MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1517867192 · doi:10.1109/saint.2005.4

A Graph-Based Approach to Web Services Composition

2005· article· en· W1517867192 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicService-Oriented Architecture and Web Services
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsWeb serviceComputer scienceWS-PolicyWeb modelingWorld Wide WebWS-AddressingWeb standardsSemantic Web StackData WebSemantic WebSocial Semantic WebServices computingService-oriented architectureWeb developmentWeb application securityWeb mapping

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Automatic composition of Web services has drawn a great deal of attention recently. By composition, we mean taking advantage of currently existing Web services to provide a new service that does not exist on its own. Therefore, in order to have a more complex service, we can use some semantically related simpler Web services and execute them in such a way that the whole set provides the desired service. There are Web service specification languages that specify semantic properties of Web services. These languages are helpful in searching for those Web services that can participate in a composition. This work is aimed at searching among Web services in order to find those whose composition provides a specific behavior. Those Web services found after this search are incrementally composed together to build a new service that realizes that behavior. Our technique takes advantage of graph structures and also a particular formalism called interface automata.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.723
Threshold uncertainty score0.625

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.203 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it