Rodziah ATAN, Ibrahim Ahmed AL-BALTAH, Abdul Azim Abdul GHANI, Wan Nurhayati Wan RAHMAN AB

A classification of semantic conflicts in heterogeneous Web services at message level

Since the last decade, semantic conflicts have been considered as a critical problem in establishing seamless message exchange between Web services. To provide the essential step for solving this problem, semantic conflicts have to be defined and classified properly. Most of the existing classifications that attempt to classify semantic conflicts lack completeness and accuracy. Therefore, this paper aims at proposing a new complete and accurate semantic conflicts classification, whose purposes are identifying and classifying all potential conflicts that may arise in heterogeneous Web services at the message level. This classification has three main classes based on the cause of conflicts, which are representation class, interpretation class, and structure class. Furthermore, the implementation of the classification starts with proposing three objective design criteria and ends with evaluating the classification against the proposed criteria. Three real scenarios from different domains are used to evaluate the proposed classification. The evaluation result shows that the proposed classification is the most complete and accurate when compared with other classifications.

PDF

___

[1] Kopecky J, Vitvar T, Bournez C, Farrell J. SAWSDL: Semantic annotations for WSDL and XML schema. IEEE Internet Comput 2007; 11: 6067.
[2] Kona S, Bansal A, Simon L, Mallya A, Gupta G, Thomas DH. USDL: A service-semantics description language for automatic service discovery and composition. Int J Web Serv Res 2009; 6: 2048.
[3] Kannan G, Arindam B. HP Web services architecture overview. In: W3C Workshop on Web Services; 1112 April 2001; San Jose, CA, USA.
[4] Albreshne A, Fuhrer P, Pasquier-Dorthe J. Web Services Technologies: State of the Art: Definitions, Standards, Case Study. Fribourg, Switzerland: University of Fribourg, 2009.
[5] Wang H, Huang JZ, Qu Y, Xie J. Web services: Problems and future directions. Web Semantics 2004; 1: 309320.
[6] Diamadopoulou V, Makris C, Panagis Y, Sakkopoulos E. Techniques to support Web service selection and consumption with QOS characteristics. J Netw Comput Appl 2008; 31: 108130.
[7] Nagarajan M, Verma K, Sheth A, Miller J. Ontology driven data mediation in Web services. Int J Web Serv Res 2007; 4: 104126.
[8] Nagarajan M, Verma K, Sheth A P, Miller J, Lathem J. Semantic interoperability of Web services - challenges and experiences. In: International Conference on Web Services; 1822 September 2006; Chicago, IL, USA. New York, NY, USA: IEEE. pp. 373382.
[9] Muthaiyah S, Kerschberg L. Achieving interoperability in e-government services with two modes of semantic bridging: SRS and SWRL. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research 2008; 3: 5263.
[10] Pokraev S, Reichert M, Steen M, Wieringa R. Semantic and pragmatic interoperability: a model for understanding. In: Open Interoperability Workshop on Enterprise Modeling and Ontology for Interoperability; 1314 June 2005; Porto, Portugal. pp. 15.
[11] Reiter T, Altmanninger K, Bergmayr A, Schwinger W, Kotsis G. Models in conflict-detection of semantic conflicts in model-based development. In: 3rd International Workshop on Model-Driven Enterprise Information Systems (MDEIS07); 1213 June 2007; Funchal, Madeira. pp. 2940.
[12] Guijarro L. Semantic interoperability in eGovernment initiatives. Comp Stand Inter 2009; 31: 174180.
[13] Vaccari L, Shvaiko P, Pane J, Besana P, Marchese M. An evaluation of ontology matching in geo-service applications. Geoinformatica 2012; 16: 3166.
[14] Khattak AM, Pervez Z, Sarkar AMJ, Young-Koo L. Service level semantic interoperability. In: 10th IEEE/IPSJ International Symposium on Applications and the Internet (SAINT10); 1923 July 2010; Seoul, Korea. New York, NY, USA: IEEE. pp. 387390.
[15] Wang TW, Murphy KE. Semantic heterogeneity in multidatabase systems: a review and a proposed meta-data structure. J Database Manage 2004; 15: 7187.
[16] Naiman CF, Ouksel AM. A classification of semantic conflicts in heterogeneous database systems. Journal of Organizational Computing 1995; 5: 167167.
[17] Moise G, Netedu L. Ontologies for interoperability in the eLearning systems. Petroleum-Gas University of Ploiesti Bulletin Mathematics - Information - Physics Series 2009; 81: 7588.
[18] Kashyap V, Sheth A. Semantic and schematic similarities between database objects: a context-based approach. VLDB J 1996; 5: 276304.
[19] Ceruti MG, Kamel MN. Preprocessing and integration of data from multiple sources for knowledge discovery. Int J Artif Intell T 1999; 8: 157177.
[20] Park J, Ram S. Information systems interoperability: What lies beneath? ACM T Inform Syst 2004; 22: 595632.
[21] Peristeras V, Loutas N, Goudos SK, Tarabanis K. A conceptual analysis of semantic conflicts in pan-European e-government services. J Inf Sci 2008; 34: 877891.
[22] Shanmugasundaram J, Shekita E, Barr R, Carey M, Lindsay B, Pirahesh H, Reinwald B. Efficiently publishing relational data as xml documents. VLDB J 2001; 10: 133154.
[23] Kim H, Park S. Semantic integration of heterogeneous XML data sources. In: Bellahs`ene Z, Patel D, Rolland C, editors. Object-Oriented Information Systems. Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag, 2002. pp. 771775.
[24] N¨appil¨a T, Niemi T. An approach for developing a schemaless XML dataspace profiling system. J Inf Sci 2012; 38: 234257.
[25] Pluempitiwiriyawej C, Hammer J. A Classification Scheme for Semantic and Schematic Heterogeneities in XML Data Sources. Technical Report TR00-004. Gainesville, FL, USA: University of Florida, 2000.
[26] Lee KH, Kim MH, Lee KC, Kim BS, Lee MY. Conflict classification and resolution in heterogeneous information integration based on XML schema. In: The 2002 IEEE Region 10 Technical Conference on Computers, Communications, Control and Power Engineering; 2831 October 2002; Beijing, China. New York, NY, USA: IEEE. pp. 9396.
[27] Aragao V, Fernandes A. Conflict resolution in Web service federations Web services. In: Jeckle M, Zhang LJ, editors. ICWS-Europe 2003. Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag, 2003. pp. 109122.
[28] Kim W, Choi I, Gala S, Scheevel M. On resolving schematic heterogeneity in multidatabase systems. Distrib Parallel Dat 1993; 1: 251279.
[29] Kim W, Seo J. Classifying schematic and data heterogeneity in multidatabase systems. Computer 1991; 24: 1218.
[30] Sudha R, Jinsoo P. Semantic conflict resolution ontology (SCROL): an ontology for detecting and resolving data and schema-level semantic conflicts. IEEE T Knowl Data En 2004; 16: 189202.
[31] Arch-Int N, Sophatsathit P. A semantic information gathering approach for heterogeneous information sources on www. J Inf Sci 2003; 29: 357374.
[32] Halevy A. Why your data wont mix. Queue 2005; 3: 5058.
[33] Mrissa M, Ghedira C, Benslimane D, Maamar Z, Rosenberg F, Dustdar S. A context-based mediation approach to compose semantic Web services. ACM T Internet Techn 2007; 8: 4.
[34] Cherfi S, Akoka J, Comyn-Wattiau I. Conceptual modeling quality - from EER to UML schemas evaluation. Lect Notes Comp Sci 2503: 414428.
[35] Moraes MM, Salgado AC. Minimality quality criterion evaluation for integrated schemas. Journal of Information Assurance and Security 2007; 2: 275287.
[36] Fettke P, Loos P. Classification of reference models: a methodology and its application. Lect Notes Bus Inf 2003; 1: 3553.
[37] Alamgir M, Mohayidin M. Data mediation to message level conflict in heterogeneous Web services. In: International Conference on IT to Celebrate S. Charmonmans 72nd Birthday; 30 March 2009; Bangkok, Thailand. pp. 41.141.7.