skip to main content
research-article

Semantics-based context-aware dynamic service composition

Published:21 May 2009Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

This article presents a semantics-based context-aware dynamic service composition framework that composes an application through combining distributed components based on the semantics of components and contexts of users. The proposed framework consists of Component Service Model with Semantics (CoSMoS), Component Runtime Environment (CoRE), and Semantic Graph based Service Composition (SeGSeC). CoSMoS models the semantics of components and contexts of users. CoRE is a middleware to support CoSMoS on various distributed computing technologies. SeGSeC is a mechanism to compose an application by synthesizing its workflow based on the semantics of components and contexts of users. The proposed framework is capable of composing applications requested in a natural language by leveraging the semantic information of components. The proposed framework composes applications differently to individual users based on their contexts and preferences. The proposed framework acquires user preferences from user-specified rules and also via learning. The proposed framework also adapts to dynamic environments by autonomously composing a new application upon detecting context change. This article describes the design and mechanism of the proposed framework, and also presents simulation experiments to evaluate the proposed framework.

References

  1. Baresi, L., Bianchini, D., Antonellis, V. de, Fugini, M. G., Pernici, B., and Plebani, P. 2003. Context-aware composition of e-services. In Proceedings of 4th VLDB Workshop on Technologies for E-Services (VLDB-TES'03), co-located with VLDB'03.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Carman, M., Serafini, L., and Traverso, P. 2003. Web service composition as planning. In Proceedings of the ICAPS Workshop on Planning for Web Services.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Casati, F., Ilnicki, S., Jin, L.-J., Krishnamoorthy, V., and Shan, M.-C. 2000. Adaptive and dynamic service composition in eFlow. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering (CAiSE). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Casati, F., Castellanos, M., Dayal, U. and Shan, M. 2004. Probabilistic, context-sensitive and goal-oriented service selection. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Service Oriented Computing (ICSOC'04). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Chakraborty, D. and Joshi, A. 2001. Dynamic service composition: State-of-the-art and research directions. In Technical Report TR-CS-01-19, Department of Computer Science and Electrical Engineering, University of Maryland.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Chakraborty, D., Perich, F., Joshi, A., Finin, T., and Yesha, Y. 2002. A reactive service composition architecture for pervasive computing environments. In Proceedings of the 7th Personal Wireless Communications Conference (PWC'02). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Chen, H., Finin, T., and Joshi, A. 2005. The SOUPA ontology for pervasive computing. Tamma, T., Cranefield, S. and Willmott, S. Eds. Ontologies for Agents: Theory and Experiences, Springer-Verlag.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Christopoulou, E. and Kameas, A. 2005. GAS ontology: an ontology for collaboration among ubiquitous computing devices. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud. 62, 5, 664--685. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Corby, O., Dieng, R., and Hèbert, C. 2000. A conceptual graph model for W3C resource description framework. In Proceedings of the Linguistic Conference on Conceptual Structures: Logical Linguistic and Computational Issues, 468--482. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Dey, A. 2000. Providing architectural support for building context-aware applications. Ph.D thesis, College of Computing, Georgia Institute of Technology. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Doshi, P., Goodwin, R., Akkiraju, R., and Verma, K. 2004. Dynamic workflow composition using Markov decision processes. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Web Services (ICWS). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Eberhart, A. 2004. Ad-hoc invocation of semantic Web services. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Web Services (ICWS'04). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Fujii, K. and Suda, T. 2004. Dynamic service composition using semantic information. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Service Oriented Computing (ICSOC'04). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Fujii, K. and Suda, T. 2005. Semantics-based dynamic service composition. IEEE J. Select. Areas Comm. 23, 12, 2361--2372. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Fujii, K. and Suda, T. 2006. Semantics-based dynamic Web service composition. Int. J. Coop. Inform. Syst. 15, 3, 293--324.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Gómez, M., Gelbukh, A., and López, A. 2000. Comparison of conceptual graphs. In Proceedings of the Mexican International Conference on Artificial Intelligence (MICAI). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Hong, J. I., et al. 2001. An infrastructure approach to context-aware computing. HCI J. 16. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Kalasapur, S., Kumar, M., and Shirazi, B. 2005. Seamless service composition (SeSCo) in pervasive environments. In Proceedings of the 1st ACM International Workshop on Multimedia Service Composition. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Kwon, J., Choi, O., Moon, C., Park S., and Baik, D. 2006. Deriving similarity for semantic Web using similarity graph. J. Intell. Inform. Syst. 26, 2, 149--166. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Limthanmaphon, B. and Zhang, Y. 2003. Web service composition with case-based reasoning. In Proceedings of the 14th Australasian Database Conference (ADC'03). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Mann, G. A. 1995. BEELINE—A situated, bounded conceptual knowledge system. Int. J. Syst. Res. Inform. Sci. 7, 37--53.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. McIlraith, S. and Son, T. 2002. Adapting Golog for composition of semantic Web services. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Knowledge Representation and Reasoning.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Mennie, D. and Pagurek, B. 2000. An architecture to support dynamic composition of service components. In Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on Component-Oriented Programming (WCOP'00).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Minami, M., Morikawa, H., and Aoyama, T. 2003. The design and evaluation of an interface-based naming system for supporting service synthesis in ubiquitous computing environment. Trans. Inst. Electron. Inform. Comm. Engin. J86-B, 5, 777--789.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Mokhtar, S. B., Fournier, D., Georgantas, N., and Issarny, V. 2005. Context-aware service composition in pervasive computing environments. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Rapid Integration of Software Engineering Techniques (RISE'05). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Mostefaoui, S. K., Tafat-Bouzid, A. and Hirsbrunner, B. 2003. Using context information for service discovery and composition. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Information Integration and Web-based Applications and Services (iiWAS'03).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Peer, J. 2005. Semantic service markup with SESMA. In Proceedings of the Web Service Semantics Workshop (WSS'05) at the 14th International World Wide Web Conference (WWW'05).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Pires, P., Mattoso, M., and Benevides, M. 2003. Building reliable Web services compositions. In Proceedings of the Conference on Web, Web-Services, and Database Systems. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2593. 59--72. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Ponnekanti, S. R. and Fox, A. 2002. SWORD: A developer toolkit for Web service composition. In Proceedings of the 11th World Wide Web Conference (Web Engineering Track).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Quinlan, J. R. 1993. C4.5: Programs for Machine Learning. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Rao, J., Kungas, P., and Matskin, M. 2004. Logic-based Web service composition: From service description to process model. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Web Services (ICWS'04). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Sheng, Q. Z., Benatallah, B., Dumas, M., and Mak, E. 2002. SELF-SERV: A platform for rapid composition of Web services in a peer-to-peer environment. In Proceedings of the 28th Very Large DataBase Conference (VLDB'02). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Sirin, E. and Parsia, B. 2004. Planning for semantic Web services. In Proceedings of the Semantic Web Services Workshop at the 3rd International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC'04).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Sivashanmugam, K., Miller, J., Sheth, A., and Verma, K. 2004. Framework for Semantic Web process composition, Int. J. Electron. Comm. 9, 2, 71--106. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Sowa, J. F. 1992. Conceptual graphs summary. In Conceptual Structures: Current Research and Practice, Eklund, P., Nagle, T., Nagle, J., and Gerholz, L. Eds., Ellis Horwood. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Traverso, P. and Pistore, M. 2004. Automated composition of semantic Web services into executable processes. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC'04).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Verma, K., Sivashanmugam, K., Sheth, A., Patil, A., Oundhakar, S., and Miller, J. 2005. METEOR-S WSDI: A scalable P2P infrastructure of registries for semantic publication and discovery of Web services. Inform. Technol. Manag. 6, 1, 17--39. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. Vukovic, M. and Robinson, P. 2005. GoalMorph: Partial goal satisfaction for flexible service composition. Int. J. Web Serv. Pract. 1, 1--2, 40--56.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Yang, K., Ou, S., Liotta, A., and Henning, I. 2005. Composition of context-aware services using policies and models. In Proceedings of the IEEE Globecom.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Semantics-based context-aware dynamic service composition

        Recommendations

        Reviews

        Yousri ElFattah

        There is a growing demand for new mobile and pervasive environments where software services, devices, and resources can be selected and combined to build flexible and adaptive applications. Pervasive environments are characterized by richness of context, by the mobility of users and devices, and by the appearance and disappearance of resources over time. This paper presents a framework that deals with dynamic service composition and context awareness, two key aspects of application development for pervasive environments. Dynamic service composition aims at composing complex services (or applications) on the fly, from primitive distributed components. Context awareness aims to explicitly link services to contexts and adapt services, as the context of the user changes. The framework presented in this paper offers an approach that takes a user's context and preferences into account when determining which services to provide. A key idea of the paper is the use of semantics, in the form of conceptual graphs annotated with ontologies, to model the contexts of users and express how to compose applications in specific contexts. The approach then uses semantic-based similarity of component models to adapt dynamic service composition to the user's preferences and contexts. The framework assumes the availability of domain experts or component designers to provide the related ontologies in some appropriate language, such as the Web ontology language (OWL). For modeling contextual information, the framework can leverage existing ontologies about locations, device capabilities, and user profiles. Another key idea is the use of machine learning to learn additional rules for composing context-aware applications, apart from those initially designed or input by the end user. The framework records the history of user contexts and workflow executed by the user, and then uses a decision tree construction algorithm to formalize the contextual conditions under which components are selected. Such learning can improve adaptation to the user and alleviate the need for an initially complete specification. The style of the paper is rather informal and somewhat cumbersome to read. A formal description of the overall approach is lacking, and there is little coverage of the semantic modeling of components and services and the rule languages for stating context-awareness rules and user preferences. There are only two exceptions: how preference values of components are computed for the learning scheme (expressed in Equation 1) and how to determine semantic similarity between pairs of components (expressed in Equation 2). The paper also fails to provide a critical discussion of other approaches to dynamic composition, such as those based on artificial intelligence planning and semantic Web languages. The paper presents some experiments based on the implementation of the approach, using an emulated environment that simulates components and contexts. The simulation experiments compute the number of synthesized workflows and the success rates, as metrics, in order to evaluate the proposed framework. The paper describes empirical results on use cases, comparing four schemes for selecting components: random, popularity, rule based, and learning based. The results of the experiments are interesting, but not surprising. The simulations show that "the rule-based and learning-based schemes ... are more adaptive," more scalable, and "synthesize a [lower] number of workflows in dynamic environments than the random and popularity-based schemes." The authors provide no experiments that compare the proposed framework with other semantic-based approaches for context-aware dynamic service composition. Although the simulated experiments show promise for the proposed framework, it would be premature to draw practical conclusions before deploying the framework on real components, in real-life environments. Online Computing Reviews Service

        Access critical reviews of Computing literature here

        Become a reviewer for Computing Reviews.

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in

        Full Access

        • Published in

          cover image ACM Transactions on Autonomous and Adaptive Systems
          ACM Transactions on Autonomous and Adaptive Systems  Volume 4, Issue 2
          May 2009
          155 pages
          ISSN:1556-4665
          EISSN:1556-4703
          DOI:10.1145/1516533
          Issue’s Table of Contents

          Copyright © 2009 ACM

          Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 21 May 2009
          • Accepted: 1 February 2009
          • Revised: 1 July 2008
          • Received: 1 November 2007
          Published in taas Volume 4, Issue 2

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article
          • Research
          • Refereed

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader