B., “Semantic Service Discovery with DIANE Service Descriptions”, Web Intelligence and Intelligent Agent
      Technology Workshops, 2007
[9] Matthias Klusch, “Semantic Web Service Coordination”, Book Chapter, CASCOM: Intelligent Service Coordination in the Semantic
      Web, Birkhäuser Basel, 2008
[10] Klusch,, Matthias and Fries,, Benedikt and Sycara,, Katia , “Automated semantic web service discovery with OWLS-MX”, AAMAS '06,
      2006
[11] Christoph Kiefer, Abraham Bernstein, Hong Joo Lee, Mark Klein, and Markus Stocker, “Semantic Process Retrieval with iSPARQL”
[12] Christoph Kiefer, “Non-Deductive Reasoning for the Semantic Web and Software Analysis”, Doctoral Thesis
[13] P. Bertoli, A. Cimatti, P. Traverso: Interleaving Execution and Planning for Nondeterministic, Partially Observable Domains.
      Proceedings of European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI), 2004.
[14] Jing Fan and Bo Ren and Li-Rong Xiong, “An Approach to Web Service Discovery Based on the Semantics”, 2005
[15] F. Kaufer and M. Klusch, “Hybrid Semantic Web Service Matching with WSMO-MX. Proc. 4th IEEE European Conference on Web
      Services (ECOWS), Zurich, Switzerland, IEEE CS Press, 2006
[16] F. Kaufer and M. Klusch , “WSMO-MX: A Logic Programming Based Hybrid Service Matchmaker“, ECOWS, 2006
[17] MatthiasKlusch and Patrick Kapahnke, “Semantic Web Service Selection with SAWSDL-MX”, SMRR, 2008




                                                                                                                            38
 Example
• The example given below models a Web Service for trip reservation.

• It provides operation for flight, hotel, and/or car reservation.

• The service provides flight reservations based on the specification of
  a flight request. If the desired flight is available, an itinerary and
  reservation number will be returned.

• The similar things are offered by the service concerning hotel and
  car reservation.




                                                                      39
01    <description>
02        <types>
03        <schema targetNamespace="http://cyl.com/reservation#" elementFormDefault="qualified">
04                   <element name="reserveFlightRequest" type="reservation">...</element>
05                   <element name="reserveFlightResponse" type="confirmation">...</element>
06                   ...
07        </schema>
08        </types>
09        <interface name="TripReservationInterface"
10        serviceConcept="&ServiceOntology;#interface"
11        modelReference="&TransportOntology;#reservation">
12             <operation name="reserveFlight" pattern="http://www.w3.org/ns/wsdl/in-out"
13               serviceConcept="&ServiceOntology;#precondition &ServiceOntology;#result"
14               modelReference="&TransportOntology;#validFlightInfo &TransportOntology;#reservationInfo">
15                            <input element="reserveFlightRequest"/>
16                            <output element="reserveFlightResponse"/>
17                  </operation>
18                  <operation name="reserveHotel"...>
19                  <operation name="reserveCar"...>
20      </interface>
21    <binding name="reservationSOAPBinding“ interface="TripReservation" type="http://www.w3.org/ns/wsdl/soap"...>
22                  <operation ref="reserveFlight"...>
23                  <operation ref="reserveHotel"...>
24                  <operation ref="reserveCar"...>
25     </binding>
26     <service name="reservationService" interface="TripReservationInterface"...>
27       <endpoint name="reservationEndpoint“ binding="reservationSOAPBinding"address="http://cyl.com/reservation"/>
28     </service>
29   </description>




                                                                                                                       40
01    <description>
02        <types>
03        <schema targetNamespace="http://cyl.com/reservation#" elementFormDefault="qualified">
04                   <element name="reserveFlightRequest" type="reservation">...</element>
05                   <element name="reserveFlightResponse" type="confirmation">...</element>
06                   ...
07        </schema>
08        </types>
09        <interface name="TripReservationInterface"                                                               semantic
10        serviceConcept="&ServiceOntology;#interface"
                                                                                                                  annotation
11        modelReference="&TransportOntology;#reservation">
12             <operation name="reserveFlight" pattern="http://www.w3.org/ns/wsdl/in-out"
13               serviceConcept="&ServiceOntology;#precondition &ServiceOntology;#result"
14               modelReference="&TransportOntology;#validFlightInfo &TransportOntology;#reservationInfo">
15                             <input element="reserveFlightRequest"/>
16                             <output element="reserveFlightResponse"/>
17                  </operation>
18                  <operation name="reserveHotel"...>
19                  <operation name="reserveCar"...>
20      </interface>
21    <binding name="reservationSOAPBinding“ interface="TripReservation" type="http://www.w3.org/ns/wsdl/soap"...>
22                  <operation ref="reserveFlight"...>
23                  <operation ref="reserveHotel"...>                                                a list of model
24                       a list of service
                    <operation ref="reserveCar"...> to which corresponds respectively,           references from the
25     </binding>       concepts from the
                                                              in the same order                    transport domain
26                     technical ontology
       <service name="reservationService" interface="TripReservationInterface"...>
                                                                                                        ontology
27       <endpoint name="reservationEndpoint“ binding="reservationSOAPBinding"address="http://cyl.com/reservation"/>
28     </service>
29   </description>




                                                                                                                               41

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:3
posted:11/4/2011
language:English
pages:41