2013 10th International Conference on Information Technology: New Generations 2013
DOI: 10.1109/itng.2013.17
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A Comparative Evaluation of Web Services Description Approaches

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

2013
2013
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
3
3
1

Relationship

3
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 7 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 7 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…There are many services that provide the same functionality and this often creates confusion for the customer as to which service to choose (Dewangan, B. K. et al, 2012). Thus this description helps to choose the most appropriate service (H. Omrana et al, 2013).…”
Section: Background and Motivationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…There are many services that provide the same functionality and this often creates confusion for the customer as to which service to choose (Dewangan, B. K. et al, 2012). Thus this description helps to choose the most appropriate service (H. Omrana et al, 2013).…”
Section: Background and Motivationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, the lack of semantics in WSDL prevents the automatic discovery of Web services [2]. For this reason, a series of models incorporating semantics in the description of their Web services have been proposed.…”
Section: Web Service Description Elements In the Cbr4wsd Systemmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This is to opt for the couple: Business Process Management (BPM) and serviceoriented architecture (SOA), especially Web services as the foundation for adaptive and collaborative information systems. In addition, we note that the W3C standards for Web services have numerous contributions compared to semantic models proposed in the literature [21] [22]. • The annotation mechanism refers to annotative object (serving annotation) in the ontology, to underlying semantic relationships and to cardinality annotation.…”
Section: A Evaluation Criteriamentioning
confidence: 99%