The Semantic Web and Research Challenges - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 / 55
About This Presentation
Title:

The Semantic Web and Research Challenges

Description:

More powerful schemas (ontologies) allow inference and consistency checking. Decidable consistency. Equivalence links allow evolution of standards. ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:37
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 56
Provided by: Niem
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: The Semantic Web and Research Challenges


1
The Semantic Web and Research Challenges
  • by Tim Berners-Lee
  • MIT Laboratory For Computer Science
  • Director, World Wide Web Consortium
  • January 2003

2
Overview
  • 1. What is it/How to explain it.
  • Slides 3-26.
  • 2. Some things we have been doing at MIT/LCS.
  • Slides 27-35.
  • 3. Challenges for Research.
  • Slides 36-44.
  • 4. More information.
  • Slide 46.
  • 5. Slides not used.
  • Slides 47-55.

3
1. What is it/How to explain it
  • Machine processable data.
  • Extending relationship data to a web.
  • Solving the Application Integration problem.
  • The infrastructure for the next IT revolution.

4
Everything has a URI
  • Don't say "color" say "http//www.pantomime.com/20
    02/std6color"
  • In N3,
  • _at_prefix pan lthttp//www.pantomime.com/2002/std6gt
    .myCar pancolor "blue246".

5
The relational database
6
The element of the Semantic Web
  • Can be encoded in XML.
  • Simplicity and mathematical consistency.
  • This is called Resource Description Framework
    (RDF).
  • In N3,
  • _at_prefix pan lthttp//www.pantomime.com/2002/std6gt
    ._at_prefix my ltgt.mycar pancolor "456".

7
Semantic web includes tables,...
8
...trees
9
... everything
10
RDF data..
11
...merges just like that.
12
RDF Semantic links - "Joining the Web"
13
Enterprise Application Integration problem
14
RDF Application Integration hub
15
3. More expressive power
16
RDF data layer -goals and status
  • Goals
  • Data serialization format.
  • Inter-application interoperability across
    applications.
  • Status
  • RDF is W3C recommendation. Second cycle in
    progress.

17
RDF Schema layer - technology
  • Minimalist model - (thing), Class, Property.
  • Subproperty, Subclass.
  • Domain Range.
  • Comments labels.
  • Very wide interoperability.
  • All that is needed for interoperability of the
    vast amount of "data" on the web.

18
RDF Schema layer - goals and status
  • Goals
  • Allows vocabulary definition.
  • Can go ahead and make schemas for existing and
    new applications.
  • Status
  • RDF Schema is W3C Last Call WD, very
    mature(http//www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/)

19
Ontology layer - technology
  • More metainformation, such as
  • Transitive property.
  • Unique, Unambiguous, Cardinality, etc.
  • Ontology community exists- DL, OIL, SHOE, etc.
    etc.
  • Not Turing complete, tractable.
  • Like UML but different.

20
Ontology layer - goals and status
  • Goals
  • More powerful schemas (ontologies) allow
    inference and consistency checking.
  • Decidable consistency.
  • Equivalence links allow evolution of standards.
  • Conversion and cross-reference between
    vocabularies.
  • "Web of meaning.
  • Status
  • DAML (US) and OIL (EU) developments harmonized.
  • Standards process well underway (OWL a W3C WD -
    2003/1) (http//www.w3.org/TR/owl-ref/).

21
Rules Layer - technology
  • Adds variables to RDF.
  • General purpose rules languages that allow query
    and filtering.
  • Query similar to SQL.
  • Rules layer allows form of Proof without full
    Logic layer.
  • Monotonic rules essential, non-mon for closed
    world use.

22
Rules layer - Goals and status
  • Goals
  • Powerful ways of expressing relationships.
  • Create new applications from scratch using
    webized rule engine technology.
  • Equivalent to query language?
  • Status
  • Many rules systems currently exist, need
    webizing.
  • Some common formats eg RuleML.
  • Logical next step for a web standard.

23
Logic framework - goals and status
  • Framework for writing axioms of rule-based
    systems.
  • Monotonic logic.
  • Any rule system can export, generally cannot
    import.
  • No one standard engine - inference capabilities
    differ.
  • Exchange proofs c between existing engines (SQL
    to KIF, Cycl, etc).
  • Any system can validate proofs.
  • Web assumptions different from closed world.
  • Status
  • Much academic discussion.
  • Not ripe for standardization yet.
  • Research agenda.

24
Web of Trust need
  • All statements on the Web occur in some context.
  • Applications need this context in order to
    evaluate the trustworthiness of the statements.
  • The machinery of the SW does not assert that all
    statements found on the Web are "true".
  • Trustworthiness is evaluated by each application.
  • Very flexible language can express existing
    systems.

25
Web of Trust - goals and status
  • Goals
  • Small trusted codebase proof validator plus
    signature validator.
  • Expressive power allows real trust structure to
    be expressed.
  • Simple system allows security verification
    (Privacy, confidentiality, etc).
  • Status
  • Existing research demonstrates feasibility eg PCA
    (Felten, Appel). (http//www.cs.princeton.edu/sip/
    projects/pca/)
  • cwm simple integration of cryptography and
    inference. (http//www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/)
  • Some base standards exist, eg. XML Digital
    Signature.
  • Large research agenda.

26
Conclusion of part 1
  • Science and engineering and commerce will benefit
    enormously from the semantic web.
  • We need research, standardization and deployment
    to ensure it happens.
  • We can look to new research opportunities when it
    is here.

27
2. Some things we have been doing at MIT/LCS
  • N3 language extends RDF up through the layers.
  • Generic command line semantic web processors.
  • Import and Export hacks for legacy systems.
  • Generic database export.
  • Native RDF applications.
  • Prototyping the layer cake.

28
Application Integration Native RDF
  • Teleconference schedule, present in bridge,
    action items etc (Swick's Zakim).
  • Annotea is RDF-based web annotation
    system(http//www.w3.org/2001/Annotea/).
  • W3C roadmap (by hand).
  • RSS syndication feeds.
  • Other project's metadata (e.g. RSS, Dublin Core,
    Adobe XMP, TAP,...).

29
Application Integration Import
Things we played with at MIT/LCS
30
Application integration Export
31
Application integration Case study Roadmap
http//www.w3.org/2001/04/roadmap/about.svg
32
Application integration Case Study Trip
http//www.w3.org/2002/08dc-ymx/make.svg
33
Case study - take away
  • Runs across previous application boundaries.
  • Involves personal, group and public information.
    (How do we prove it meets confidentiality
    requirements?)
  • Many different data stores.

34
Web of Trust - simplified example
http//www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/test/crypto/make.sv
g
35
Conclusion to part 2
  • The entire layer cake has been prototyped.
  • We will have to bootstrap s/web with legacy data
    for some time.
  • Lots of exciting opportunities in personal,
    enterprise global data.

36
3. Challenges for Research
  • The Semantic Web Wave.
  • Semantic Web bus - and above.
  • What makes it a semantic web project?
  • Challenges - Computer Science.
  • User interface graphs to Graphics.
  • Logic.
  • Engineering choices.
  • Conclusion of part 3.

37
The Semantic Web Wave
38
Semantic Web bus - and above
39
What makes it a semantic web project?
  • Uses URIs for identifiers.
  • Lookup of terms on the web by URI!
  • Aware of information being from different
    sources.
  • Properties of object not known in advance.
  • Delegation to other engines.
  • Based on standards (HTTP, RDF, OWL, etc...).

40
Challenges - Computer Science
  • Indexing rule files by terms used -- input and
    output vocabularies.
  • Using that index to resolve a query.
  • Using it to show what cannot be deduced
    (privacy...).
  • Building data flow and queries dynamically.
  • Scalable algorithms over space with structure on
    all levels.
  • Using same rules in eg. forward and
    backward-chaining contexts.
  • Incremental, reversible inference - diff, patch
    and generic synch.
  • Generating and checking lists of rules used
    proofs.
  • Secure systems.
  • User interfaces to the Semantic Web.

41
User interface graphs to Graphics
  • Large array of UI metaphors.
  • Outline views, forms, circles arrows, forms,
    charts, etc.
  • Pretend there are trees.
  • Pick up display style from style sheet - control
    by
  • vocabulary author.
  • data publisher.
  • Reader.
  • Manipulate overlays by data source, vocabulary.
  • Keep the interface 2-way.

42
Logic
  • A universal logic - language? framework?
  • Overlapping model theories.
  • In general, "layering".

43
Engineering choices
  • Choosing size of dataset - cleanliness vs reach.
  • When to query and when to download.
  • Granularity of proof language.
  • Legacy systems without proper models.

44
Conclusion of part 3
  • The path to the Semantic Web needs foresight and
    encouragement.
  • The opportunities from then on will be very
    diverse.

45
Thank You
  • Questions/Discussion.

46
More information
  • Semantic Web Home Page http//www.w3.org/2001/sw/
  • Semantic Web Advanced Development Home Page
    http//www.w3.org/2000/01/sw/
  • RDF Home Page http//www.w3.org/rdf/
  • Semantic Web / RDF Interest Group
    http//www.w3.org/RDF/Interest
  • Semantic Web / RDF IRC irc//openprojects.net/rd
    fig

47
Slides not used
  • (If you reach this point you have gone too far).

48
Where W3C standards are
  • Enabling Standards and Technologies for
    supporting the Architecture.
  • The RDF Core Working Group http//www.w3.org/2001
    /sw/RDFCore/
  • The Web Ontology Working Group
    http//www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/
  • Semantic Web / RDF Interest Group.
  • RDF Rules / Query - becoming WG soon?
  • RDF Logic.

49
Web Services and Semantic Web
  • Exchanging RDF messages more interesting than
    just XML.
  • RDF Describing services.
  • DAML Services http//www.daml.org/services/
  • Challenge Automatic service composition.

50
1. Background and Principles
Blank Slide
51
The Semantic Web
Information Management A Proposal, Tim
Berners-Lee, CERN, March 1989, May 1990,
http//www.w3.org/History/1989/proposal.html
52
Goal building machinery
  • "The bane of my existence is doing things that I
    know the computer could do for me."
  • -- Dan Connolly, The XML Revolution.

53
Semantic Web Principles
  • Any thing can have a URIxxx.
  • Vocabularies can merge and be replaced with time.
  • Documents are self-describing.
  • "Anyone can say anything about anything.
  • No one system knows everything.
  • Design must be minimalist.

54
Do NOT wait for
  • ...Artificial Intelligence itself.
  • ...common sense reasoning.
  • ...your gradmother to write in DAML.
  • ...people to mark up web pages.
  • ...your company to build the entire Semantic Web.

55
Short to medium term for s/w s/w developers
  • Import Export data in RDF.
  • Leverage data in existing applications.
  • Web-enable all tools - web as file system.
  • Identify low-hanging fruit in app overlap.
  • Identify your niche - how to interface to
    partners.
  • Co-develop rules with standard.
  • Help W3C work out next steps.
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com