Enhancing Geo‐Service Chaining through Deep Service Descriptions

Abstract

We demonstrate the integrated use of semantic and syntactic service descriptions, called deep service descriptions, for service chaining by combining two prototypes: one that deals with geoservice discovery abstract composition (called ‘GeoMatchMaker’), with one that supports concrete composition and execution of geoservices services (called ‘Integrated Component Designer’). Most other service chaining approaches confine themselves to handling either syntactic or semantic service descriptions. The proprietary formats of these descriptions hamper an effective integration of discovery, composition and execution of multiple services. In essence, service chaining should help a user by providing an appropriate combination of executable services to solve a specified problem or query. Current XML‐based service description languages, such as the Web Ontology Language‐Services (OWL‐S) and the Web Service Description Language‐Semantics (WSDL‐S), allow us to build a geoservice‐reuse architecture based on common ontologies and shared service descriptions. Our approach uses annotation as a bridge between the syntax and semantics of services. This paper reports on its context and implementation issues. The target groups of this research are geo‐information engineers who are confronted with information integration issues and service interoperability issues, and secondly, information engineers who in general are confronted with distributed information and with end users that need to access distributed services as one virtual application.

Integrating GI with non-GI services—showcasing interoperability in a heterogeneous service-oriented architecture

“…This approach can be put into practice either by employing suitable top-level ontological distinctions, or by describing service concepts in terms of semantic reference systems. The idea is sketched in Lemmens et al [10] draft a use case by means of the web ontology language for web services (OWL-S), however, they do not formalize the functional aspect. Lutz [15] formalizes two facets of a semantic service description: (i) the semantics of the operation (functionality) formalized by pre-and post-conditions in first order logic (FOL), and (ii) the semantics of the interfaces of adjacent services in OWL.…”

“…In some aspects these papers at least conceptually anticipate what is now referred to as service-oriented architecture. More recent papers [9,10] push the discussion to service-oriented spatial data infrastructures; they take on the suggestion to shape spatial data infrastructures towards serviceoriented architectures [11]. Thus, the concept of service-oriented architectures has found its way into the GI science community.…”

UK utility data integration: overcoming schematic heterogeneity

“…These are predominantly based on Service Oriented Architectures (SOA) [13][14][15] . For the purposes of this paper it is assumed that all source data is available in a syntactically interoperable format.…”

A Geospatial Web Services Composition Framework Supporting Real-Time Status Monitoring

“…Semantic reasoning and AI planning based automatic/semi-automatic modelling has become a hot topic for research with the development of the semantic web and ontology theory. Lemmens (2007) investigated how to establish low-level semantic descriptions for automatic modelling of geospatial web services composition. Others (Di, 2006;Yue, 2007;Chen, 2009) proposed ontologydriven modelling schemes, in which OWL-S (W3C, 2004b) based abstract models are created semi-automatically, and transformed into WS-BPEL for execution.…”