• Like
  • Save


Flash Player 9 (or above) is needed to view presentations.
We have detected that you do not have it on your computer. To install it, go here.

Semantic Web Services: State of the Art

Uploaded on

Presentation at the IADIS International Conference on Internet Technologies & Society (ITS 2010) in Perth, Australia

Presentation at the IADIS International Conference on Internet Technologies & Society (ITS 2010) in Perth, Australia

More in: Technology , Education
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
No Downloads


Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds



Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

    No notes for slide
  • Till some years ago that usually meant that idiot is sitting in front of the monitor. The user was normally a human.But that changed with the introduction of service-oriented architectures in the late nineties.
  • So this lead to a situation where we now have idiots on both sides. The different systems are usually so tightly coupled that even a tiny change such as the change from a 16 bit integer to a 32 bit integer could break the whole communication and would require the recompilation of the other system. Well, this might be acceptable in a controlled enterprise environment but for sure it isn’t for Internet-scale systems.
  • So what we need is a semantic description format for Web services. There have been already a lot of proposals and they can be basically classified into general-purpose and domain-specific descriptions formats.So in the next minutes I will talk a bit about the general-purpose description formats and then conclude my talk with some words on the domain-specific formats.
  •  The thing is that all of the presented approaches assume that the service follows the RPC-style. But REST is fundamentally different as it is a resource-oriented architecture. So in my opinion all of these approaches are condemned to failure for RESTful services. I think we need something dramatically simpler for RESTful services and I believe that the description of the resource representations, i.e., the transport format, combined with the use of hypermedia should be enough to achieve a high degree of automation for RESTful services without overburdening the developers.


  • 1. © Spreng BenSemantic Web Services State of the Art Markus Lanthaler Graz University of Technology
  • 2. Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to build bigger and better idiot-proof programs,and the Universe trying to produce bigger and better idiots. So far, the Universe is winning. [Rick Cook, The Wizardry Compiled] © Rick Harris
  • 3. SOAP + WSDL + UDDI© Capture Queen
  • 4. SOAP ≈ RPC not Web-friendly© jvs11
  • 5. REST (Representational State Transfer) specifically developed for the Web© longhorndave
  • 6. (Perceived) complexity High Low Usage of HTTP as an No, abused as Yes application protocol transport protocol Web-friendly (direct support No Yes of caches, proxies, etc.) Stateless No (most of the time) Yes Addressable resources No Yes Data handling Automatic mapping No automatism to objects (O/X) Data security WS-Security, … HTTPS SOAP REST© Michael Glasgow
  • 7. REST typically has just ahuman-readable documentation
  • 8. Most naturalregularly updated The only description WSDL WADL: closely related to by HTML SMEX-D for HTML doc. Resedel and WADL WRDL RSWS NSDL WDLcontaining hyperlinkshRESTS: microformatsproposals are hRESTS forms
  • 9. Syntactic description is not enough
  • 10. Semantic annotation of data and behavior© Clever Cupcakes
  • 11. Semantic Description Formats General-purpose Domain-specific formats formats OWL-S  Atom/RSS WSMO  OpenSearch SAWSDL  oEmbed SA-REST  … MicroWSMO WSMO-Lite
  • 12. OWL-S What does Profile the service described by How theService Process Model service works How to access Grounding the service
  • 13. WSMO Objectives a client might Goals have when consulting the service Service Ontologies DescriptionDefines the formalized Description of servicesdomain knowledge Mediators Connectors between these components handles heterogeneities allows loose coupling
  • 14. SAWSDL modelReference liftingSchemaMapping loweringSchemaMappingWSDL/XSD
  • 15. MicroWSMO Model Lifting LoweringHTML + microformats (relies on hRESTS)
  • 16. SA-REST Operation Action Input/Output/Fault LiftingHTML + RDFa Lowering
  • 17. WSMO-Lite Functional Functionality the Semantics service offers Information Behavioral Model SemanticsData model for input, How has a client to output and fault talk to the service messages Non-functional Descriptions Non-functional properties, e.g. QoS or pricing
  • 18. Possible to create matching stacks for SOAP and REST Ontology, e.g. WSMO-Lite annotations point toSAWSDL Semantic annotation MicroWSMO extends extends WSDL Service interface description hRESTS
  • 19. © Nesster All of these approaches assume a RPC-style service. REST is different.
  • 20. Domain-specific Description Formats Atom/AtomPub OpenSearch Atom, OpenSearch + Linked Open Data© Dave Joyce
  • 21. Thank You© 2010, Markus Lanthaler. Some Rights Reserved.http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/
  • 22. © Michael SauersMarkus LanthalerMarkus.Lanthaler@student.TUGraz.at
  • 23. Image Credits (1) http://www.flickr.com/photos/sprengben/4550315185/ (2) http://www.flickr.com/photos/rickharris/3241285917/ (4) http://www.flickr.com/photos/uaeincredible/64162372/ (4) http://www.flickr.com/photos/uaeincredible/64162372/ (5) http://www.flickr.com/photos/jvs11/4253275748/ (7) http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidw/3501319155/ (8) http://www.flickr.com/photos/glasgows/2200685325/(12) http://www.flickr.com/photos/clevercupcakes/4397152402/(21) http://www.flickr.com/photos/nesster/3168425434/(22) http://www.flickr.com/photos/deapeajay/2597109669/(24) http://www.flickr.com/photos/travelinlibrarian/223839049/(27) http://www.flickr.com/photos/arenamontanus/2530501831/(28) http://www.flickr.com/photos/mdid/2698688454/(30) http://www.flickr.com/photos/luisbg/2072134438/
  • 24. Bonus Slides
  • 25. Use lifting/lowering schemas Translation between service’s native and ontology’s format© Anders Sandberg
  • 26. Data mediation/integration is a common and still open problem© mdid
  • 27. Publishers are willing to annotatetheir data if there is an incentive Facebook’s Open Graph Protocol was implemented … and it’s in over 50,000 Web sites simple enough within the first week [http://developers.facebook.com/blog/post/379]
  • 28. © Luis de Bethencourt “We know the hard things arepossible, we just have to make the easy things easy.” [Norman Walsh, 2006]