WSMO revisited - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 / 19
About This Presentation
Title:

WSMO revisited

Description:

Mailing list for technical discussions: deri-wsmo-discussion_at_informatik.uibk.ac.at ... it provides significant more flexibility in writing down required axioms. ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:152
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 20
Provided by: aiS9
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: WSMO revisited


1
WSMO - revisited
  • SWSL phone conference, 17-06-2004
  • Dieter Fensel
  • Digital Enterprise Research Institute
  • dieter.fensel_at_deri.org

2
Outline
  • The new structure and main deliverables
  • WSMO Working Group
  • WSML Working Group
  • WSMX Working Group
  • Links to SWSL
  • Rule language
  • Choreography/Orchestration language

3
Working Groups general overview

WSMO WG
A Conceptual Model for SWS
WSMX WG
WSML WG
A Formal Language for WSMO
An Execution Environment for WSMO
A Rule-based Language for SW
4
WSMO WG
  • Web site at http//www.wsmo.org/
  • Chairs Christoph Bussler and Dieter Fensel.
  • Mailing list for group members
  • deri-wsmo_at_informatik.uibk.ac.at
  • Mailing list for technical discussionsderi-wsmo-
    discussion_at_informatik.uibk.ac.at
  • Contact dumitru.roman_at_deri.ie
  • Activity sheet http//www.wsmo.org/2004/d6/d6.1/v
    1/Around 14 deliverables with defined editors
    and deadlines.
  • Members http//www.wsmo.org/people.htmlCurrently
    58 members.
  • Presentations http//www.wsmo.org/presentations.h
    tmlCurrently more than 45 presentations on
    related aspects.
  • Current working drafts http//www.wsmo.org/2004/

5
WSMO main deliverables
  • Conceptual model for Semantic Web Services
  • WSMO Standard (D2)
  • WSMO Lite (D11)
  • WSMO Full (D12)
  • Choreography (D14) and Orchestration (D15)
  • Not yet clearly defined.
  • Intention use ASMs.
  • Showcasing WSMO Primer (D3.1) and Case Studies
    (D3.2)
  • Conceptual Comparison WSMO/OWL-S (D4.1)
  • WSMO Tutorial (D17)
  • WSMO in DIP(D19.1), KW(D19.2) and SEKT(D19.3)

6
WSML WG
  • Web site at http//www.wsmo.org/wsml
  • Chair Dieter Fensel.
  • Mailing list for group members
  • deri-wsml_at_informatik.uibk.ac.at
  • Mailing list for technical discussionsderi-wsmo-
    discussion_at_informatik.uibk.ac.at
  • Contact dumitru.roman_at_deri.ie
  • Activity sheet http//www.wsmo.org/2004/d6/d6.2/v
    1/Around 18 deliverables with defined editors
    and deadlines.
  • Members http//www.wsmo.org/people.htmlCurrently
    16 members.
  • Presentations http//www.wsmo.org/presentations.h
    tmlCurrently 13 presentations on related aspects
  • Current working drafts http//www.wsmo.org/2004/

7
WSML main deliverables
  • WSML language
  • WSML User language (D16.1)
  • WSML/XML (An XML Syntax for WSML) (D16.3)
  • F-logic/XML (An XML Syntax for F-logic) (D16.2)
  • WSML OWL Syntax (D16.5) not yet defined
  • Inferencing with WSML
  • Inferencing support for SWS Proof Obligations
    (D5.1)
  • Inferencing Support for Semantic Web Services
    Tools for Semantic Support (D5.2)
  • Language Evaluation and Comparison (D8)
  • Mapping to OWL-S (D4.3) not yet defined.
  • Ontology Language API (D18)
  • OWL-Lite (D20)

8
WSMX WG
  • Web site at http//www.wsmx.org/
  • Chair Christoph Bussler.
  • Mailing list for group members
  • deri-wsmx_at_informatik.uibk.ac.at
  • Mailing list for technical discussionsderi-wsmo-
    discussion_at_informatik.uibk.ac.at
  • Contact michal.zaremba_at_deri.ie
  • Activity sheet http//www.wsmo.org/2004/d6/d6.3/v
    1/Around 12 deliverables with defined editors
    and deadlines.
  • Members http//www.wsmo.org/people.htmlCurrently
    33 members.
  • Current working drafts http//www.wsmo.org/2004/

9
WSMX main deliverables
  • WSMO Editor (D9)
  • WSMO Registry (D10)
  • Overview and Scope of WSMX (D13.0)
  • WSMX Conceptual Model (D13.1)
  • WSMX Execution Semantics (D13.2)
  • WSMX Mediation (D13.3)
  • WSMX Architecture (D13.4)
  • WSMX Implementation (D13.5) first version
    expected end of June, 2004.

10
Links to SWSL
  • Rule language effort
  • Choreography and orchestration language

11
Rule language effort
  • Six points I want to make
  • DL is an interesting subset of 1st order logic
  • HL is an interesting subset of 1st order logic
  • Full 1st order logic is an interesting language
  • Pure logics are cumbersome tools for modeling
  • SWRL is crap
  • A useful rule language for the semantic web must
    follow a DL-minimalistic approach

12
(1) DL is interesting
  • because of its decidability/tractability
    properties
  • spoken for the man on the street it is the
    fragment of logic that can be computationally
    explored around the existential quantifier.
  • it is therefore worth to become standardized in
    OWL
  • besides the fact that I do not like at all
    OWL-Lite which is an overkill,
  • a smooth extension of RDFS would have been much
    more appropriate.
  • Therefore we develope OWL-Flight (restricting
    OWL-Lite to DLP and extend it by RDF
    features).     

13
(2) HL is interesting
  • because of its decidability/tractability
    properties
  • Spoken for the man on the street it is the
    fragment of logic that can be computationally
    explored around the all quantifier
  • without function symbols it is decidable and
  • with minimal-model semantics function symbols,
    non-monotinicity of negation, and even transitive
    closure (an extension of first order logic) can
    be expressed.
  • It is therefore worth to become standardized by
    W3C, however, not in a way that destroy all
    features of rule languages by mixing it up too
    much with DL type of expressions.
  • Therefore we develope OWL-Flight (restricting
    OWL-Lite to DLP and extend it by rule
    features).     
  •       

14
(3) First order logic is interesting
  • In oposition to DLs and HLs it provides
    significant more flexibility in writing down
    required axioms.
  • This language is not fully mechanizable in terms
    ofreasoning support, however,
  • many interesting theorems can be proven and the
    theorem prover community has made significant
    progress over the last years.
  • First order language could define the common
    umbrella, where DLs and HLs are sublanguages and
    unified.
  • Therefore, we will redefine OWL-Full.

15
(4) Pure logic is cumbersom
  • Pure logics is a cumbersome tool for modeling
  • Therefore, extensions like Flogic that allow
    quantification over classes and attributes are
    that helpful.
  • W3C recommendations should care for this if they
    want to make their languages widely adopted.
  • OWL-Flight provide these features.

16
(5) I strongly dislike SWRL
  • since it spoils the nice properties of rule
    languages for the price of defining the rule
    language as an extension of DLs.
  • SWRL is meaningless since it defines a
    syntactical restriction of 1st order logic
    without any computational justification.
  • SWRL is as undecidable and untractable as first
    order logic.
  • Therefore, it is meaningless to syntactically
    restrict first order logic in that way.

17
(6) A useful rule language for the semantic web
must follow a different approach
  • It should emply the full power of the HL fragment
    and include DL features only in case they do not
    harm this language type.
  • Therefore, a HL language should be defined as an
    extension of RDFS and/or OWL-Lite (where OWL Lite
    is reduced to an actual lite subset of DL).
  • That is the rationale underlying OWL-Flight.

18
Choreography and orchestration
  • Choreography is about communication
  • Orchestration is about task decomposition
  • Both elements require the specification of
    dynamics
  • We are using Abstract State Machines as a point
    of departure to formalize the basic principles
    for these languages.
  • And we are very eager to learn from you!

19
lt/ WSMO gt
  • ltQAgt
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com