A lot of web services are being offered nowadays. These web services placed without explicit associated semantic descriptions and it results to ultimately not revealing all the available services related to User service request. So automatic Semantic- web services discovery is recognized as an important task. For this purpose different types of semantic technologies have been created these allow the functionality of services in a machine interpretable from using semantic webtechnologies.However,these approaches have several limitations and main the drawback is from the service requestor's perspective, the requestor may not be aware of all the knowledge that constitutes the domain. We describe a tale approach for automatic discovery of semantic Web services which take advantage of Natural Language Processing techniques to match a user request expressed in natural language, with a explicit associated semantic Web service description. At the same time we employ an efficient semantic matching for ontological model. This approach also leads to increased precision levels, recall levels, and the relevance scores of the retrieved web services.
Indexterms-SemanticWeb, Services publishing, Ontology, web services discovery, Natural Language Processing techniques.
1. INTRODUCTION
A vast majority of web services exist in the World Wide Web repository may be greater than eight billion Web pages indexed by Google and it is highly distributed. The numbers of Web Technologies are used for transferring documents or web services like HTTP, HTML and URI for addressing documents. The Most content on the Web is in natural language (HTML). The Natural language not suitable for machine reading and the Current Web is "syntactic". However present several major limitations for getting relevant web services and similar services may be listed under different categories. These types of major problems avoid with the help of Semantic Web. The Semantic web is not a separate web it is the extension of the World Wide Web and information has machine-process able and machine-understandable semantics, called semantic web services. Here Ontology's are basic building blocks of Semantic web. The semantic web services generally defined Semantic Web + Web Services =SemanticWebServices[2] .Using Semantic Web technologies to describe Web Services Enable automation in core tasks such as Publication, Discovery, Selection, Composition, Mediation and Execution. The objective of semantic Web [1] service technology is to minimize the manual discovery and usage of Web services, by allowing software agents and applications to automatically identify, integrate and execute these Web resources to achieve the user objectives. A majority of the current approaches for web service discovery call for semantic web services that have semantic tagged descriptions through various approaches, e.g., OWL-S, Web Services Description Language (WSDL)-S, UDDI, and SOAP these all are extensible XML based standards. However, these approaches have several limitations. First, the service requestor's perspective, the requestor may not be aware of all the knowledge that constitutes the domain. Specifically, the service requestor may not be aware of all the terms related to the
service request. Second the discovery scope of these approaches is often limited to some Web services that are published in a specific description standard. The most high-flying semantic web services support are rooted in WSDL, OWL-S. In order to address the limitations of existing approaches, an integrated approach needs to be developed for addressing the section 4 presents in details our
proposed Natural Language Processing techniques.
2. RELATED WORK
Web Service has been used more and more widely in recent years, and with the rapid growth of web services in different research efforts have been made to present a discovery support for webservices.They are in the main used into two methods are syntactic-based approaches and semantic based approaches. The major differences between these two approaches are summarized in Table 1. The syntactic-based search engines are usually base on WebServiceDescriptionLanguage(WSDL).In this all Web services descriptions are published in UDDI[3][4] . One example is the search MOZBOT engine. Seekda tries to go further, by extracting semantics services from the WSDL files. The second approaches is The semantic-based approaches utilize semantic description for Web services to automate the discovery process and employ the Semantic Web techniques.AWSC[5], for example is a Automatic Web Service Classification approach . It exploits the connections between the category of a Web service and the information commonly found in standard descriptions. The other important concept is WSMO and GODO [6] it is useful for automatically determining the usability of a Web service. It consists of a repository with WSMO Goals and lets users state their goal by writing a sentence in plain English. A language analyzer will extract keywords from the user sentence and a WSMO Goal will be searched based on those keywords. The WSMO Goal with the highest match will be sent toWSMX, an execution environment for WSMO service discovery and composition. WSMX will then search for a WSMO Web service that is linked to the given WSMO Goal via some WSMO Mediators and return the WSMO Web service back to the user. This approach makes good use of the capabilities of the WSMO framework, but it cannot be applied for other semantic languages like OWL-S, which do not have such goal representation elements. SETH WIDOFF introduced DMHSA [7] for defining request and agent capabilities and their matching. The Matching /discovery engine of the matchmaker agent is based on various filters of different complexity and accuracy which users can choose. However, the model lacks in defining how service requests will be specified by users. Also, DMHSA assumes the existence of a common basic vocabulary for all users. METEOR-S discovery [8] support addresses the problem of discovering web services in a scenario where service providers and requesters may use terms from different ontologies. Their approach relies on annotating service registries and exploiting such annotations during discovery. The table shows Syntactic versus semantic approaches for Web services discovery.
3.BACKGROUND
In this part, we provide a brief background of some concepts definitions and methodologies utilized for Automatic semantic-web service discovery framework. We first present some Semantic Web related technologies and then, we briefly describe some the parameters for ranking semantic relationships in the context of semantic-
based service categorization .At the same time utilized in our approach in order to process a user query written in natural language and Web services descriptions before performing semantic matchmaking. We finally present an overview about Word Net and semantic net .
3.1Semanticweb: The Semantic web [1] is not a separate web it is the extension of the World Wide Web and information has machine-process able and machine-understandable semantics, called semantic web. It is entirely based on Ontology's and these are basic building blocks of Semantic web.
3.2semanticwebservices: In the semantic web all web services [2] are programmatically accessible over standard internet protocols and add new level of functionality on top of the current web. These services are generally defined as Semantic Web + Web Services = Semantic Web Services.
3.3OntologyLanguage: It plays a vital role in the semantic Web. The term 'ontology' is derived from the Greek words "onto", which means being, and "logia", which means written or spoken discourse. Tom Gruber [9] defines ontology as an explicit specification of a conceptualization. According to Handler ontology is "a set of knowledge terms, including the vocabulary, semantic interconnections, and some simple rules of inference and logic for some particular topic". Existing ontology's can be classified into the following major categories: (1) meta-ontology's, (2) upper ontology's, (3) domain, and (4) specialized ontology's. The Web ontology languages (OWL) is a language to define and instantiate Web ontology's. It was formerly called DAML+OIL [10] language. OWL ontology may include descriptions of classes, along with their related properties and instances. OWL is designed for use by applications that need to process the content of information instead of just presenting information to humans. OWL DL, and OWL-Full. These three increasingly meaningful .These sublanguages are designed for use only specific tasks of implementers.
3.4Uddi: Web Services are meaningful only if potential users may find information sufficient to permit their execution. The focus of Universal Description Discovery and Integration (UDDI) is the definition of a platform-independent registry supporting the description and discovery of (1) businesses, organizations, and other Web Service providers, (2) the Web Services they make available, and (3) the technical interfaces which may be used to access those services. Based on a common set of industry standards, including HTTP, XML, XML Schema, and SOAP, UDDI provides an interoperable, foundational infrastructure for a Web Services-based software environment for both publicly available services and services only exposed internally within an organization.
3.4.SemanticWebServiceDescriptionLanguages: Semantic Web services are services that have been enriched with machine- interpretable semantics. Semantic description aims to enhance the integration and Web service discovery. Several standards have been proposed for creating semantic Web services. Each one of them is having their own strength and can be used in a specific situation. Some of the popular languages are described as follows.
3.4.1The Web Service Modeling Language WSML: A language for the Semantic description of Web Services it is based on the Web Service Modeling ontology WSMO[11] and One syntactic framework for a set of layered languages.The importants of this is Normative "human-readable" surface syntax and Separation of Conceptual modeling and Logical modeling Semantics based on well known formalisms. The Principles of WSMO are listed below.
Ontology-based descriptions.
Strict decoupling of components .
Strong mediation between components .
Interface vs. Implementation.
3.4.2WSDL-S. CurrentWSDL standard operates at the syntactic level and lacks the semantic expressivity needed to represent the requirements and capabilities of Web Services WSDL-S is a lightweight approach for adding semantics to Web services. In WSDL-S, the semantic models are maintained outside of WSDL documents and are referenced from the WSDL document via WSDL extensibility elements.
4. PROPOSED FRAMEWORK
In this section, we current our discovery framework presented in Figure 1. We give detailed description about our proposed keyword-based discovery approach for searching Web services .These are described using a syntactic or a semantic language and advertized in a UDDI. This search mechanism incorporates natural language processing techniques to establish a match between a user search query, containing English keywords, and a Web service report.
C:\Documents and Settings\User\Desktop\Picture1.png
Figure 1 Automatic semantic-webservice discovery framework
Syntactic versus Semantic approaches
Table 1 The major differences between Syntactic versus semantic approaches
4.1 NLP. Natural Language processing (NLP): NLP began in the 1950s as the intersection of artificial intelligence and linguistics. NLP was originally distinct from text information retrieval (IR)[12] which employs highly scalable statistics-based techniques to index and search large volumes of text efficiently. The computerized processes intended to result in natural language understanding and natural language generation. In other words, processes to enable computers to understand and communicate in human language, whether spoken, written, or published. It is also the name of the field devoted to the study and development of these processes. It is also called Computational Linguistics [13]. We give detailed description about our proposed keyword-based discovery approach for searching Web services which are described using a syntactic or a semantic language and advertized in a Web service registry. This search mechanism incorporates natural language processing [14] techniques to establish a match between a user search query, containing English keywords, and a Web service description. In our work, we support some NLP techniques which are presented as follows.
4.1.2Stemming: Stemming [15] refers to root word origins. For example, Search, Searching, and Searches all have Search as the root stem. In most cases, morphological variants of words have similar semantic interpretations and can be considered as equivalent for the purpose of IR applications. For this reason, a number of so-called stemming Algorithms, or stemmers, have been developed, which attempt to reduce a word to its stem or root form. Thus, the key terms of a query or document are represented by stems rather than by the original words. This not only means that different variants of a term can be conflated to a single representative form - it also reduces the inflected (or sometimes derived) words to their stem, base, or root form.
4.1.3 Part Of Speech (POS) tagging: A POS tagging [16] identifies the lexical category of each word in a sentence on the basis of its context. An accurate definition of POS tagging (POST) is a mapping from a sequence of words to a sequence of lexical categories. Such a mapping is unambiguous provided the sentence itself is unambiguous. Traditionally eight parts of speech: noun, verb, pronoun, preposition, adverb, conjunction, adjective and article. The structure of pos tagging is consider the above sentence. Part-of-speech tagging is not easy task. In POS Tagging input and output are needed.
4.1.4 Word Sense Disambiguation (WSD): Word sense disambiguation [17] is the ability to computationally determine which sense of a word is activated by its use in a particular context. WSD is usually performed on one or more texts (although in principle bags of words, i.e., collections of naturally occurring words, might be employed). If we disregard the punctuation, we can view a text T as a sequence of words (w1,w2,w3…wn) and we can formally describe WSD as the task of assigning the appropriate sense(s) to all or some of the words in T, that is, to identify a mapping A from words to senses, such that A(i) ≤ Senses(Wi) where Senses(wi ) is the set of senses encoded in a dictionary D for word wi and A(i) is that subset of the senses of wi which are appropriate in the context T. The mapping A can assign more than one sense to each word wi ∈ T, although typically only the most appropriate sense is selected, that is, | A(i) |= 1. WSD can be viewed as a classification task: word senses are the classes, and an automatic classification method is used to assign each occurrence of a word to one or more classes based on the evidence from the context and from external knowledge sources. Other classification tasks are studied in the area of natural language processing such as part-of-speech tagging named entity resolution text categorization etc. An important difference between these tasks and WSD is that the former use a single predefined set of classes whereas in the latter the set of classes typically changes depending on the word to be classified. In this respect, WSD actually comprises n distinct classification tasks, where n is the size of the lexicon. We can use two variants of the generic WSD task:first Lexical sample (or targeted WSD) and All-words
(i)WordNet: Wordnet [18] is a computational lexicon of English based on psycholinguistic principles, created and maintained at Princeton University.6 It encodes concepts in terms of sets of synonyms (called synsets). Its latest version, WordNet 3.0, contains about 155,000 words organized in over 117,000 synsets. The main relation among words in WordNet is synonymy, as between the words shut and close or car and automobile. Synonyms--words that denote the same concept and are interchangeable in many contexts--are grouped into unordered sets (synsets). Each of WordNet's 117 000 synsets[18] is linked to other synsets by means of a small number of "conceptual relations." Additionally, a synset contains a brief definition ("gloss") and, in most cases, one or more short sentences illustrating the use of the synset members. Word forms with several distinct meanings are represented in as many distinct synsets. Thus, each form-meaning pair in WordNet is unique. In that one of important concept is semantic net (or semantic network) is a knowledge representation technique used for propositional information. So it is also called a propositional net. Semantic nets convey meaning. Semantic nets are two dimensional representations of knowledge. Mathematically a semantic net[19] can be defined as a labeled directed graph.Semantic nets consist of nodes, links (edges) and link labels. In the semantic network diagram, nodes appear as circles or ellipses or rectangles to represent objects such as physical objects, concepts or situations. Links appear as arrows to express the relationships between objects, and link labels specify particular relations. Relationships provide the basic structure for organizing knowledge. The objects and relations involved need not be so concrete. As nodes are associated with other nodes semantic nets are also referred to as associative nets. The general example of is shown below.
4.1.5 Service and Query Preprocessor. Web service description must be preprocessed in order to transform extracted elements.. User query must be also pre-processed to extract useful keywords from a query written in natural language. For pre-processing[20],some NLP techniques are utilized.These some are described above These word segmentation is performed if needed to split a string of written language into its component words. The white space is a good approximation of a word delimiter. In the case of element names, simply splitting the words when a case transition has occurred is enough, since in most cases they are written as camel words . To find useful words for WSD, each word in the sentences found must be tagged with the right Part-of- Speech (PoS) such as noun, verb, and adjective.Markups and punctuations are then removed. Translation of uppercase characters into lowercase is also needed. Second, all stop words are removed from extracted elements. Stemming is finally processed to transform obtained words to root words.
5.SEMANTIC MATCHMAKER.
The Matchmaker[21] is also a web service that helps make connections between service requesters and service providers. The Matchmaker serves as a "yellow pages" of service capabilities. The Matchmaker allows users and/or software agents to find each other by providing a mechanism for registering service capabilities. Registration information is stored as advertisements. When the Matchmaker agent receives a query from a user or another software agent, it searches its dynamic database of advertisements for agents that can fulfill the incoming request(s). Thus, the Matchmaker also serves as a liaison between a service requester and a service provider. Our OWL-S Matchmaker employs techniques from information retrieval, AI and software engineering to compute the syntactical and semantic similarity among service capability descriptions. The matching engine of the matchmaking system contains five different filters for namespace comparison, word frequency comparison, ontology similarity matching[22], ontology subsumption matching, and constraint matching. The user configures these filters to achieve the desired tradeoff between performance and matching quality. Matchmaking engine[23] provides the core of the matchmaking module comprises of semantic and user selection and Helps to filter approach which is adjustable for defferent needs for each search and trade-off of speed and accuracy. It is also a basic step toward semantic matchmaking is to calculate the semantic distance between concepts that are defined in an ontology. the semantic matchmaking module, we utilize a novel edge-based approach the semantic distance between two ontological concepts .
6. CONCLUSION:
we proposed in this work provide an framework for automatic semantic-webservice discovery. Specifically, the approach addresses the major aspects natural language processing techniques related to semantic- web service discovery. we propose an good ontology distance matching concept. This leads to better service discovery by matching the service request with an appropriate service description. Our proposed framework presents a discovery mechanism that enablesWeb-service-discovery-based on keywords written in natural language with no constraints about the used Web service description language.it also leads to increased precision levels, recall levels, and the relevance scores of the retrieved services.In the future work we will create an interactive, intelligent service composer that is semantically guided to locate the target service components step by step.
