Semantic Matching of Web Services Capabilities

By Massimo Paolucci, Takahiro Kawamura, Terry R. Payne, Katia P. Sycara. International Workshop on the Semantic Web, 2002

2,559 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Artificial Intelligence, Information Systems, Management Information Systems

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/7d32e764672117c2d5bce2c69dee737c6e88b719

How researchers see this paper

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

In Artificial Intelligence

In Information Systems

In Management Information Systems

Citations in the corpus

Composing Web services on the Semantic Web (2003, methodology): “The matching algorithm defined in [30] is limited to comparing inputs and outputs of the advertisement with inputs and outputs of the request.”
QoS-Based Service Selection and Ranking with Trust and Reputation Management (2005, methodology): “wij is a weight proportional to the semantic similarity mij between qij and the QoS ontology concept qj required by the user, i.e., the degree of match as in [ 23 ].”
A software framework for matchmaking based on semantic web technology (2003, background): “In [18], Paolucci et al. have described some experiments designed to prove that DAML-S and its Service Proﬁle can take up the challenge of representing the functionalities of web services.”
Bringing Semantics to Web Services with OWL-S (2007, methodology): “The OWL-S Matchmaker system [64] is also extended for policy matching, and the OWL-S Virtual Machine (VM) [62] has been extended to enforce policies and security mechanisms.”
Simlarity Search for Web Services (2004, background): “Some recent work (e.g., [9] [23]) has proposed annotating web services manually with additional semantic information, and then using these annotations to compose services [8] [26].”
Ontology Matching (2007, background): “Web service discovery and integration is the process of finding a web service able to deliver a particular service and composing several services in order to achieve a particular goal (Paolucci et al. 2002; Medjahed and Bouguettaya 2005; Oundhakar et al. 2005; Algergawy et al. 2010).”
Adding Semantics to Web Services Standards (2003, methodology): “We have used an approach similar to Paolucci et al [14] to store the semantic information about inputs, outputs and operations of a WSDL description in UDDI.”
A framework for QoS-aware binding and re-binding of composite web services (2008, methodology): “In case an automatic, semantic discov ery mechanism is available [6, 26], this can be done automatically, even before execution when the workfl ow is concretized.”
Semantic E-Workflow Composition (2003, background): “– Previous work (Paolucci et al., 2002) on Web service discovery does not address the interoperability problem or heterogeneity of related ontologies.”
DAML-S: Web Service Description for the Semantic Web (2002, neutral): “Services advertise their profiles with Internet wide discovery services, such as Middle Agents [21] and other registries (e.g. UDDI [25]), which then match service requests against the advertised profiles, and identify which services provide the best match7.”
OWLS-MX: A hybrid Semantic Web service matchmaker for OWL-S services (2009, neutral): “Examples of logic-based OWL-S service matchmakers are OWLSM [7] and OWLS-UDDI [16] both focussing on service IO-matching.”
A Survey of Schema-Based Matching Approaches (2005, neutral): “Web service discovery and integration is the process of ﬁnding a web service able to deliver a particular service and composing several services in order to achieve a particular goal, see [39].”
A Policy Based Approach to Security for the Semantic Web (2003, background): “Web services generally register themselves with a matchmaker [34] that inter-prets their functional description and provides brokering services for them.”