DAML-S: Semantic Markup for Web Services

By Anupriya Ankolekar, Mark H. Burstein, Jerry R. Hobbs, Ora Lassila, David L. Martin, Sheila A. McIlraith, S. Narayanan, Massimo Paolucci, Terry R. Payne, Katia P. Sycara and 1 more. International Conference on Semantic Web & Web Services, 2001

3,340 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/698afd7515d01f72e028927d829e1c1d22019f87

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Citations in the corpus

Toward autonomic web services trust and selection (2004, methodology): “Our addition of agents to the basic SOA framework is also documented in [Ankolekar et al., 2001], as well as [Singh and Huhns, 2005], and [OWLS, 2004].”
Constraint driven Web service composition in METEOR-S (2004, methodology): “DAML-S [2] (now replaced by OWL-S [3]), presented semantic representation of Web services using an ontology based mark-up language.”
Quality of service for workflows and web service processes (2004, methodology): “A good example is the DAML-S specification [ 59 ,60], which semantically describes business processes (as in the composition of Web services).”
Simulation, verification and automated composition of web services (2002, methodology): “The DAML Services Coalition, under the guise of DAML-S [9], has taken some important first steps in this direction.”
HTN planning for Web Service composition using SHOP2 (2004, background): “The OWL-services language [3] (OWL-S) 1 , is a set of ontologies for describing the properties and capabilities of Web services.”
Service selection algorithms for Web services with end-to-end QoS constraints (2004, background): “In contrast to these industrial standards, researchers in academics are developing an ontology of services, called DAML-S (DARPA Agent Markup Language) (Ankolekar et al. 2001).”
SOSA: A Lightweight Ontology for Sensors, Observations, Samples, and Actuators (2018, methodology): “For example, how much detail is provided to model inputs and outputs of the actuation procedure as well as the orchestration of multiple actuators is beyond the scope of both SOSA and SSN. Existing ontologies such as OWLS [24] and execution frameworks such as WSMX [9] can be used together with lower”
Automating DAML-S Web Services Composition Using SHOP2 (2003, background): “Furthermore, while the language of the technical overview[3] suggests that a given simple process can be a view of one atomic process or one composite process, but not both, neither the langauge nor the ontology actually require this restriction.”
E-services: a look behind the curtain (2003, background): “In Section 2 we consider description formalisms, ranging from WSDL which gives only rudimentary information about a service s messages, to DAML-S, which offers descriptive capability so rich that it may be dif.cult to extract much knowledge about service behavior.”
A proposal for an owl rules language (2004, unknown): “ORL extends OWL in a syntactically and semantically coherent manner: the basic syntax for ORL rules is an extension of the abstract syntax for OWL DL and OWL Lite; ORL rules are given formal meaning via an extension of the OWL DL model-theoretic semantics; ORL rules are given an XML syntax based…”
DAML-S: Web Service Description for the Semantic Web (2002, unknown): “We are developing a DAML+OIL ontology for Web Services, called DAML-S [5], with the objective of making Web Services computer-interpretable and hence enabling the following tasks [15]: discovery, i.”