2008
DOI: 10.1016/j.websem.2008.01.001
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

IRS-III: A broker-based approach to semantic Web services

Abstract: ________________________________________________________________________A factor limiting the take up of Web services is that all tasks associated with the creation of an application, for example, finding, composing, and resolving mismatches between Web services have to be carried out by a software developer. Semantic Web services is a combination of semantic Web and Web service technologies that promise to alleviate these problems. In this paper we describe IRS-III, a framework for creating and executing sema… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
34
0

Year Published

2010
2010
2015
2015

Publication Types

Select...
5
3
2

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 69 publications
(34 citation statements)
references
References 23 publications
0
34
0
Order By: Relevance
“…WSMX [18], IRS-III [19] and SUPER [20] are based on WSMO representation and also use, like [16], most WSMO features such as precondition and effect semantic descriptions. While [18] and [19] settle for "1-to-1" logic-based service matching by means of, respectively, WSMO Choreography and a UPML knowledge model (Unified Problem-solving Method description Language) for process description, [20] uses dedicated ontology, called sBPMN, to express process logic and provides "1-ton" composition in order to deal with granularity differences between business activities and technical services. SOA4All [21] defines a lightweight SWS representation based on WSMO (called WSMO-Lite) and its executive environment based on a light WSMX, improving algorithm to provide high-performance "1-to-n" composition.…”
Section: Semantic Reconciliation: State Of the Artmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…WSMX [18], IRS-III [19] and SUPER [20] are based on WSMO representation and also use, like [16], most WSMO features such as precondition and effect semantic descriptions. While [18] and [19] settle for "1-to-1" logic-based service matching by means of, respectively, WSMO Choreography and a UPML knowledge model (Unified Problem-solving Method description Language) for process description, [20] uses dedicated ontology, called sBPMN, to express process logic and provides "1-ton" composition in order to deal with granularity differences between business activities and technical services. SOA4All [21] defines a lightweight SWS representation based on WSMO (called WSMO-Lite) and its executive environment based on a light WSMX, improving algorithm to provide high-performance "1-to-n" composition.…”
Section: Semantic Reconciliation: State Of the Artmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Then, a "generic inference mechanism shall be developed for handling SWS" (Charif, Y., Sabouret, N., 2006). Various technologies exist, such as OWL-S (W3C, 2004), WSMO (W3C, 2005), METEOR-S (Sheth, A. P., Gomadam, K., Ranabahu, A., 2008), IRS-III (Domingue, J. et al, 2008), etc. The main drawbacks of these approaches are that the user must be a computer specialist, whereas the services composition solutions are intended to help ordinary users in the web, and some manual steps must be performed by the user (Charif, Y., Sabouret, N., 2006).…”
Section: The Semantic Webmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…IRS-III [15] employs WSMO's conceptual model to provide a broker-based approach in which a client sends a request expressing a desired outcome or goal and a broker discovers potentially relevant Web services, selects the Web services that best fit the incoming request, mediates any mismatches at the conceptual level, and invokes the selected Web services. In IRS-III, as in our approach, service selection relies on instance data and is based on preconditions and assumptions, but also considers other elements including input types and non-functional properties.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%