OWL-S Straw Proposal Presentation to SWSL Committee May 23, 2004 - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Loading...

PPT – OWL-S Straw Proposal Presentation to SWSL Committee May 23, 2004 PowerPoint presentation | free to download - id: 1fc76d-ZDc1Z



Loading


The Adobe Flash plugin is needed to view this content

Get the plugin now

View by Category
About This Presentation
Title:

OWL-S Straw Proposal Presentation to SWSL Committee May 23, 2004

Description:

OWL-S Straw Proposal. Presentation to SWSL Committee. May 23, 2004. David ... (A) Class-hierarchical 'yellow pages ' Implicit capability characterization ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:30
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 42
Provided by: Sam374
Category:

less

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

Title: OWL-S Straw Proposal Presentation to SWSL Committee May 23, 2004


1
OWL-S Straw Proposal Presentation to SWSL
Committee May 23, 2004
  • David Martin
  • Mark Burstein
  • Drew McDermott
  • Deb McGuinness
  • Sheila McIlraith
  • Massimo Paolucci
  • Bijan Parsia

2
Outline
  • Overview Features of OWL-S
  • General
  • Profile
  • Process Model
  • Grounding
  • Relationships with commercial Web service
    technologies
  • Tools, applications related work
  • Case Studies
  • Bridging to other SWSL proposals
  • Roadmap for SWSL use of OWL-S

3
General Features of OWL-S
  • ? Based on OWL (DL) ontology of services, with
    selected uses of rules (SWRL)
  • Analysis
  • OWL-S services are part of the Semantic Web
  • SWS require the use of domain ontologies many
    will be rep'n in OWL these will be easily
    exploited and integrated
  • W3C status potential for wide adoption
  • Can make direct use of OWL and SWRL
  • Rich data modeling features
  • Convenient and natural for (SW)S
  • OWL and SWRL reasoners / tools can be used
  • Restricted expressive power some aspects of SWS
    cannot be adequately expressed within the
    language

4
General Features of OWL-S
  • ? Based on OWL (DL) ontology of services, with
    selected uses of rules (SWRL)
  • Analysis (contd)
  • Usefulness of DL-based reasoning with process
    modeling not established
  • Unwieldy syntax (addressable by an OWL-S editor
    and/or surface language)
  • OWL has well-defined semantics
  • OWL semantics do not capture all and only the
    intended interpretations of our OWL-S ontology
    (because we can't describe them within the
    language). Thus, there are unintended models.

5
General Features of OWL-S
  • ? Conceptual model
  • Fairly well-developed represents significant
    evolution
  • Lacks some rigour (could be addressed)

6
General Features of OWL-S
  • ? Growing tool base and user community
  • Tools are what brings people
  • Many of these tools don't exploit the semantics
    of the language they just use OWL-S as a syntax

7
Service Profile (overview)
  • High-level characterization/summary of a service
  • What does it do?
  • Used for
  • Constructing advertisements, requisitions
  • Populating service registries
  • A service can have many profiles
  • Automated service discovery
  • Service selection (matchmaking)

8
Service Profile Functionality Description
  • Functional Specification of what the service does
    in terms of
  • preconditions
  • inputs
  • outputs
  • effects
  • Summarizes the top-level Process

9
Service Profile NonFunctional Properties
  • Provides supporting information about the service.

10
Profile Features (1)
  • ? Supports 2 styles of use
  • (A) Class-hierarchical yellow pages
  • Implicit capability characterization
  • Arrangement of attributes on class hierarchy
  • Can use multiple inheritance
  • Relies primarily on non-functional properties
  • (B) Process summaries for planning purposes
  • Inputs, outputs, preconditions, effects
  • Less reliance on formal hierarchical organization
  • Summarizes process model specs
  • Analysis
  • (A) leverages work on DL-based matchmaking
  • (B) leverages work on planning

11
Profile Features (2)
  • ? There can be multiple profiles for a service
    each loosely related to process model
  • Analysis
  • Allows for adverts tailored to different contexts
    and audiences
  • Allows for advertising at the right level of
    detail
  • Fully automatic generation and consistency
    checking of profile not possible

12
Profile Features (3)
  • ? Same representation for
  • Service advertisements
  • Service requisition
  • Analysis
  • Helpful in constructing matchmakers, brokers

13
Service Model How does it work?
Process Model (overview)
  • Process
  • Interpretable description of service providers
    behavior
  • Tells service user how and when to interact
    (read/write messages)
  • Process control
  • Ontology of process state supports status
    queries
  • (stubbed out at present)
  • Used for
  • Service invocation, planning/composition,
    interoperation, monitoring
  • All processes have
  • Inputs, outputs, preconditions and effects
  • Function/dataflow metaphor action/process
    metaphor
  • Composite processes
  • Control flow
  • Data flow

14
Service Model / Process Model (overview)
15
Service Model How does it work?
Process Model Recent Progress
  • Expression language
  • Relation between outputs and effects
  • Dataflow and bindings
  • Surface syntax

16
Atomic Process Definitions
  • ltprocess rdfID"order_movement"gt
  • lthasInputgt
  • ltInput rdfID"dest"gt
  • ltparameterType rdfID"millocation"/gt
  • lt/Inputgt
  • lt/hasInputgt
  • lthasOutputgt
  • ltOutput rdfID"ackno"/gt
  • lt/hasOutputgt
  • lthasPreconditiongt...lt/hasPreconditiongt
  • lthasResultgt
  • ltResult rdfresource"movement_success"/gt
  • ltResult rdfresource"movement_fail"/gt
  • lt/hasResultgt
  • lt/processgt

17
Results
  • ltResult rdfID"movement_success"gt
  • ltinCondition rdfdatatype"xsdstring
    langKifgt
  • (_at_milmotion_possible)
  • lt/inConditiongt
  • ltwithOutputgt
  • ltBindinggt
  • lttheParam rdfresource"ackno"/gt
  • ltvalueForm rdfdatatype"xsdboolean"gt
  • true
  • lt/valueFormgt
  • lt/Bindinggt
  • lt/withOutputgt
  • lthasEffect rdfdatatype"xsdstring"gt
  • (location ?dest)
  • lt/hasEffectgt
  • lt/Resultgt

18
Embedding Expressions
  • We treat expressions in logical languages as
    literals, to avoid any danger of accidental
    interpretation
  • Two broad classes XML literals and other.
  • The former are for SWRL and DRS expressions, the
    latter for KiF, PDDL, etc. expressions.

19
Another Result
  • ltResult rdfID"movement_failure"gt
  • ltinCondition rdfparseType"Literal
    langDRSgt
  • ltdrsNotgt
  • ltdrsterm_args rdfparseType"Collection
    "gt
  • ltdrsAtomic_formulagt
  • ltrdfpredicate rdfresource"mil
    motion_possible"/gt
  • lt/drsAtomic_formulagt
  • lt/drsterm_argsgt
  • lt/drsNotgt
  • lt/inConditiongt
  • ltwithOutputgt
  • ltBindinggt
  • lttheParam rdfresource"ackno"/gt
  • ltvalueForm rdfdatatype"xsdboolean"gt
    falselt/valueFormgt
  • lt/Bindinggt
  • lt/withOutputgt
  • lt/Resultgt

20
Dataflow
Output producee
  • ltSequence rdfparseType"Collection"gt
  • ltPerform rdfID"step1"gt
  • ltprocess rdfresource"Generate"/gt
  • lt/Performgt
  • ltPerform rdfID"step2"gt
  • ltprocess rdfresource"Consumer"/gt
  • lthasBindinggt
  • ltInputBindinggt
  • lttheParam rdfresource"consumee"/gt
  • ltvalueForm parseType"Literal"gt
  • ltValueOfgt
  • lttheVar rdfresource"producee"
    /gt
  • ltfromProcess rdfresource"step
    1"/gt
  • lt/ValueOfgt
  • lt/valueFormgt
  • lt/InputBindinggt
  • lt/hasBindinggt
  • lt/Performgt
  • lt/Sequencegt

From step1
Is input param consumee
To step2
Why is this a Literal? Because any expression can
go Here.
21
Surface Syntax
  • Clarity is great, but RDF is tough to read and
    write.

do1 Step1 Step2(consumee lt do1.producee)
22
Process Syntax
  • Vanilla conventions infix notation, more C-like
    than Lisp-like
  • Logical expressions now dont have to be quoted
    in a funny way
  • Output parameter values written step.param
  • Input parameter bindings written
  • param lt val

23
Process Model features (1)
  • Inputs/outputs have OWL types
  • Analysis
  • OWL-S processes are part of the Semantic Web
  • Rich data modeling features
  • Convenient and natural for (SW)S
  • OWL and SWRL reasoners / tools can be used
  • Usefulness of DL-based (subsumption) reasoning
    with process modeling not established
  • Unresolved issues about grounding of OWL types to
    WSDL message types

24
Process Model features (2)
  • Ontology-based process description
  • Analysis
  • Allows for inheritance hierarchy of processes
    (e.g. MIT process handbook)
  • May be useful for tools (search?, internal
    representations, interchange)
  • OWL expressiveness limitations force a cumbersome
    representation

25
Service Grounding (overview)
  • Implementation-specific
  • Message formatting, transport mechanisms,
    protocols, serializations of types
  • Service Model Grounding give everything needed
    for using the service
  • Builds upon WSDL

26
OWL-S / WSDL Grounding (overview)
27
Grounding Features (1)
  • Reliance on WSDL
  • Analysis
  • Allows for use of SWS with WS
  • Reuse of WSDL work on signatures, bindings,
    etc.
  • Integration details can be somewhat awkward (e.g.
    use of XSLT scripts often required)
  • More work is needed on some aspects of the OWL-S
    / WSDL mapping (e.g., exceptions, )
  • WSDL 2.0 will allow arbitrary MEPs
  • Service has different meaning

28
Grounding Features (2)
  • Mapping of OWL-S IO to WSDL Message Types
  • Analysis
  • Reuse of WSDL work on signatures, bindings,
    etc.
  • Unresolved issues about grounding of OWL types to
    WSDL message types

29
Outline
  • Overview Features of OWL-S
  • Relationships with commercial Web service
    technologies
  • Registry-based discovery work (e.g. UDDI)
    recognizes the need for a basis for matchmaking
  • Several matchmaking approaches have been
    developed using OWL-S and (at least one)
    integrated with UDDI
  • Organizing services in class hierarchies ties in
    with some industry directions
  • Grounded Atomic Processes
  • Tools, applications related work
  • Case Studies
  • Bridging to other SWSL proposals
  • Roadmap for SWSL use of OWL-S

30
Exploiting Taxonomies of Services
name provider role avgResponseTime?
ServiceProfile
FeeBased
feeBasis paymentMethod
ProductProviding Service
ActionService
Physical_ Product
Manufacturing
InfoService
Information Product
physicalProduct manufacturer deliveryRegion del
iveryProvider deliveryType
PhysicalProduct Service
Repair
physicalProduct
Tie in with UDDI, UNSPSC, DL Basis for
matchmaking Multiple profiles multiple taxonomies
transportationMode geographicRegion
Transportation
31
Grounded Atomic Processes
OWL-S
Resources/Concepts
Process Model
Inputs / Outputs
Atomic Process
Message
Operation
Binding to SOAP, HTTP, etc.
WSDL
32
Outline
  • Overview Features of OWL-S
  • Relationships with commercial Web service
    technologies
  • Tools, applications related work
  • Case Studies
  • Bridging to other SWSL proposals
  • Roadmap for SWSL use of OWL-S

33
Tools Components
  • OWL-S Authoring Tools
  • KSL OWL-S Editor
  • CMU WSDL2OWL-S
  • Mind-Swap Ontolink
  • Web Service Discovery
  • CMU OWL-S/UDDI Matchmaker
  • KSL Semantic Discovery Service
  • CMU OWL-S Broker
  • CMU OWL-S for P2P
  • Automatic WS Invocation
  • CMU OWL-S Virtual Machine
  • Web Service Composition
  • Mind-Swap Composer
  • KSL Composition Tool
  • CMU Computer Buyer
  • Libraries
  • Libraries
  • OWL-S API

34
Tools Components
  • OWL-S is just another OWL ontology
  • All the tools technologies for OWL are relevant
  • See also the accompanying slides OWL-S Tools
    and Applications
  • See also http//www.daml.org/services/
  • Tools page

35
Some Applications Using OWL-S
  • CoSAR-TS demo (shown at SWMU)
  • CMU demo(s)
  • Travel planning, Electronic parts buying,
    DAMLzon,
  • Golog composition demo
  • MyGrid (http//mygrid.man.ac.uk)
  • AgentCities (www.agentcities.org)
  • Task Computing (Fujitsu Labs with MINDSWAP)
  • Composer demo (http//www.mindswap.org/evren/comp
    oser/)
  • MyCampus (http//128.2.199.68/project)
  • Secure Mobile Services (UMBC/Finin)

36
Other Resources
  • DAML-S/OWL-S publications
  • Many and varied, tying in with several research
    areas communities
  • See http//www.daml.org/services/owl-s/ for a
    partial listing
  • Formal semantics
  • McIlraith Narayanan Simulation, Verification
    and Automated Composition of Web Services
  • Ankolekar, Huch, Sycara Concurrent Execution
    Semantics for DAML-S with Subtypes

37
Outline
  • Overview Features of OWL-S
  • Relationships with commercial Web service
    technologies
  • Tools related work
  • Case Studies
  • Financial transaction example
  • Amazon example see OWL-S-Amazon.ppt
  • Travel service scenario see OWL-S-Composition.ppt
  • WS Discovery (proposed)
  • Bridging to other SWSL proposals
  • Roadmap for SWSL use of OWL-S

38
Outline
  • Overview Features of OWL-S
  • Relationships with commercial Web service
    technologies
  • Tools, applications related work
  • Case Studies
  • Bridging to other SWSL proposals
  • Roadmap for SWSL use of OWL-S

39
Bridging to other SWSL proposals
  • Use of rules has potential to merge with
    Benjamins proposals re contracting
  • Define an API for composite process modeling
    (as suggested by Benjamin)

40
Outline
  • Overview Features of OWL-S
  • Relationships with commercial Web service
    technologies
  • Tools, applications related work
  • Case Studies
  • Bridging to other SWSL proposals
  • Roadmap for SWSL use of OWL-S

41
Roadmap
  • Keep the OWL-S Profile as the basis of our work
    on Advertising and Discovery
  • See if it can be extended to provide a basis for
    contracting / negotiation
  • Keep the grounded atomic processes with IOPEs
  • Smooth out issues regarding OWL ?? WSDL mapping
  • Select a more natural approach for composite
    process modeling
  • Evolve it so as to accomodate IOPEs expressed
    using OWL / SWRL
  • Merge with grounded atomic processes
About PowerShow.com