Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-tj2md Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T10:28:25.569Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Tuplespace-based computing for the Semantic Web: a survey of the state-of-the-art

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 June 2008

LYNDON J. B. NIXON ,
ELENA SIMPERL ,
RETO KRUMMENACHER  and
FRANCISCO MARTIN-RECUERDA
LYNDON J. B. NIXON
Affiliation:
Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany; e-mail: nixon@inf.fu-berlin.de
ELENA SIMPERL
Affiliation:
Digital Enterprise Research Institute (DERI), Universität Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria; e-mail: elena.simperl,reto.krummenacher@deri.at
RETO KRUMMENACHER
Affiliation:
Digital Enterprise Research Institute (DERI), Universität Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria; e-mail: elena.simperl,reto.krummenacher@deri.at
FRANCISCO MARTIN-RECUERDA
Affiliation:
Information Management Group (IMG), University of Manchester, Kilburn Building, Manchester, UK; e-mail: fmartin-recuerda@cs.man.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Semantic technologies promise to solve many challenging problems of the present Web applications. As they achieve a feasible level of maturity, they become increasingly accepted in various business settings at enterprise level. By contrast, their usability in open environments such as the Web—with respect to issues such as scalability, dynamism and openness—still requires additional investigation. In particular, Semantic Web services have inherited the Web service communication model, which is primarily based on synchronous message exchange technology such as remote procedure call (RPC), thus being incompatible with the REST (REpresentational State Transfer) architectural model of the Web. Recent advances in the field of middleware propose ‘semantic tuplespace computing’ as an instrument for coping with this situation. Arguing that truly Web-compliant Web service communication should be based, analogously to the conventional Web, on shared access to persistently published data instead of message passing, space-based middleware introduces a coordination infrastructure by means of which services can exchange information in a time- and reference-decoupled manner. In this article, we introduce the most important approaches in this newly emerging field. Our objective is to analyze and compare the solutions proposed so far, thus giving an account of the current state-of-the-art, and identifying new directions of research and development.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Knowledge Engineering Review , Volume 23 , Issue 2 , June 2008 , pp. 181 - 212
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Baader, F., Calvanese, D., McGuinness, D., Nardi, D. & Patel-Schneider, P. 2003 The Description Logic Handbook: Theory, Implementation and Applications. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Berners-Lee, T. 2004 N3QL - RDF Data Query Language, W3C Design Issues. www.w3.org/DesignIssues/N3QL.html.Google Scholar
Berners-Lee, T. 2005 Primer: Getting into RDF & Semantic Web using N3, Website v1.61. www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/Primer.html.Google Scholar
Berners-Lee, T., Hendler, J. & Lassila, O. 2001 The semantic web. Scientific American 284(5), 34–43.Google Scholar
Bray, T., Hollander, D., Layman, A. & Tobin, R. 2006 Namespaces in XML 1.0, 2nd edn., W3C Recommendation.Google Scholar
Brickley, D. & Guha, R. 2004 RDF Vocabulary Description Language 1.0: RDF Schema, W3C Recommendation.Google Scholar
Busi, N., Gorrieri, R. & Zavattaro, G. 2000a Comparing three semantics for Linda-like languages. Theoretical Computer Science 240(1), 49–90.Google Scholar
Busi, N., Gorrieri, R. & Zavattaro, G. 2000b On the expressiveness of Linda coordination primitives. Information and Computation 156(1–2), 90–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Busi, N. & Zavattaro, G. 2000 On the expressiveness of event notification in data-driven coordination languages. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 1782, 41–55.Google Scholar
Cabral, L., Domingue, J., Galizia, S., Gugliotta, A., Norton, B., Tanasescu, V. & Pedrinaci, C. 2006 IRS-III: A broker for semantic web services based applications. In Proceedings of the 5th International Semantic Web Conference. Athens, GA, USA: Springer Verlag, pp. 201–214.Google Scholar
Cabrera, F., Copeland, G., Freund, T., Klein, J., Langworthy, D., Orchard, D., Shewchuk, J. & Storey, T. 2002 Web Services Coordination (WS-Coordination), http://msdn.microsoft.com/ws/2002/08/WSCoor.Google Scholar
Cabri, G., Leonardi, L. & Zambonelli, F. 2000 MARS: a programmable coordination architecture for mobile agents. IEEE Internet Computing 4(4), 26–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carroll, J., Bizer, C., Hayes, P. & Stickler, P. 2005a Named graphs. Journal of Web Semantics 3(4), 247–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carroll, J., Bizer, C., Hayes, P. & Stickler, P. 2005b Named graphs, provenance and trust. In Proceedings of the 14th International World Wide Web Conference. Chiba, Japan: ACM Press, pp. 613–622.Google Scholar
Chinnici, R., Moreau, J.-J., Ryman, A. & Weerawarana, S. 2007 Web Services Description Language (WSDL) Version 2.0 Part 1: Core Language, W3C Recommendation.Google Scholar
Ciancarini, P., Knoche, A., Tolksdorf, R. & Vitali, F. 1996 PageSpace: an architecture to coordinate distributed applications on the web. Computer Networks and ISDN Systems 28(7–11), 941–952.Google Scholar
Ciancarini, P., Tolksdorf, R. & Zambonelli, F. 2003 Coordination middleware for XML-centric applications. Knowledge Engineering Review 17(4), 389–405.Google Scholar
de Bruijn, J., Martin-Recuerda, F., Manov, D. & Ehrig, M. 2004 State-of-the-art survey on Ontology Merging and Aligning V1, Project Deliverable d4.2.1, 2004. SEKT project IST-2003-506826. http://sekt.semanticweb.org/.Google Scholar
Euzenat, J. 1995 Building consensual knowledge bases: context and architecture. In Mars, N. (ed.), Building and Sharing Large Knowledge Bases. Amsterdam: IOS Press, pp. 143–155.Google Scholar
Fensel, D. 2004 Triple-space computing: semantic web services based on persistent publication of information. In Proceedings of the IFIP International Conference on Intelligence in Communication Systems INTELLCOMM 2004. Bangkok, Thailand: Springer-Verlag, pp. 43–53.Google Scholar
Fensel, D. & Bussler, C. 2002 The web service modeling framework WSMF. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications 1(2), 113–137.Google Scholar
Fensel, D., Krummenacher, R., Shafiq, O., Kuehn, E., Riemer, J., Ding, Y. & Draxler, B. 2007 TSC—Triple Space Computing. e&i Elektrotechnik und Informationstechnik 124(1/2), 31–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fielding, R. 2000 Architectural Styles and the Design of Network-based Software Architectures, PhD thesis, University of California, Irvine, California.Google Scholar
Fikes, R., Hayes, P. & Horrocks, I. 2005 OWL-QL A Language for deductive query answering on the semantic web. Journal of Web Semantics 2(1), 19–29.Google Scholar
Fitting, M. 1996 First-Order Logic and Automated Theorem Proving, New York: Springer-Verlag New York, Inc.Google Scholar
Freeman, E., Arnold, K. & Hupfer, S. 1999 JavaSpaces Principles, Patterns, and Practice. The Jini Technology Series. Essex, UK: Addison-Wesley Longman Ltd.Google Scholar
Gelernter, D. 1985 Generative communication in Linda. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems 7(1), 80–112.Google Scholar
Gelernter, D. & Carriero, N. 1992 Coordination languages and their significance. Communications of the ACM 35(2), 97–107.Google Scholar
GigaSpaces(TM) Technologies Ltd. 2002 GigaSpaces Platform—White Paper. www.gigaspaces.com/.Google Scholar
Groot, P., Hitzler, P., Horrocks, I., Motik, B., Stuckenschmidt, J. P. H., Turi, D. & Wache, H. 2005 D2.1.2 Methods for Approximate Reasoning. Knowledge Web Project Deliverable. http://knowledgeweb.semanticweb.org/semanticportal/deliverables/D2.1.2.pdfGoogle Scholar
Grosof, B., Horrocks, I., Volz, R. & Decker, S. 2003 Description logic programs: combining logic programs with description logic. In Proceedings of the 12th International World Wide Web Conference. Budapest, Hungary:ACM Press, pp. 48–57.Google Scholar
Gudgin, M., Hadley, M., Mendelsohn, N., Moreau, J-J., Nielsen, H., Karmarkar, A. & Lafon, Y. 2007 SOAP Version 1.2 Part 1: Messaging Framework (2nd ed.), W3C Recommendation.Google Scholar
Haarslev, V. & Möller, R. 2001 Description of the RACER system and its applications. In McGuinness, D. L., Goble, C., Möller, R. and Patel-Schneider, P.F (eds), Proceedings of the International Workshop on Description Logics, Aachen, Germany: CEUR Workshop Proceedings, pp. 131–141.Google Scholar
Harth, A. & Decker, S. 2005 Optimized index structures for querying RDF from the web. In Proceedings of the 3rd Latin American Web Congress. Buenos Aires, Argentina: IEEE Computer Society, pp. 71–80.Google Scholar
Hayes, P. & McBride, B. 2004 RDF Semantics, W3C Recommendation.Google Scholar
Hull, R. & Zhou, G. 1996 A framework for supporting data integration using the materialized and virtual approaches. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGMOD ’96, Montreal, Canada, pp. 481–492.Google Scholar
Cheng, J., Gruninger, M., Sriram, R. D. & Law, K. H. 2003 Process specification language for project information exchange. International Journal of Information Technology in Architecture, Engineering and Construction, 1(4), 307–328.Google Scholar
Johanson, B. & Fox, A. 2004 Extending tuplespaces for coordination in interactive workspaces. Journal of Systems and Software 69(3), 243–266.Google Scholar
Khushraj, D., Lassila, O. & Finin, T. W. 2004 sTuples: semantic tuple spaces. In Proceedings of the 1st Annual International Conference on Mobile and Ubiquitous Systems: Networking and Services, Boston, MA, USA: IEEE Press, pp. 268–277.Google Scholar
Klyne, G. & Carroll, J. J. 2004 ‘Resource Description Framework (RDF): Concepts and Abstract Syntax’, W3C Recommendation.Google Scholar
Kotis, K. & Vouros, G. A. 2003 Human centered ontology management with HCONE. In Proceedings of the IJCAI’03, Ontologies and Distributed Systems Workshop, Acapulco, Mexico. CEUR-WS.org/Vol. 71, ISSN 1613-0073’. http://sunsite.informatik.rwth-aachen.de/Publications/CEUR-WS/Vol-71/Google Scholar
Krummenacher, R., Ding, Y., Kilgarriff, E., Sapkota, B. & Shafiq, O. 2006 ‘D1.3 Specification of Mediation, Discovery and Data Models for Triple Space Computing’, TSC Project Deliverable. http://tsc.deri.at/deliverables/D13.html.Google Scholar
Krummenacher, R., Hepp, M., Polleres, A., Bussler, C. & Fensel, D. 2005 WWW or What is Wrong is with Web Services. In Proceedings of the 3rd European Conference on Web Services. Växjö, Sweden: IEEE Press, pp. 235–243.Google Scholar
Krummenacher, R., Simperl, E., Nixon, L., Cerizza, D. & Valle, E. D. 2007 Enabling the European Patient Summary Through Triplespaces. In 20th IEEE International Symposium on Computer-based Medical Systems.Google Scholar
Kühn, E. 2001 Virtual Shared Memory for Distributed Architectures. Commack, NY, USA: Nova Science Publisher.Google Scholar
Lara, R., Lausen, H., Arroyo, S., de Bruijn, J. & Fensel, D. 2003 Semantic web services: description requirements and current technologies. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Electronic Commerce, Agents, and Semantic Web Services at ICEC 2003. Pittsburgh, PA, USA.Google Scholar
Lehman, T., McLaughry, S. & Wyckoff, P. 1999 T spaces: the next wave. In Proceedings of the Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS-32). Maui, Hawaii: IEEE Press, p. 8037.Google Scholar
MacGregor, R. & Ko, I-Y. 2003 Representing contextualized data using semantic web tools. In Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Practical and Scalable Semantic Systems, Sanibel Island, FL, USA: CEUR Workshop Proceedings.Google Scholar
Martin, D., Burstein, M., Hobbs, J., Lassila, O., McDermott, D., McIlraith, S., Narayanan, S., Paolucci, M., Parsia, B., Payne, T. et al. 2004 ‘OWL-S: Semantic Markup for Web Services’, W3C Member Submission. www.w3.org/Submission/2004/SUBM-OWL-S-20041122/.Google Scholar
Martín-Recuerda, F. 2005 Towards CSpaces: A new perspective for the Semantic Web. In Proceedings of the 1st International IFIP/WG12.5 Working Conference on Industrial Applications of Semantic Web. University of Jyväskylä Finland. Berlin Heidelberg, Germany: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
Martín-Recuerda, F. 2006 Application Integration Using Conceptual Spaces (CSpaces). In Proceedings 1st Asian Semantic Web Conference. Beijing, China. Berlin Heidelberg, Germany: Springer-Verlag, pp. 300–306.Google Scholar
Bonifacio, M., Bouquet, P., & Cuel, R. 2002 Knowledge nodes: the building blocks of a distributed approach to knowledge management. Journal of Universal Computer Science 8(6), 652–661.Google Scholar
McGuinness, D. L., Fikes, R., Hendler, J. & Stein, L. A. 2002 ‘DAML+OIL: An Ontology Language for the Semantic Web’, IEEE Intelligent Systems 17(5),72–80.Google Scholar
McGuinness, D. & van Harmelen, F. 2004 ‘OWL Web Ontology Language Overview’, W3C Recommendation.Google Scholar
Merrick, I. & Wood, A. 2000 Coordination with scopes. In Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Applied Computing’, ACM Press, pp. 210–217.Google Scholar
Mocan, A., Zaremba, M., Moran, M. & Cimpian, E. 2006 Filling the Gap Extending Service Oriented Architectures with Semantics. In Proceedings of the 2nd IEEE International Symposium on Service-Oriented Applications, Integration and Collaboration. Shanghai, China: IEEE Press.Google Scholar
Nixon, L. J. B., Simperl, E. P. B., Antonenko, O. & Tolksdorf, R. 2007 Towards Semantic Tuplespace Computing: The SemanticWeb Spaces System. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM Symposium on Applied Computing, Track ‘Coordination Models, Languages and Applications’. Seoul, Korea: ACM Press.Google Scholar
Omicini, A., Zambonelli, F., Klusch, M. & Tolksdorf, R.(eds.) 2001 Coordination of Internet Agents: Models, Technologies, and Applications. Berlin, Germany: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
Papadopoulos, G. & Arbab, F. 1998 Coordination models and languages. In Advances in Computers, Vol. 46: The Engineering of Large Systems. New York, USA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Picco, G. P., Balzarotti, D. & Costa, P. 2005 LIGHTS: a lightweight, customizable tuple space supporting context-aware applications. In Proceedings of the 20th ACM Symposium on Applied Computing. Sante Fe, NM, USA: ACM Press, pp. 1134–1140.Google Scholar
Prud’hommeaux, E. & Seaborne, A. 2006 SPARQL Query Language for RDF. W3C Working Draft.Google Scholar
Rossi, D., Cabri, G. & Denti, E. 2001 Tuple-based technologies for coordination. In Coordination of Internet Agents: Models, Technologies, and Applications. Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag, pp. 83–109.Google Scholar
Schlenoff, C., Gruninger, M., Tissot, F., Valois, J., Lubell, J. & Lee, J. 1999 ‘The Process Specification Language (PSL): Overview and Version 1.0 Specification. NIST Internal Report (NISTIR) 6459, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD, USA.Google Scholar
Schlobach, S. & Cornet, R. 2003 Non-Standard Reasoning Services for the Debugging of Description Logic Terminologies. In Proceedings of the 18th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Acapulco, Mexico. San Francisco, CA, USA: Morgan Kaufmann, pp. 355–362.Google Scholar
Shafiq, O., Toma, I., Krummenacher, R., Strang, T. & Fensel, D. 2006 Using triple space computing for communication and coordination in semantic grid. In Proceedings of the 3rd Semantic Grid Workshop in conjunction with the 16th Global Grid Forum. www.semanticgrid.org/GGF/ggf16/papers/TSC-semgrid_20060129.pdfGoogle Scholar
Sivashanmugam, K., Verma, K., Sheth, A. & Miller, J. 2003 Adding semantics to web services standards. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Web Services. Las Vegas, NV, USA: CSREA Press, pp. 395–401.Google Scholar
Heymans, S., Krummenacher, R., Martin-Recuerda, F., Nixon, L. J. B., Paslara Bontas Simperl, E. & Scicluna, J. 2007 D2.4.8 v2: Semantic TupleSpace Computing. Knowledge Web Project Deliverable. http://knowledgeweb.semanticweb.org/semanticportal/deliverables/D2.4.8.pdf.Google Scholar
Suryanarayana, G. & Taylor, R. 2004 A Survey of Trust Management and Resource Discovery Technologies in Peer-to-Peer Applications, Technical Report UCI-ISR-04-6, Institute for Software Research, University of California, Irvine.Google Scholar
Tolksdorf, R. & Menezes, R. 2003 Using swarm intelligence in Linda systems. In Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop Engineering Societies in the Agents World ESAW’03. London, UK. Berlin Heidelberg, Germany: Springer Verlag, pp. 49–65.Google Scholar
Tolksdorf, R., Nixon, L., Paslaru Bontas, E., Nguyen, D. M. & Liebsch, F. 2005a Enabling real world SemanticWeb applications through a coordination middleware. In Proceedings of the 2nd European Conf. on the Semantic Web. Heraklion, Crete, Greece, pp. 679–693.Google Scholar
Tolksdorf, R., Paslaru Bontas, E. & Nixon, L. 2005b Towards a tuplespace-based middleware for the SemanticWeb. In Proceedings of the IEEE/WIC/ACM International Conference on Web Intelligence WI2005. IEEE Computer Society, pp. 338–344.Google Scholar
Tolksdorf, R., Paslaru-Bontas, E. & Nixon, L. 2006 A co-ordination model for the Semantic Web. In Proceedings of the 21st ACM Symposium on Applied Computing, Track ‘Coordination Models, Languages and Applications’. ACM Press, pp. 419–423.Google Scholar
Ullman, J. D. 1997 Information integration using logical views. Theoretical Computer Science 239(2), 189–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wells, G., Chalmers, A. & Clayton, P. 2004 Linda implementations in Java for concurrent systems. Concurrency and Computation: Practice and Experience 16(10), 1005–1022.Google Scholar
Werthner, H., Hepp, M., Fensel, D. & Dorn, J. 2006 Semantically-enabled Service-oriented Architectures: a catalyst for smart business networks. In Proceedings of the Smart Business Networks Initiative Discovery Session. Rotterdam, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Wyckoff, P., McLaughry, S., Lehman, T. & Ford, D. 1998 Tspaces. IBM Systems Journal 37(3), 454–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar