The State of SICoP - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Loading...

PPT – The State of SICoP PowerPoint presentation | free to view - id: 161f2-NWVmZ



Loading


The Adobe Flash plugin is needed to view this content

Get the plugin now

View by Category
About This Presentation
Title:

The State of SICoP

Description:

the United States. Supranational level. Note that each of these classes ... A mind map consists of a central word or concept, around the central word you ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:2115
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 83
Provided by: brandn
Category:
Tags: sicop | in | map | of | state | states | usa

less

Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: The State of SICoP


1
The State of SICoP
  • Brand Niemann (US EPA), Chair,
  • Semantic Interoperability Community of Practice
    (SICoP)
  • Best Practices Committee (BPC), CIO Council
  • May 17, 2005 (Updated June 14, 2005)
  • http//web-services.gov/ and
  • http//colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SICoP

2
Overview
  • 1. Organization
  • 2. White Paper Series
  • 3. Workshops and Conferences
  • 4. Pilots
  • Appendix 1 FEA-RMO Tutorial
  • Appendix 2 Dynamic Knowledge Repository

3
1. Organization
  • The Semantic Interoperability Community of
    Practice (SICoP) Grew Out of the First Semantic
    Technologies for E-Government Conference, White
    House Conference Center, September 8, 2003.
  • SICoP Was Chartered by the Knowledge Management
    Working Group of the CIO Councils Best Practices
    Committee in March 2004.
  • SICoP was co-chaired by Rick Morris, U.S. Army,
    Office of CIO, and Brand Niemann, U.S. EPA,
    Office of CIO, until April 2005.
  • Rick Morris has retired from government service
    and a new co-chair has been identified and
    invited and is requesting the support of their
    organization.

4
Rick (Rodler F.) Morris, U.S. Army, Office of the
CIO
By SICoP Co-Chair, Brand Niemann, U.S. EPA, and
SICoP Members
5
2. White Paper Series
  • SICoP is Producing Three Best Practices
    Modules
  • (1) Introducing Semantic Technologies and the
    Vision of the Semantic Web
  • Completed - delivered February 28th
  • (2) The Business Case for Semantic Technologies
  • Mills Davis, SICoP Module 2 Team Lead
  • Interim delivered April 8, 2005, and final is
    scheduled for the Fall 2005 Conference
  • (3) Implementing the Semantic Web
  • Mike Daconta, SICoP Module 3 Team Lead
  • In process for interim report at the Fall 2005
    Conference

6
2. White Paper Series
  • This set of white papers is the combined effort
    of KM.Gov and SICoP.
  • The papers will make the case that these
    technologies are substantial progressions in
    information theory and not yet-another-silver-bull
    et technology promising to cure all IT ills.
  • The papers are written for agency executives,
    CIOs, enterprise architects, IT professionals,
    program managers, and others within federal,
    state, and local agencies with responsibilities
    for data management, information management, and
    knowledge management.

7
Module 1 Introducing Semantic Technologies and
the Vision of the Semantic Web
  • This white paper is intended to inform readers
    about the principles and capabilities of semantic
    technologies and the goals of the Semantic Web.
  • It provides a primer for the field of semantics
    along with information on the emerging standards,
    schemas, and tools that are moving semantic
    concepts out of the labs and into real-world use.
  • It also explains how describing data in richer
    terms, independent of particular systems or
    applications, can allow for greater machine
    processing and, ultimately, many new and powerful
    autonomic computing capabilities.

8
Module 1 Introducing Semantic Technologies and
the Vision of the Semantic Web
  • This white paper focuses upon applications of
    semantic technologies believed to have the
    greatest near-term benefits for agencies and
    government partners alike.
  • These include semantic web services, information
    interoperability, and intelligent search. It also
    discusses the state and current use of protocols,
    schemas, and tools that will pave the road toward
    the Semantic Web.
  • Takeaways We want readers to gain a better
    understanding of semantic technologies, to
    appreciate the promises of the next generation of
    the World Wide Web, and to see how these new
    approaches to dealing with digital information
    can be used to solve difficult information-sharing
    problems.

9
Module 1 Introducing Semantic Technologies and
the Vision of the Semantic Web
  • Acknowledgements
  • Executive Editors and Co-Chairs
  • Special Recognition to Outgoing Co-Chair Rick
    Morris
  • Managing Editor, Editor, and Copy Editor
  • Special Recognition to Editor Ken Fromm
  • Primary Contributors and Contributors
  • Reviewers
  • Leadership of the Best Practices and Architecture
    and Infrastructure Committees
  • Supporting Agencies and Organizations

10
Kenneth R. Fromm, Loomia, Inc.
By SICoP Co-Chairs, Rick Morris, U.S. Army,
Brand Niemann, U.S. EPA
11
2. White Paper Series
  • Module 2 The Business Case for Semantic
    Technologies
  • Preliminary Research
  • http//www.project10x.com/downloads/topconnexion/B
    usinessValue_v2.pdf
  • Interim Report at the SWANS Conference
  • Global investment to develop semantic
    technologies by governments, venture capital, and
    industry will approach 15 billion this decade.
    Semantic solution, services and software markets
    will top 50B by 2010.
  • More than 150 ITC companies have semantic
    technology RD in progress, including most major
    players. 65 offer products.
  • Semantic technologies are crossing the chasm to
    mainstream use. Early adopter research documents
    2 to 10 times improvements in key measures of
    performance across the solution lifecycle.
  • Presentation slides available at
    http//www.project10x.com/downloads/topconnexion/M
    D_BizValue2005_SWANS.pdf

12
2. White Paper Series
13
Example-1 Information in Context
14
Example-1 Information in Context
15
Example-1 Information in Context
16
Example-1 Information in Context
17
Example-1 Information in Context
18
Example-1 Information in Context
  • Best Practice Example for the SWANS Conference
  • Digital Harbor
  • Composite Application Solution EII, SOA, and
    Portals
  • 6 years and over 50M in investment RD and over
    100M in partner RD
  • Supports 22 industry standards including OWL
  • Delivered 24 business templates over six domains
  • Government customers include Navy, Air Force,
    NSA, DISA, DIA, NRO, NGA, CIFA, and DHS
  • The most exciting thing Ive seen since Mosaic.
    Vinton Cerf, Father of the Internet.
  • Collaboration Between TopQuadrant and Digital
    Harbor on a Composite Application Pilot for the
    Federal Enterprise Architecture Solution Space
    (see next slides)

19
Example-1 Information in Context
20
Example-1 Information in Context
See Semantic Technology Pilots Semantic
Mapping/Harmonization of the PRM, PART, and OMB
300 in the Best Practices Repository at
http//web-services.gov
21
2. White Paper Series
  • Module 2 The Business Case for Semantic
    Technologies Final Report Outline
  • 1.0 Executive Summary
  • 2.0 About the Report
  • 3.0 Business Value of Semantic Technologies
  • 4.0 Making the Business Case for Semantic
    Interoperability
  • 5.0 References
  • 6.0 Endnotes
  • 7.0 Appendices Interviews and Case Studies

22
3. Workshops and Conferences
  • Second Semantic Technologies for E-Government
    Conference, September 8-9, 2004
  • XML 2004 Conference, November 14-17, 2004
    (Keynote Session Tracks)
  • Semantic Interoperability Study Group for the
    Architecture Infrastructure Committee
    Leadership, October-December 2004
  • Monthly Collaboration Expedition Workshops on
    Ontologies with the Architecture Infrastructure
    Committee (AIC) at NSF, December 2004, and
    February 2005
  • Semantic Web Applications for National Security
    Conference Jointly with the DARPA/DAML Program,
    April 7-8, 2005
  • The Third Semantic Technologies for E-Government
    Conference, Fall 2005, Washington, DC
  • E-Government Interoperability in the European
    Union, November 7, 2005 (tentative)
  • XML 2005 Conference From Syntax to Semantics,
    November 14-18, Atlanta, Georgia (Keynote
    Session Tracks)

23
3. Workshops and Conferences
  • Sir Tim Berners-Lee at the SWANS Conference,
    April 7 on the Government Role
  • Making public data available in standard Semantic
    Web formats.
  • Requiring funded data to be available in Semantic
    Web formats
  • Encouraging flagship applications.
  • Supporting Web Science research for advanced
    tools.

24
3. Workshops and Conferences
Sir Tim Berners-Lee at the SWANS Conference,
April 7 on the constant tension
Keep a wise balance. The semantic web allows a
mixture of the two approaches, and smooth
transitions between them.
25
3. Workshops and Conferences
  • Substance of the Semantic Web Deborah
    McGuinness, Stanford and Mike Dean, BBN, SWANS
    Conference, April 7, 2005
  • Selected Technical Benefits
  • 1. Integrating Multiple Data Sources
  • 2. Semantic Drill Down / Focused Perusal
  • 3. Statements about Statements
  • 4. Inference
  • 5. Translation
  • 6. Smart (Focused) Search
  • 7. Smarter Search Configuration
  • 8. Proof and Trust

26
3. Workshops and Conferences
  • Open Standards for Government Information
    Sharing Timing the Transformations Needed for
    Sustained Progress By Combining the Expertise of
    Multiple Communities, June 28th
  • How to Build Readiness Advancing Discernment and
    Value Through Implementation Profiles and Pilots
  • IRS Topic Maps with the IRS Tax Products CD-ROM
  • Terragram for Taxonomies at the World Bank
  • SVG Maps for Knowledge Management and Taxonomies
  • Ontologies for SSAs Policy Net
  • Geospatial Ontologies for the Geospatial Profile
  • Taxonomies and Metadata for the Intelligence
    Community

27
3. Workshops and Conferences
  • E-Government Interoperability in the European
    Union Workshop (Draft)
  • European Interoperability Framework for
    pan-European eGovernment Services
  • Dr. Barbara Held
  • On Software Freedom and Interoperability
  • Simon Phillips, Chief Technology Evangelist, Sun
    Microsystems
  • Achieving Business Agility with Service
    Enablement
  • Eric Newcomer, CTO, IONA Technologies
  • Break and Networking
  • Joining Up Government Through Incremental
    Integration A Criminal Justice Case Study
  • Warren Buckley, CTO and Co-Founder, Polarlake
  • Lunch
  • Services-Oriented Architecture in the Government
    Sector Unlock your existing legacy assets
    without rip-and-replace
  • Annrai OToole, CEO, Cape Clear Software
  • Only the Data Endures
  • Sean McGrath, CTO, Propylon
  • Panel Session and Audience Questions

28
4. Pilots
  • SICoP is Conducting Pilot Projects at the Request
    of the FEA PMO, AIC, and others
  • 4.1 Formal Taxonomies for the U.S. Government
  • 4.2 Ontology for Indicators
  • 4.3 Federal Enterprise Reference Model Ontology
    (FEA RMO)
  • 4.4 Building a National Health Information
    Network Ontology
  • 4.5 Public Domain Databases for Semantic
    Searching and Ontology Building
  • 4.6 Ontology and Taxonomy Coordinating Work Group
    (ONTACWG)
  • 4.7 Composite Application Solution with Semantic
    Technologies
  • 4.8 Semantic Technology Profiles for the FEA Data
    Reference Model
  • 4.9 FEA Data Reference Model Use Cases

SICoP has mapped its activities to the FEA PMO
Action Plan FY 2005-2006 (see April 21st AIC
Meeting). FEA PMO Federal Enterprise
Architecture Program Management Office
29
4.1 Formal Taxonomies for the U.S. Government
  • OWL Listing
  • ww.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns"
    xmlnsxsd"http//www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema"
    xmlnsrdfs"http//www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema"
    xmlnsowl"http//www.w3.org/2002/07/owl"
    xmlnsdaml"http//www.daml.org/2001/03/damloil"
    xmlns"http//www.owl-ontologies.com/unnamed.owl
    " xmlnsdc"http//purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
    xmlbase"http//www.owl-ontologies.com/unnamed.ow
    l" rdfID"Transportation"/ rdfID"AirVehicle" rdfresource"Transportation"/



    "/ Etc.

Transportation Class Hierarchy
Source Formal Taxonomies for the U.S.
Government, Michael Daconta, Metadata Program
Manager, US Department of Homeland Security,
XML.Com, http//www.xml.com/pub/a/2005/01/26/formt
ax.html
30
4.2 Ontology for Indicators
Schematic of the Ontology
Indicators
Topics
Organizations
Jurisdictions
Publicly led
U.S. local/regional level
The Economy
Privately led
U.S. state level
Society Culture
Led by public-private partnership
National level outside the United States
The Environment
Supranational level
Cross-Cutting
Note that each of these classes can and do have
multiple instances underneath them, etc.
31
4.2 Ontology for Indicators
The folder names are either the ontology or the
knowledgebase instances.
See Best Practices Repository at
http//web-services.gov
32
4.3 Federal Enterprise Reference Model Ontology
(FEA RMO)
  • This is a composite application with multiple
    ontologies!
  • Online Version
  • Coming soon at http//www.osera.gov
  • Temporarily at http//web-services.gov
  • Documentation
  • Web Page at http//web-services.gov/fea-rmo.html
  • Best Practices Repository at http//web-services.g
    ov
  • Submit FEARMO comments
  • http//colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?HowToSubmitF
    EARMO_Comments

33
4.3 Federal Enterprise Reference Model Ontology
(FEA RMO)
Concise Format Abstract Syntax RDF/XML Turtle
Ontology List
Ontology Hierarchy
Reasoner Pellet RDFS-like
FEA-RMO at SWANS in SWOOP 2.2.1 from MindSwap
Research Group (Jim Hendler).
34
4.4 Building a National Health Information
Network Ontology
  • The Mind Map Book How to Use Radiant Thinking to
    Maximize Your Brains Untapped Potential (Tony
    Buzan)
  • Before the web came hypertext. And before
    hypertext came mind maps.
  • A mind map consists of a central word or concept,
    around the central word you draw the 5 to 10 main
    ideas that relate to that word. You then take
    each of those child words and again draw the 5 to
    10 main ideas.
  • Mind maps allow associations and links to be
    recorded and reinforced.
  • The non-linear nature of mind maps makes it easy
    to link and cross-reference different elements of
    the map.
  • See next slide for examples from the Explorers
    Guide to the Semantic Web, Thomas Passin,
    Manning Publications, 2004, pages 106 and 141.

35
4.4 Building a National Health Information
Network Ontology
standards governance privacy regionalization finan
cing architecture regulation

organizational technical semantic
general organizational business management
operational standards policies financial,
regulatory, legal other
DR. BRAILER
RFI
FRAMEWORKS
STANDARDS ORGANIZATIONS
NHIN
WORK GROUPS
NCVHS CCHIT Etc.
technical architecture organization
business financial, regulatory, legal
ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE
OTHER
other
STRATEGIC PLAN GOALS
regional initiatives clinical practice population
health health interoperability Federal Health
Architecture
Possible/probable interrelationships
Inform Clinical Practice Interconnect
Clinicians Personalize Care Improve Population
Health
36
4.4 Building a National Health Information
Network Ontology
See Best Practices Repository at
http//web-services.gov
37
4.4 Building a National Health Information
Network Ontology
FAST Data Search Search View
38
4.5 Public Domain Databases for Semantic
Searching and Ontology Building
  • 4.5.1 Gartner Magic Quadrant for Enterprise
    Search, 2004
  • 4.5.2 Gartner Analysis Leaders
  • 4.5.3 FAST Data Search Categorization and
    Taxonomy Support
  • 4.5.4 FAST Data Search Integration
  • 4.5.5 Paradigm Shifts
  • 4.5.6 Public Domain Database

39
4.5.1 Gartner Magic Quadrant for Enterprise
Search, 2004
Source Gartner Research ID Number M-22-7894,
Whit Andrews, 17 May 2004.
40
4.5.2 Gartner Analysis Leaders
  • Fast Search Transfer (FAST) now is counted in
    the Leaders quadrant, moving from the Visionaries
    quadrant. The vendor has experienced explosive
    growth, providing better-than-average means and
    an expanding list of approaches of determining
    relevancy. Its architecture is superior among
    search vendors, and sales are strong. (Sales of
    enterprise search technology were 42 million in
    2003, up from 36 million in 2002.) Its
    acquisition of the remainder of AltaVista's
    business has had no real impact on operations.
  • Critical questions include whether FAST will
  • 1) remain a specialist in search technologies
  • 2) pursue "search-derivative applications"
    FAST's term for the general application category
    founded on search platforms, including customer
    relationship management (CRM) knowledge base
    support tools and scientific research managers
    or
  • 3) focus on original equipment manufacturer
    arrangements or on a broader suite of
    applications, such as those included in a smart
    enterprise suite. Search vendors typically follow
    an arc that leads to their acquiring a company,
    to failure or to a position as an enduring
    leader. FAST has the opportunity to pursue the
    last path.
  • Note added by Brand Niemann FAST acquired
    NextPage in December 2004 which provides
    electronic publishing software to 6 of the 9
    leading electronic publishers in the world. I
    have used NextPage in the pilots to date.

41
4.5.3 FAST Data Search Categorization and
Taxonomy Support
42
4.5.4 FAST Data Search Integration
43
4.5.5 Paradigm Shifts
  • Paradigm Shifts
  • From Indicator Frameworks to
  • Ontologies for and of Indicators based on..
  • Enterprise Search of Everything, Everywhere!
  • Explanation
  • Ontologies of and for Indicators provide the
    structure that make indicators more useful and
    reveal the gaps.
  • Everything, Everywhere is achieved by a Search
    Platform Architecture that supports both Crawl
    (Pull) and API (Push).
  • Of special interest to EPA Childrens Health,
    Mercury, etc.

44
4.5.6 Public Domain Database
45
4.6 Ontology and Taxonomy Coordinating Work Group
(ONTACWG)
  • For example, NASA has at least the groups working
    on ontologies and taxonomies that want help with
    coordination
  • NASA JPL has Semantic Web for Earth and
    Environmental Terminology (SWEET)
  • See http//sweet.jpl.nasa.gov/
  • NASA Goddard, Central Library and Mission
    Engineering Systems Analysis Division
    (Integrate STEP, UML, and OWL)
  • NASA Ames, NASA System Ontology (TopQuadrant)
  • Also see The Power of Team The Making of a
    CIO, 2002, Department of Navy Chief Information
    Officer (DON CIO)
  • Section 5.5 Knowledge Taxonomy
  • Enterprise Knowledge Management Taxonomy and
    Ontology Framework in XML.

46
4.6 Ontology and Taxonomy Coordinating Work Group
(ONTACWG)
  • ONTAC is a working group within the Semantic
    Interoperability Community of Practice (SICoP) to
    provide a mechanism for voluntary coordination of
    all activities within the Federal Government and
    among other interested parties, in developing
    Knowledge Classification and Representation
    systems such as ontologies, taxonomies, thesauri,
    and graphical knowledge representations.
  • Led by Pat Cassidy, Ontologist, Mitre
  • See http//colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SICoP/On
    tologyTaxonomyCoordinatingWG

47
4.6 Ontology and Taxonomy Coordinating Work Group
(ONTACWG)
  • See forum archives at http//colab.cim3.net/forum
    /
  • Three separate forums
  • Name ontac-forum
  • Description ONTAC-WG General Discussion
  • Address ontac-forum_at_colab.cim3.net
  • Name ontac-dev
  • Description ONTAC Taxonomy-Ontology Development
    Discussion
  • Address ontac-dev_at_colab.cim3.net
  • Name ontac-tool
  • Description ONTAC Tools Development Discussion
  • Address ontac-tool_at_colab.cim3.net

48
4.7 Composite Application Solution with Semantic
Technologies
  • Train Derailment Example
  • 6 January 2005, 350 A.M. Graniteville, SC
  • Chlorine Tank Car Toxic Release
  • Matching ResponseType with EventType
  • Using Open Public Standards
  • Getting the Right Information to the Right People
    at the Right Time

Source Putting Context to Work Semantic Keys to
Improve Rapid First Response, Semantic Web
Applications for National Security Conference,
April 8, 2005, Trade Show, Broadstrokes,
ImageMatters, MyStateUSA, Starbourne, and
TargusInfo.
49
4.7 Composite Application Solution with Semantic
Technologies
Event Type Ontology in Context Application in
Unicorn Workbench http//www.unicorn.com
Source Putting Context to Work Semantic Keys to
Improve Rapid First Response, Semantic Web
Applications for National Security Conference,
April 8, 2005, Trade Show, Broadstrokes,
ImageMatters, MyStateUSA, Starbourne, and
TargusInfo.
50
(No Transcript)
51
4.8 Semantic Technology Profiles for the FEA Data
Reference Model
  • 4.8.1 Semantic Web
  • 4.8.2 The W3Cs Semantic Web Services and Rules
  • 4.8.3 Ontologies Enablers of the Semantic Web
  • 4.8.4 Describing Semantics
  • 4.8.5 Semantic Relationships
  • 4.8.6 Semantic Webs Layered Architecture
  • 4.8.7 Mapping to the Data Reference Model

52
4.8.1 Semantic Web
  • Semantics not new
  • Web not new
  • Semantic Web putting semantics on the Web is
    new
  • Sir Tim Berners-Lee
  • "The Semantic Web is an extension of the current
    web in which information is given well-defined
    meaning, better enabling computers and people to
    work in cooperation.
  • A new form of web content that is meaningful to
    computers that will unleash a revolution of new
    possibilities.
  • OWL is an important step for making data on the
    Web more machine processable and reusable across
    applications.
  • Just as databases tables are connected through
    joins, multiple distributed information
    representations can be strung together through
    semantic joins.
  • Lee Lacy, OWL Representing Information Using
    the Web Ontology Language, Trafford, 2005, 282
    pages.
  • See http//www.trafford.com/robots/04-1276.html

53
4.8.2 The W3Cs Semantic Web Services and Rules
  • W3C Workshop on Rule Languages for
    Interoperability, 27-28 April 2005, Washington,
    D.C., USA.
  • Ontology and Rules on the same level, connected,
    and both treated as data.
  • W3C Workshop on Frameworks for Semantics in Web
    Services, June 9-10, 2005, Digital Enterprise
    Research Institute (DERI), Innsbruck, Austria.

54
(No Transcript)
55
4.8.2 The W3Cs Semantic Web Services and Rules
  • The formal foundation of the OWL language is a
    branch of knowledge representation and reasoning
    called description logics. While this foundation
    is promising, there is a different approach to
    representation and reasoning based on rules. Its
    main advantages are
  • Rule engines exist and are quite powerful.
  • Rules are well known and used in mainstream IT,
    and is easier for users to learn.
  • Rule systems can be seen as an extension, or as
    an alternative to OWL. The first idea is driving
    current research attempting to integrate
    description logics and rules, while maintaining
    somewhat efficient reasoning support. The latter
    idea studies the use of RDF/S in conjunction with
    rules as the basis of an alternative Web ontology
    language.

Source Chapter 5. Logic and Inference Rules in
A Semantic Web Primer, Grigoris Antoniou and
Frank van Harmelen, The MIT Press, Cambridge,
Massachusetts, London, England
56
4.8.3 Ontologies Enablers of the Semantic Web
Gruber Ontology Definition
Computer Science
Domain
Ontology
Ontology
describes
Tbox
specified by
modeled by
compliant with
Class 1
Class 2
Abox
Class 3
Class 4
Fact Instances
Conceptualization
57
4.8.3 Ontologies Enablers of the Semantic Web
  • Computer Science
  • Tbox vocabularies define concepts that have
    associated Abox facts that represent a
    knowledgebase.
  • Thomas Gruber
  • An ontology is a formal specification of a
    conceptualization.
  • Deborah McGuiness
  • A continuum of ontology formalisms.
  • Web Ontology Language (OWL)
  • An OWL-encoded web-distributed vocabulary of
    declarative formalisms describing a model of a
    domain.
  • So focuses on Tbox part and extends Grubers
    definition.

58
4.8.4 Describing Semantics
Source Lee Lacy, OWL Representing Information
Using the Web Ontology Language, Trafford, 2005,
page 40.
59
4.8.5 Semantic Relationships
Source Lee Lacy, OWL Representing Information
Using the Web Ontology Language, Trafford, 2005,
page 40.
60
4.8.5 Semantic Relationships
has value for
Individual
is an instance of
restrict
Property
Class
The most important inter-concept relationships
include is an instance of (individual to
class), has value for (individual to property,
and restrictions (between) classes and properties.
61
4.8.6 Semantic Webs Layered Architecture
  • Applications
  • Ontology Languages
  • RDF Schema and Individuals
  • RDF and RDF/XML
  • XML and XMLS Datatypes
  • URIs and Namespaces
  • Implementation Layer
  • Logical Layer
  • Ontological Primitive Layer
  • Basic Relational Language Layer
  • Transport/Syntax Layer
  • Symbol/Reference Layer

OWL Full, OWL DL, and OWL Lite. Source Lee
Lacy, OWL Representing Information Using the
Web Ontology Language, Trafford, 2005, page 44.
62
4.8.7 Mapping to the Data Reference Model
  • DRM Volume Strategy
  • Volume 3 Description
  • Volume 4 Data Sharing
  • Volume 5 Data Context
  • Note Volumes 4 and 5 would include examples for
    several business use cases.
  • Semantic Web Standards
  • RDF and RDF/XML
  • RDF Schema and Individuals
  • Ontology Languages (OWL-DL)
  • Note Each layer depends on the layers beneath
    and uses their features to provide its capability.

See next slide for definitions DRM Volume
Strategy Version 4, April 18, 2005.
63
4.8.7 Mapping to the Data Reference Model
  • DRM Volume Strategy Definitions
  • Data Description This model provides the
    creation of logical data models for structured,
    semi-structured and unstructured resources.
  • Data Sharing The meta-model for creating
    exchange packages between systems and the
    metadata required for federated access to data
    sources.
  • Data Context The meta-model for creating
    categorization schemes (like taxonomies) for data
    assets.

64
4.8.7 Mapping to the Data Reference Model
  • DRM Volume Strategy Definitions (continued)
  • Meta-model
  • Modeling constructs used to build the DRM models
    for data description, sharing, and context. These
    constructs have been standardized in the W3Cs
    OWL and OMGs MOF specifications.
  • Resource Descriptions Same as the W3Cs Resource
    Description Framework (RDF).
  • The most fundamental benefit of RDF compared to
    other meta-data approaches is that using RDF, you
    can say anything about anything. Anyone can make
    RDF statements about any identifiable resource.
    Using RDF, the problems of extending meta-data
    and combining meta-data of different formats,
    from different schemas disappear, as RDF does not
    use closed documents.
  • Source Lee Lacy, OWL Representing Information
    Using the Web Ontology Language, Trafford, 2005,
    page 75.

65
4.8.7 Mapping to the Data Reference Model
  • Semantic Webs Layered Architecture Definitions
  • RDF and RDF/XML RDF is the model and RDF/XML is
    the XML syntax for storing the model. RDF is used
    to specify OWL instances. It is the most
    important value-added layer of the Semantic Webs
    architecture.
  • RDF Schema (RDFS) RDFs vocabulary description
    language, is the a semantic extension of RDF. It
    provides the mechanisms for describing groups of
    related resources and the relationships between
    these resources.
  • OWL permits the definition of sophisticated
    ontologies, a fundamental requirement in the
    integration of heterogeneous information content.
    OWL ontologies will also be important for the
    characterization of interoperable services for
    knowledge-intensive processing on the Web (e.g.,
    Grid and Pervasive Computing).
  • Source Lee Lacy, OWL Representing Information
    Using the Web Ontology Language, Trafford, 2005,
    pages 83, 111 , and 133.

66
4.9 FEA Data Reference Model Use Cases
  • Potential Use Cases May 16th DRM WG Meeting
    (Andy Hoskinson and Joe Chiusano)
  • Purpose
  • Several real-world scenarios that would benefit
    from XML-based instances.
  • Tie DRM XML Schema elements to information
    processing activities.
  • Introduce new uses cases for unstructured data
    (80 of government information).
  • Use cases to date have focused on structured
    data.
  • Titles Automated Categorization, Search
    Enhancement, Enterprise Information Integration,
    Service-oriented Application, and Database of
    Data Models.

67
4.9 FEA Data Reference Model Use Cases
  • My Comments and Suggestions
  • See Section 4.4 Building a National Health
    Information Network Ontology pilot for automated
    semantic concept extraction and taxonomy
    generation from unstructured text (110 MB) with
    software and expert advice from Content Analysts
    and FAST
  • See http//web-services.gov/nhinrfiontology0405200
    5.ppt
  • Still need professional ontologist and common
    upper ontology for vertical interoperability
    (Ontolog Forum).
  • See Aquaint for a beyond taxonomy/ontology
    approach (Lucian Russell, CSC) in the
    Intelligence Community
  • See http//conference.brtrc.com/aquaint_spring/
  • Need to use non-XML schematic diagrams to explain
    the concepts and to make non-XML interface tools
    available to get non-XML people to use this.
  • See for example, http//et.gov/
  • Build on successful Web applications for
    unstructured, semi-structured, and structured
    data and information with an incremental approach
    (see next slides).

68
4.9 FEA Data Reference Model Use Cases
69
4.9 FEA Data Reference Model Use Cases
This service will retrieve a Web page and
automatically generate Dublin Core metadata,
either as HTML tags or as RDF/XML,
suitable for embedding in the ...
section of the page. The generated metadata can
be edited using the form provided and converted
to various other formats (USMARC, SOIF,
IAFA/ROADS, TEI headers, GILS, IMS or RDF) if
required.
70
4.9 FEA Data Reference Model Use Cases
FOAF is a project for machine-readable modelling
of social networks. The heart of the project is
its specification which defines what statements
you can make about someone, such as Name, Gender,
Homepage, Weblog, etc. It is based on RDF, and
can be easily extended with more specific
relationship definitions. RDF can be used to
build web sites and describe photo collections.
http//rdf.burningbird.net/ and
http//www.oreilly.com/catalog/pracrdf/
71
4.9 FEA Data Reference Model Use Cases
http//www.topquadrant.com/people/rhodgson/foaf.xm
l do View Source to see RDF
72
4.9 FEA Data Reference Model Use Cases
The ConvertToRDF tool is designed to take
plain-text delimited files, like .csv files
dumped from Microsoft Excel, and convert them to
RDF. To use it all you need to write is a file to
map from one form to the other. The ontology for
creating the mapping file is shown here.
http//www.mindswap.org/mhgrove/ConvertToRDF/conv
ertOnt.rdf
73
Appendix 1 FEA-RMO Tutorial
  • Federal Enterprise Architecture Reference Model
    Ontology (FEA-RMO) Documentation
  • Project Plan.
  • OSERA (Open Source E-Government Reference
    Architecture) Open Source Agreement.
  • FEA Reference Model Ontology (FEA RMO), February,
    2005, GSA OSERA Deliverable Version 1.2
  • Candidate Uses Cases.
  • FEA Ontology Models Design Options for PRM
    Discussion Draft (PowerPoint).
  • Semantic Technology and Ontology Engineering for
    Enterprise Architecture (PowerPoint for
    Enterprise Architecture Summit, May 22-24, Miami,
    Florida).

74
Appendix 1 FEA-RMO Tutorial
  • Lessons Learned
  • Good natural language Reference Models help
    ontology development.
  • Modeling Principles and Patterns are key often
    evolve iteratively.
  • Modular Architecture benefits concurrent
    lifecycle management.
  • OWL works and reasoning pays off in generic code.
  • Semantic Application can be built quickly.

Ralph Hodgson, Semantic Technology and Ontology
Engineering for Enterprise Architecture,
Enterprise Architecture Summit, May 22-24, Miami,
FL.
75
Appendix 1 FEA-RMO Tutorial
  • Encoding an OWL Ontology
  • Phases
  • Object-oriented requirements analysis
  • Develop common expectations for the domain
    description.
  • Knowledge acquisition
  • Use authoritative sources for the domain.
  • Knowledge engineering
  • Describe a structured interpretation of the
    domain that references the authoritative sources.
  • Design
  • Use graphical design languages like UML to
    visualize the relationships.

Source Lee Lacy, OWL Representing Information
Using the Web Ontology Language, Trafford, 2005,
page 143.
76
Appendix 1 FEA-RMO Tutorial
  • OWL Ontology File Structure (see next slide)
  • OWL Header (usually reused)
  • XML Declaration and RDF Start Tag
  • Namespaces
  • Versioning Information and Import Statements
  • Ontology Element (owlOntology)
  • Body
  • Statements about classes, properties, and their
    relationships.
  • Makes the open-world assumption just because
    something is not specified, you cannot assume it
    to be false it might be specified somewhere on
    the web.
  • Footer Closing Tag.
  • Example An organization standardizes their
    ontologies that extend another organizations
    ontologies (see schematic diagram).

Source Lee Lacy, OWL Representing Information
Using the Web Ontology Language, Trafford, 2005,
Chapter 11.
77
Appendix 1 FEA-RMO Tutorial
  • OWL Ontology Document
  • Header
  • XML Declaration and RDF Start Tag
  • Namespace Declarations
  • Ontology Element
  • Version Information
  • Imports Element
  • Body
  • Class, Property, and Individual Statements
  • Footer
  • RDF End Tag

Source Lee Lacy, OWL Representing Information
Using the Web Ontology Language, Trafford, 2005,
page 146.
78
Appendix 1 FEA-RMO Tutorial
  • Structure of the PRM
  • Header
  • Start Tag and Namespaces
  • Start Ontology
  • Class IDs (and about) and Subclass relationships
  • Object Property
  • Datatype Property
  • Functional Property
  • Inverse Function Property
  • Labels
  • End Tag and Comment
  • -

http//web-services.gov/owl/2004/11/fea/FEA_PRM_s.
owl
79
Appendix 1 FEA-RMO Tutorial
Ontologies on Web Servers
Standard namespaces XMLS Datatype OWL
Specification RDFS Specification RDF Specification
Ontologies being Used/Extended
OWL
namespace references
Ontology Stewards Web Server
Imports
Ontology
Information Publishers Web Server
Ontology- specific Datatypes
compliant with
OWL
OWL
Imports
RDF
Instance Data
Source Lee Lacy, OWL Representing Information
Using the Web Ontology Language, Trafford, 2005,
page 144.
80
Appendix 1 FEA-RMO Tutorial
This ontology references and imports other
parts of the FEA-RMO.
http//web-services.gov/owl/2004/11/fea/FEA_PRM_s.
owl
81
Appendix 2 Dynamic Knowledge Repository
  • Semantic Technologies Interoperability
  • Proceedings from the One-Day Conference Semantic
    Technologies for E-Government, White House
    Conference center, September 8, 2003.
  • A Semantic Web Primer, Grigoris Antoniou and
    Frank van Harmelen, The MIT Press, Cambridge,
    Massachusetts, London, England, Contents (from
    Web Site).
  • SICoP White Paper Series Module 1 Introducing
    Semantic Technologies and the Vision of the
    Semantic Web, Updated on 2/16/2005, Version 5.4.
  • Semantic Web Applications for National Security
    (SWANS) Conference, April 7-8, 2005.

82
Appendix 2 Dynamic Knowledge Repository
  • FEA 2005 Semantic Interoperability Repository
  • Federal Enterprise Architecture 2005
  • Mapping the PRM, PART, and OMB 300
  • FEA PMO Action Plan (2005 - 2006)
  • FEA06 Revision Summary
  • Performance Reference Model
  • Business Reference Model
  • Service Component Reference Model
  • Data Reference Model
  • Technical Reference Model
  • FY 2006 OMB 300 Schema Version 2.95 Data
    Dictionary
  • Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART)
  • Federal Enterprise Architecture Reference Model
    Ontology (FEA-RMO) Documentation
About PowerShow.com