HICSS06 slides

Views:
 
Category: Entertainment
     
 

Presentation Description

No description available.

Comments

Presentation Transcript

Slide2: 

Katia Sycara Massimo Paolucci Michael Stollberg Matthew Moran Michal Zaremba Mick Kerrigan Emilia Cimpian Stefania Galizia Barry Norton Liliana Cabral John Domingue Semantic Web Service Tutorial

Slide3: 

Agenda Part I: Introduction to Semantic Web Services 09.00 – 09.30 Part II: SWS Description Frameworks 09.30 – 12.00 OWL-S coffee break 10.15 – 10.45 WSMO lunch 12.00 – 01.00 Part III: SWS Techniques and Systems 01.00 – 01.45 Discovery, Composition, Invocation, Mediation OWL-S IDE, WSMX, IRS Part IV: Hands-On Session 01.45 – 04.00 Tools presentation coffee break 02.15 – 02.45 OWL-S IDE, WSMX

PART I: Introduction to Semantic Web Services : 

PART I: Introduction to Semantic Web Services Michael Stollberg

Slide5: 

Contents The vision of the Semantic Web Ontologies as the basic building block Current Web Service Technologies Vision and Challenges for Semantic Web Services

The Vision: 

Static 500 million users more than 3 billion pages WWW URI, HTML, HTTP The Vision

The Vision: 

WWW URI, HTML, HTTP Serious Problems in information finding, information extracting, information representing, information interpreting and and information maintaining. Semantic Web RDF, RDF(S), OWL Static The Vision

The Vision: 

WWW URI, HTML, HTTP Bringing the computer back as a device for computation Semantic Web RDF, RDF(S), OWL Dynamic Web Services UDDI, WSDL, SOAP Static The Vision

The Vision: 

WWW URI, HTML, HTTP Bringing the web to its full potential Semantic Web RDF, RDF(S), OWL Dynamic Web Services UDDI, WSDL, SOAP Static Semantic Web Services The Vision

Slide10: 

The Semantic Web the next generation of the WWW information has machine-processable and machine-understandable semantics not a separate Web but an augmentation of the current one Ontologies as basic building block

Ontology Definition : 

Ontology Definition formal, explicit specification of a shared conceptualization commonly accepted understanding conceptual model of a domain (ontological theory) unambiguous terminology definitions machine-readability with computational semantics

Ontology Example: 

Ontology Example Concept conceptual entity of the domain Property attribte describing a concept Relation relationship between concepts or properties Axiom coherency description between Concepts / Properties / Relations via logical expressions Person Student Professor Lecture isA – hierarchy (taxonomy) name email matr.-nr. research field topic lecture nr. attends holds holds(Professor, Lecture) => Lecture.topic = Professor.researchField

Slide13: 

Ontology Technology To make the Semantic Web working we need: Ontology Languages: expressivity reasoning support web compliance Ontology Reasoning: large scale knowledge handling fault-tolerant stable & scalable inference machines Ontology Management Techniques: editing and browsing storage and retrieval versioning and evolution Support Ontology Integration Techniques: ontology mapping, alignment, merging semantic interoperability determination and … Applications

Web Services : 

Web Services loosely coupled, reusable components encapsulate discrete functionality distributed programmatically accessible over standard internet protocols add new level of functionality on top of the current web

The Promise of Web Services: 

The Promise of Web Services web-based SOA as new system design paradigm

WSDL : 

WSDL Web Service Description Language W3C effort, WSDL 2 final construction phase describes interface for consuming a Web Service: - Interface: operations (in- & output) - Access (protocol binding) - Endpoint (location of service)

UDDI: 

UDDI Universal Description, Discovery, and Integration Protocol OASIS driven standardization effort Registry for Web Services: - provider - service information - technical access

SOAP: 

SOAP Simple Object Access Protocol W3C Recommendation XML data transport: - sender / receiver - protocol binding - communication aspects - content

Lackings of WS Technology: 

Lackings of WS Technology current technologies allow usage of Web Services but: only syntactical information descriptions syntactic support for discovery, composition and execution => Web Service usability, usage, and integration needs to be inspected manually no semantically marked up content / services no support for the Semantic Web => current Web Service Technology Stack failed to realize the promise of Web Services

Semantic Web Services: 

Semantic Web Technology + Web Service Technology Semantic Web Services => Semantic Web Services as integrated solution for realizing the vision of the next generation of the Web allow machine supported data interpretation ontologies as data model automated discovery, selection, composition, and web-based execution of services

Semantic Web Services: 

Semantic Web Services define exhaustive description frameworks for describing Web Services and related aspects (Web Service Description Ontologies) support ontologies as underlying data model to allow machine supported data interpretation (Semantic Web aspect) define semantically driven technologies for automation of the Web Service usage process (Web Service aspect)

Web Service Usage Process: 

Web Service Usage Process Deployment create & publish Web service description Discovery determine usable services for a request Composition combine services to achieve a goal Selection choose most appropriate service among the available ones Mediation solve mismatches (data, protocol, process) that hamper interoperation Execution invoke Web services following programmatic conventions

Web Service Execution Support: 

Web Service Execution Support Monitoring control the execution process Compensation provide transactional support and undo or mitigate unwanted effects Replacement facilitate the substitution of services by equivalent ones Auditing verify that service execution occurred in the expected way

PART II: Semantic Web Service Ontologies: 

PART II: Semantic Web Service Ontologies Katia Sycara Michael Stollberg

Slide25: 

Contents OWL-S Upper Ontology Service Profile Process Model Service Grounding WSMO WSMO top level notions Choreography and Orchestration Mediation Differences and Commonalities

OWL-S : 

OWL-S Katia Sycara

OWL-S Ontology : 

OWL-S Ontology OWL-S is an OWL ontology to describe Web services OWL-S leverages on OWL to Support capability based discovery of Web services Support automatic composition of Web Services Support automatic invocation of Web services Complete do not compete OWL-S does not aim to replace the Web services standards rather OWL-S attempts to provide a semantic layer OWL-S relies on WSDL for Web service invocation (see Grounding) OWL-s Expands UDDI for Web service discovery (OWL-S/UDDI mapping)

OWL-S Upper Ontology: 

OWL-S Upper Ontology Mapping to WSDL communication protocol (RPC, HTTP, …) marshalling/serialization transformation to and from XSD to OWL Control flow of the service Black/Grey/Glass Box view Protocol Specification Abstract Messages Capability specification General features of the Service Quality of Service Classification in Service taxonomies

Service Profiles: 

Service Profiles Service Profile Presented by a service. Represents what the service provides Two main uses: Advertisements of Web Services capabilities Request of Web services with a given set of capabilities

OWL-S Profile in a Nutshell: 

OWL-S Profile in a Nutshell Describes Web service What capabilities it provides: What transformation the service computes Type of service and products General features such as Agent providing the service Security requirements Quality guarantees of service Primary role: to assist discovery Allows capability based search Allows selection based on requirements of the requester Profile does not specify use/invocation

OWL-S Service Profile Capability Description: 

OWL-S Service Profile Capability Description Preconditions Set of conditions that should hold prior to service invocation Inputs Set of necessary inputs that the requester should provide to invoke the service Outputs Results that the requester should expect after interaction with the service provider is completed Effects Set of statements that should hold true if the service is invoked successfully. Service type What kind of service is provided (eg selling vs distribution) Product Product associated with the service (eg travel vs books vs auto parts)

OWL-S Service Profile Additional Properties: 

OWL-S Service Profile Additional Properties Security Parameters Specify the security capabilities of a Web service (eg support X509 Encryption) Specify the security requirements of a Web service (eg a client should be able to provide X509 Encryption) Quality rating What level of service quality does the Web service provide? Description with standard business taxonomies How would the service be classified in standard taxonomies such as UNSPSC or NAICS? This is not a closed set, new properties can be added using existing ontologies

Process Model: 

Process Model Process Model Describes how a service works: internal processes of the service Specifies service interaction protocol Specifies abstract messages: ontological type of information transmitted Facilitates Web service invocation Composition of Web services Monitoring of interaction

Viewpoints of Process Model: 

Viewpoints of Process Model Three viewpoints of a Web service Glass Box: The Web service reveals all its internal structure Which parts of the service it performs in-house, which one it subcontracts, etc Black Box: The Web service model does not reveal anything about the internal working of the service It just specifies what data it gathers and what data it sends back Grey Box: The Web service selectively hides some parts of its Process Model, while it publicizes others

Definition of Process : 

Definition of Process A Process represents a transformation (function). It is characterized by four parameters Inputs: the inputs that the process requires Preconditions: the conditions that are required for the process to run correctly Outputs: the information that results from (and is returned from) the execution of the process Results: a process may have different outcomes depending on some condition Condition: under what condition the result occurs Constraints on Outputs Effects: real world changes resulting from the execution of the process

Motivation for Results: 

Motivation for Results Processes may terminate in exceptional states: The credit company may fail to charge the credit card The book may be out of stock The deliver of the goods may fail Results support modeling of non-deterministic outcomes of Web services The condition specifies when an outcome is generated Each outcome is characterized by a set of constraints on outputs a set of effects

Example of Process: 

Example of Process <process:AtomicProcess rdf:ID="LogIn"> <process:hasInput rdf:resource="#AcctName"/> <process:hasInput rdf:resource="#Password"/> <process:hasOutput rdf:resource="#Ack"/> <process:hasPrecondition isMember(AccName)/> <process:hasResult> <process:Result> <process:inCondition> <expr:SWRL-Condition> correctLoginInfo(AccName,Password) </expr:SWRL-Condition> </process:inCondition> <process:withOutput rdf:resource=“#Ack“> <valueType rdr:resource=“#LoginAcceptMsg”> </process:withOutput> <process:hasEffect> <expr:SWRL-Condition> loggedIn(AccName,Password) </expr:SWRL-Condition> </process:hasEffect> </process:Result> </process:hasResult> </process:AtomicProcess> Inputs / Outputs Result Condition Effect Output Constraints Precondition

Ontology of Processes: 

Ontology of Processes Process Atomic Simple Composite Provides abstraction, encapsulation etc. Defines a workflow composed of process performs Invokable bound to grounding

Process Model Organization: 

Process Model Organization Process Model is described as a tree structure Composite processes are internal nodes Simple and Atomic Processes are the leaves Simple processes represent an abstraction Placeholders of processes that aren’t specified Or that may be expressed in many different ways Atomic Processes correspond to the basic actions that the Web service performs Hide the details of how the process is implemented Correspond to WSDL operations

Composite Processes: 

Composite Processes Composite Processes specify how processes work together to compute a complex function Composite processes define Control Flow Specify the temporal relations between the executions of the different sub-processes Data Flow Specify how the data produced by one process is transferred to another process

Example of Composite Process: 

Example of Composite Process Sequence BookFlight Depart Arrive Flights Airline Airline Flight Perform Get Flights Flight Perform Select Flight Flights Control Flow Links Specify order of execution Data-Flow Links Specify transfer of data Perform statements Specify the execution of a process

Perform Construct: 

Perform Construct Perform provides invocation mechanism Specify context of process execution input data flow hooks for output data flow Distinction between definition and invocation of a process Definition specifies the process’ I/P/R Perform specify when the process is invoked and with what parameters

Control Flow: 

Control Flow Processes can be chained to form a workflow OWL-S supports the following control flow constructs Sequence/Any-Order: represents a list of processes that are executed in sequence or arbitrary order Conditionals: if-then-else statements Loops: while and repeat-until statements Multithreading and synchronization: split process in multiple threads, and rendezvous (joint) points Non-deterministic choices: (arbitrarily) select one process of a set

Data Flow: 

Data Flow Dataflow allows information that is transferred from process to process. OutputInput: The information produced by one process is transferred to another in the same control construct Input Input: The information received by a composite process is transferred to the sub-processes OutputOutput: The information produced by a subprocess is transferred to a super-process

Process Model: take home lesson: 

Process Model: take home lesson Service Model describes Set of processes that define the operations performed by the Web service Control flow describing the temporal flow of processes Data flow describing the transfer of information between sub-processes

Service Grounding: 

Service Grounding Service Grounding Provides a specification of service access information. Service Model + Grounding give everything needed for using the service Builds upon WSDL to define message structure and physical binding layer Specifies: communication protocols, transport mechanisms, communication languages, etc.

Rationale of Service Grounding: 

Rationale of Service Grounding Provides a specification of service access information. Service Model + Grounding give everything needed for using the service Service description is for reasoning about the service Decide what information to send and what to expect Service Grounding is for message passing Generate outgoing messages, and get incoming messages Mapping XML Schemata to OWL concepts Builds upon WSDL to define message structure and physical binding layer

Mapping OWL-S / WSDL 1.1: 

Mapping OWL-S / WSDL 1.1 Operations correspond to Atomic Processes Input/Output messages correspond to Inputs/Outputs of processes

Example of Grounding: 

Example of Grounding Sequence BookFlight Depart Arrive Flights Airline Airline Flight Perform Get Flights Flight Perform Select Flight Flights Get Flights Op Depart Arrive Flights WSDL Airline Flight Select Flight op Flights

Result of using the Grounding: 

Result of using the Grounding Invocation mechanism for OWL-S Invocation based on WSDL Different types of invocation supported by WSDL can be used with OWL-S Clear separation between service description and invocation/implementation Service description is needed to reason about the service Decide how to use it Decide how what information to send and what to expect Service implementation may be based on SOAP an XSD types The crucial point is that the information that travels on the wires and the information used in the ontologies is the same Allows any web service to be represented using OWL-S For example: Amazon.com

Handling stateful vs stateless Web services: 

Handling stateful vs stateless Web services Stateless Web services The server does not maintain the state of the computation Dataflow links specify how the client communicate the state to the service Stateful Web services The service does maintain the state No need of dataflow links since transfer of information is opaque to the client

Representing Stateful Web services: 

Representing Stateful Web services Sequence BookFlight Flights Airline Airline Flight Perform Get Flights Flight Perform Select Flight Flights Get Flights Op Arrive Flights Server Flight Select Flight op Flights Stateless: no information is transferred between the two operations Client Server

Representing Stateless Web services: 

Representing Stateless Web services Sequence BookFlight Flights Airline Airline Flight Perform Get Flights Flight Perform Select Flight Get Flights Op Arrive Flights Server Flight Select Flight op Flights Client Stateful: information is recorded by the server, no need of transfer between the two operations

Conclusion OWL-S section: 

Conclusion OWL-S section OWL-S provides a language for the description of Web services Service Profile provides description of capabilities of Web Service Allows capability-based discovery Process Model provides the description of how to use a Web service Allows automatic invocation of Web service Service Grounding maps Atomic Processes into WSDL operations Allows separation between description and implementation Supports description of arbitrary Web services

Web Service Modeling Ontology WSMO: 

Web Service Modeling Ontology WSMO Michael Stollberg

Outline: 

Outline WSMO Working Groups Top Level Notions Ontologies Web Services Goals Mediators

WSMO Working Groups: 

WSMO Working Groups A Conceptual Model for SWS A Formal Language for WSMO A Rule-based Language for SWS Execution Environment for WSMO

WSMO Top Level Notions: 

WSMO Top Level Notions Objectives that a client wants to achieve by using Web Services Provide the formally specified terminology of the information used by all other components Semantic description of Web Services: Capability (functional) Interfaces (usage) Connectors between components with mediation facilities for handling heterogeneities WSMO D2, version 1.2, 13 April 2005 (W3C submission)

Non-Functional Properties: 

Non-Functional Properties Dublin Core Metadata Set: complete item description used for resource management Versioning Information evolution support Quality of Service Information availability, stability Other Owner, financial relevant, non-functional aspects for WSMO elements

Non-Functional Properties List: 

Non-Functional Properties List Dublin Core Metadata Contributor Coverage Creator Description Format Identifier Language Publisher Relation Rights Source Subject Title Type Quality of Service Accuracy NetworkRelatedQoS Performance Reliability Robustness Scalability Security Transactional Trust Other Financial Owner TypeOfMatch Version

WSMO Ontologies: 

WSMO Ontologies Provide the formally specified terminology of the information used by all other components Semantic description of Web Services: Capability (functional) Interfaces (usage) Connectors between components with mediation facilities for handling heterogeneities Objectives that a client wants to achieve by using Web Services

Ontology Usage & Principles : 

Ontologies are the ‘data model’ throughout WSMO all WSMO element descriptions rely on ontologies all data interchanged in Web Service usage are ontologies Semantic information processing & ontology reasoning WSMO Ontology Language WSML conceptual syntax for describing WSMO elements logical language for axiomatic expressions (WSML Layering) WSMO Ontology Design Modularization: import / re-using ontologies, modular approach for ontology design De-Coupling: heterogeneity handled by OO Mediators Ontology Usage & Principles

Ontology Specification: 

Non functional properties (see before) Imported Ontologies importing existing ontologies where no heterogeneities arise Used mediators OO Mediators (ontology import with terminology mismatch handling) Ontology Elements: Concepts set of concepts that belong to the ontology, incl. Attributes set of attributes that belong to a concept Relations define interrelations between several concepts Functions special type of relation (unary range = return value) Instances set of instances that belong to the represented ontology Axioms axiomatic expressions in ontology (logical statement) Ontology Specification

WSMO Web Services: 

WSMO Web Services Provide the formally specified terminology of the information used by all other components Semantic description of Web Services: Capability (functional) Interfaces (usage) Connectors between components with mediation facilities for handling heterogeneities Objectives that a client wants to achieve by using Web Services

WSMO Web Service Description : 

WSMO Web Service Description Web Service Implementation (not of interest in Web Service Description) Choreography --- Service Interfaces --- Capability functional description Advertising of Web Service Support for WS Discovery client-service interaction interface for consuming WS External Visible Behavior - Communication Structure - ‘Grounding’ realization of functionality by aggregating other Web Services functional decomposition WS composition Non-functional Properties DC + QoS + Version + financial complete item description quality aspects Web Service Management Orchestration

Capability Specification: 

Capability Specification Non functional properties Imported Ontologies Used mediators OO Mediator: importing ontologies with mismatch resolution WG Mediator: link to a Goal wherefore service is not usable a priori Pre-conditions What a web service expects in order to be able to provide its service. They define conditions over the input. Assumptions Conditions on the state of the world that has to hold before the Web Service can be executed Post-conditions describes the result of the Web Service in relation to the input, and conditions on it Effects Conditions on the state of the world that hold after execution of the Web Service (i.e. changes in the state of the world)

Choreography & Orchestration: 

Choreography & Orchestration VTA example: Choreography = how to interact with the service to consume its functionality Orchestration = how service functionality is achieved by aggregating other Web Services

Choreography Interfaces: 

Choreography Interfaces External Visible Behavior those aspects of the workflow of a Web Service where Interaction is required described by workflow constructs: sequence, split, loop, parallel Communication Structure messages sent and received their order (communicative behavior for service consumption) Grounding executable communication technology for interaction choreography related errors (e.g. input wrong, message timeout, etc.) Formal Model reasoning on Web Service interfaces (service interoperability) semantically enabled mediation on Web Service interfaces Interface for consuming Web Service

Orchestration Aspects : 

Orchestration Aspects decomposition of service functionality other Web services consumed via their choreography interfaces Behavior for Interaction with aggregated Web Services Web Service Business Logic 1 2 3 4

WSMO Web Service Interfaces: 

WSMO Web Service Interfaces behavior interfaces of Web services and clients for “peer-2-peer” interaction Choreography and Orchestration as sub-concepts of Service Interface with common description language service interface description aspects: represent the dynamics of information interchange during service consumption and interaction support ontologies as the underlying data model appropriate communication technology for information interchange sound formal model / semantics of service interface specifications in order to allow advanced reasoning on them support higher-level process constructs for more complex reasoning tasks provide graphical representation for editing and maintenance

Service Interface Description: 

Service Interface Description (WSMO) Ontologies as data model: - every resource description based on ontologies - every data element interchanged is ontology instance Formal Model: “ontologized ASMs” as sound formalism Grounding: - making service interfaces executable - currently grounding to WSDL Downwards Translation UML -> Formal Model User Language (UML2 Activity Diagrams) graphical representation for choreography & orchestration descriptions

Ontologized Abstract State Machines: 

Ontologized Abstract State Machines Vocabulary Ω: ontology schema(s) used in service interface description usage for information interchange: in, out, shared, controlled States ω(Ω): a stable status in the information space defined by attribute values of ontology instances Guarded Transition GT(ω): state transition general structure: if (condition) then (update) condition on current state, update = changes in state transition all GT(ω) whose condition is fulfilled fire in parallel

WSMO Goals : 

WSMO Goals Provide the formally specified terminology of the information used by all other components Semantic description of Web Services: Capability (functional) Interfaces (usage) Connectors between components with mediation facilities for handling heterogeneities Objectives that a client wants to achieve by using Web Services

Goals: 

Goals Goal-driven Approach, derived from AI rational agent approach ontological De-coupling of Requester and Provider ‘intelligent’ mechanisms detect suitable services for solving the Goal service re-use & knowledge-level client side support Usage of Goals within Semantic Web Services A Requester (human or machine) defines a Goal to be resolved independently and on the knowledge level SWS techniques / systems automatically determine Web Services to be used for resolving the Goal (discovery, composition, execution, etc.) Goal Resolution Management is realized in implementations Client Objective Specification along with all information needed for automated resolution

Goal-driven Architecture: 

Goal-driven Architecture Goal objective (desired final state) input for service usage goal resolution constraints, preferences, and policies Goal Resolution Plan - goal resolution algorithm decomposition (optional) service usage / invocation corresponds to / creation of defines Service Implementation (not of interest here) functional behavioral service detection & composition Client-Side Service-Side Domain Knowledge Ontology Ontology Ontology Ontology service usage

Mediation : 

Mediation Heterogeneity … Mismatches on structural / semantic / conceptual / level Occur between different components that shall interoperate Especially in distributed & open environments like the Internet Concept of Mediation (Wiederhold, 94): Mediators as components that resolve mismatches Declarative Approach: Semantic description of resources ‘Intelligent’ mechanisms that resolve mismatches independent of content Mediation cannot be fully automated (integration decision) Levels of Mediation within Semantic Web Services (WSMF): Data Level: mediate heterogeneous Data Sources Protocol Level: mediate heterogeneous Communication Patterns Process Level: mediate heterogeneous Business Processes

WSMO Mediators Overview: 

WSMO Mediators Overview OO Mediator O O / G / WS / M 1 .. n 1 GG Mediator G G 1 .. n 1 ..n WG Mediator G xor WS WS xor G 1 .. n 1 ..n Process Level (Communication) WW Mediator WS WS 1 1 ..n terminology representation & protocol Δ-Relation Mediation data level mediation Δ-Relation Mediation Process Level (Communication) Δ-Relation Mediation technique used imports / reuses correlation Legend Process Level (Cooperation)

Mediator Usage: 

Mediator Usage

Slide79: 

OWL-S and WSMO Commonalities and Differences

OWL-S and WSMO: 

OWL-S and WSMO OWL-S = ontology and language to describe Web services WSMO = ontology and language for core elements of Semantic Web Service systems OWL-S profile ≈ WSMO capability + non-functional properties OWL-S Grounding  current WSMO Grounding OWL-S Process Model  WSMO Service Interfaces Main Description Elements Correlation:

Mediation in OWL-S and WSMO: 

Mediation in OWL-S and WSMO OWL-S does not have an explicit notion of mediator Mediation is a by-product of the orchestration process E.g. protocol mismatches are resolved by constructing a plan that coordinates the activity of the Web services …or it results from translation axioms that are available to the Web services It is not the mission of OWL-S to generate these axioms WSMO regards mediators as key conceptual elements Different kinds of mediators: OO Mediators for ensuring semantic interoperability GG, WG mediators to link Goals and Web Services WW Mediators to establish service interoperability Reusable mediators Mediation techniques under development

Semantic Representation: 

Semantic Representation OWL-S and WSMO adopt a similar view on the need of ontologies and explicit semantics but they rely on different logics OWL-S is based on OWL/SWRL OWL represent taxonomical knowledge SWRL provides inference rules FLOWS as formal model for process model WSMO is based on WSML a family of languages with a common basis for compatibility and extensions in the direction of Description Logics and Logic Programming Ontologizes Abstract State Machines and formal model for Service Interface Descriptions

OWL vs WSML : 

OWL vs WSML OWL Lite OWL DL OWL Full WSML Flight WSML DL WSML Core WSML Rule WSML Full Description Logics full RDF(S) support subset Description Logics Logic Programming First Order Logic

Summary: 

Summary

PART III: Semantic Web Service Techniques and Systems: 

PART III: Semantic Web Service Techniques and Systems Michael Stollberg

Slide86: 

Contents The “Virtual Travel Agency Example” Goal and Web service description discovery mediation SWS tools and systems Web Service Execution Environment WSMX OWL-S Integrated Development Environment IRS

Challenges: 

Challenges Web services as loosely coupled components that shall interoperate dynamically and automatically Techniques required for: Discovery How are Web services found and selected? Composition How to aggregate Web Services into a complex functionality? Conversation How to ensure automated interaction of Web Services? Invocation How to access and invoke Semantic Web Services? Mediation and Interoperability How are data and protocol mismatches resolved? Integrated systems for automated Web service usage : Editing and Management Execution Control of Functional Components APIs and web-based

Virtual Travel Agency Use Case: 

Virtual Travel Agency Use Case Michael is employed in DERI Austria and wants to book a flight and a hotel for the HICSS-39 conference the start-up company VTA provides tourism and business travel services based on Semantic Web Service technology => how does the interplay of Michael, VTA, and other Web Services look like?

Domain Ontologies : 

Domain Ontologies All terminology used in resource descriptions are based on ontologies and all information interchanged should be ontology instances Domain Ontologies needed for this Use Case: Trip Reservation Ontology, Location Ontology, Date and Time Ontology, Purchase Ontology, … possibly more Ontology Design for the Semantic Web “real ontologies, no crappy data models” (Dieter Fensel) (re-)use existing, widely accepted ontologies modular ontology design … is a very difficult and challenging task determine agreed conceptualization of domain correct formalization (e.g. misuse of is_a / part_of relations) => requires expertise in knowledge engineering

Trip Reservation Ontology: 

Trip Reservation Ontology defines the terminology for trips (traveling, accomodation, holiday / business travel facilities) and reservations provided by community of interest (e.g. Austrian Tourism Association) main concepts: TRIP describes a trip (a journey between locations) passenger, origin & destination, means of travel, etc. RESERVATION describes reservations for tickets, accomodation, or complete trips customer, trip, price, payment RESERVATION REQUEST RESERVATION OFFER RESERVATION CONFIRMATION uses other ontologies: Location Ontology for origin & destination specification Date and Time Ontology for departure, arrival, duration information Purchase Ontology for payment related aspects

Goal Description: 

Goal Description “book flight and hotel for the HICSS-39 for Michael” goal capability postcondition: get a trip reservation for this goal _"http://www.wsmo.org/examples/goals/hicss39" importsOntology {_"http://www.wsmo.org/ontologies/tripReservationOntology", …} capability postcondition definedBy ?tripReservation memberOf tr#reservation[ customer hasValue fof#michael, reservationItem hasValue ?tripHICSS] and ?tripHICSS memberOf tr#trip[ passenger hasValue fof#michael, origin hasValue loc#innsbruck, destination hasValue loc#kauai, meansOfTransport hasValue ?flight, accomodation hasValue ?hotel] and ?flight[airline hasValue tr#staralliance] memberOf tr#flight and ?hotel[name hasValue “Grand Hyatt Kauai Resort”] memberOf tr#hotel .

VTA Service Description: 

VTA Service Description book tickets, hotels, amenities, etc. capability description (pre-state) capability VTAcapability sharedVariables {?creditCard, ?initialBalance, ?item, ?passenger} precondition definedBy ?reservationRequest[ reservationItem hasValue ?item, passenger hasValue ?passenger, payment hasValue ?creditcard, ] memberOf tr#reservationRequest and ((?item memberOf tr#trip) or (?item memberOf tr#ticket)) and ?creditCard[balance hasValue ?initialBalance] memberOf po#creditCard . assumption definedBy po#validCreditCard(?creditCard) and (?creditCard[type hasValue po#visa] or ?creditCard[type hasValue po#mastercard]).

VTA Service Description: 

VTA Service Description capability description (post-state) postcondition definedBy ?reservation[ reservationItem hasValue ?item, customer hasValue ?passenger, payment hasValue ?creditcard ] memberOf tr#reservation . assumption definedBy reservationPrice(?reservation, ?tripPrice) and ?finalBalance= (?initialBalance - ?ticketPrice) and ?creditCard[po#balance hasValue ?finalBalance] .

Web Service Discovery: 

Web Service Discovery James Objective: „book a flight and a hotel for me for the HICSS-39.“ Service Registry WS Discoverer has searches VTA result set includes Goal definition

Discovery Techniques : 

Discovery Techniques different techniques available trade-off: ease-of-provision <-> accuracy resource descriptions & matchmaking algorithms Key Word Matching match natural language key words in resource descriptions Controlled Vocabulary ontology-based key word matching Semantic Matchmaking … what Semantic Web Services aim at Ease of provision Possible Accuracy

Matchmaking Notions & Intentions: 

Matchmaking Notions & Intentions Exact Match: G, WS, O, M ╞ x. (G(x) <=> WS(x) ) PlugIn Match: G, WS, O, M ╞ x. (G(x) => WS(x) ) Subsumption Match: G, WS, O, M ╞ x. (G(x) <= WS(x) ) Intersection Match: G, WS, O, M ╞ x. (G(x)  WS(x) ) Non Match: G, WS, O, M ╞ ¬x. (G(x)  WS(x) ) = G = WS Keller, U.; Lara, R.; Polleres, A. (Eds): WSMO Web Service Discovery. WSML Working Draft D5.1, 12 Nov 2004.

Discoverer Architecture: 

Discoverer Architecture Discovery as central Semantic Web Services technology Integrated Discoverer Architectures (under construction): Resource Repository (UDDI or other) Keyword-/ Classification-based Filtering Controlled Vocabulary Filtering Semantic Matchmaking usable Web Service efficient narrowing of search space (relevant services to be inspected) retrieve Service Descriptions invoke Web Service

Choreography Discovery: 

Choreography Discovery Requested Interface send request select from offer receive confirmation Goal defines VTA VTA WS ‘Trip Booking’ Capability Interface (Chor.) get request provide offer receive selection send confirmation Interface (Orch.) flight request hotel request book flight book hotel Flight WS Capability Interface (Chor.) get request provide offer receive selection send confirmation Orch. .. Hotel WS Capability Interface (Chor.) get request provide offer receive selection send confirmation Orch. .. provides Requested Capability book flight & hotel - both choreography interfaces given (“static”) correct & complete consumption of VTA => existence of a valid choreography? - VTA Orchestration & Chor. Interfaces of aggregated WS given => existence of a valid choreography between VTA and each aggregated WS? Choreography Discovery as a central reasoning task in Service Interfaces ‘choreographies’ do not have to be described, only existence determination

Choreography Discovery: 

internal business logic of Web Service (not of interest in Service Interface Description) Choreography Discovery internal business logic of Web Service (not of interest in Service Interface Description) a valid choreography exists if: 1) Information Compatibility compatible vocabulary homogeneous ontologies 2) Communication Compatibility start state for interaction a termination state can be reached without any additional input

Communication Compatibility Example: 

Communication Compatibility Example ΩS1(ωØ) = {Ø} ΩS1(ω1) = {request(out)} ΩS1(ω2a) = {offer(in), changeReq(out)} if Ø then request ΩS2(ωØ) = {Ø} ΩS2(ω1) = {request(in), offer(out)} if request then offer if cnd1(offer) then changeReq ΩS1(ω2b) = {offer(in), order(out)} if cnd2(offer) then order ΩS2(ω2a) = {changeReq(in),offer(out)} if changeReq then offer ΩS2(ω2b) = {order(in), conf(out)} if order then conf ΩS1(ω3) = {offer(in), conf(in)} if conf then Ø Goal Behavior Interface VTA Behavior Interface

Orchestration Validation Example: 

Orchestration Validation Example if Ø then (FWS, flightRequest) if request then offer if order then confirmation VTA Web Service Orchestration Start (VTA, FWS) Termination (VTA, FWS) if flightOffer then (HWS, hotelRequest) if selection then (FWS, flightBookingOrder) if selection, flightBookingConf then (HWS, hotelBookingOrder) Flight WS Behavior Interface if request then offer if order then confirmation Hotel WS Behavior Interface Start (VTA, HWS) Termination (VTA, HWS) Orchestration is valid if valid choreography exists for interactions between Orchestrator and each aggregated Web Service, done by choreography discovery

Mediation: 

Mediation Heterogeneity as inherent characteristic of (Semantic) Web: heterogeneous terminology heterogeneous languages / formalisms heterogeneous communication protocols and business processes WSMO identifies Mediators as top level element, i.e. central aspect of Semantic Web Services levels of mediation: data, protocol, processes WSMO Mediator types Approach: declarative, generic mismatch resolution classification of possible & resolvable mismatches mediation definition language & mediation patterns execution environment for mappings

Data Level (OO) Mediation: 

Data Level (OO) Mediation Related Aspects / Techniques: Ontology Integration (Mapping, Merging, Alignment) Data Lifting & Lowering Transformation between Languages / Formalisms Data Level Mismatch Classification Conceptualization Mismatches same domain concepts, but different conceptualization different levels of abstraction different ontological structure => resolution only incl. human intervention Explication Mismatches mismatches between: T (Term used) D (definition of concepts), C (real world concept) => automated resolution partially possible

Ontology Mapping Language: 

Ontology Mapping Language Language Neutral Mapping Language mapping definitions on meta-layer (i.e. on generic ontological contructs) independent of ontology specification langauge “Grounding” to specific langauges for execution (WSML, OWL, F-Logic) Main Features: Mapping Document (sources, mappings, mediation service) direction of mapping (uni- / bidirectional) mapping between Ontology Constructs: classMapping, attributeMapping, relationMapping (between similar constructs) classAtrributeMapping, classRelationMapping, classInstanceMapping instanceMapping (explicit ontology instance transformation) Conditions / logical expressions for data type mismatch handling, restriction of mapping validity, and complex mapping definitions Mapping operators: =, <, <=, >, >=, and, or, not inverse, symmetric, transitive, reflexive join, split

Mapping Language Example: 

Ontology O2 Mapping Language Example Human - name Adult Child Person name age 1234 memberOf Person name =James age = 22 classMapping(unidirectional o2:Person o1.Adult attributeValueCondition(o2.Person.age >= 18)) this allows to transform the instance 1234 of ontology O2 into a valid instance of ‘adult’ in ontology O1 Ontology O1

Protocol & Process Level Mediation: 

internal business logic of Web Service (not of interest in Service Interface Description) internal business logic of Web Service (not of interest in Service Interface Description) Protocol & Process Level Mediation if a choreography does not exist, then find an appropriate WW Mediator that resolves possible mismatches to establish Information Compatibility (OO Mediator usage) resolves process / protocol level mismatches in to establish Communication Compatibility WW Mediator

Process Mediation – Addressed Mismatches: 

Process Mediation – Addressed Mismatches

Unsolvable Mismatches: 

Unsolvable Mismatches A PM ? A PM ? B A B PM ? A Ack

Process Mediation Example : 

itinerary[origin, destination, date] time price origin destination itinerary[origin, destination] date itinerary [route, date, time, price] R E Q U E S T S E R V I C E Processes Mediator Process Mediation Example

Process Mediation Example : 

time price date R E Q U E S T S E R V I C E Processes Mediator Process Mediation Example itinerary[origin, destination, date] origin destination itinerary[origin, destination] itinerary [route, date, time, price]

Process Mediation Example : 

time price date R E Q U E S T S E R V I C E Processes Mediator Process Mediation Example itinerary[origin, destination, date] origin destination itinerary[origin, destination] itinerary [route, date, time, price]

Process Mediation Example : 

time price date R E Q U E S T S E R V I C E Processes Mediator itinerary[origin, destination, date] origin destination itinerary[origin, destination] itinerary [route, date, time, price] Process Mediation Example

Process Mediation Example : 

time price date R E Q U E S T S E R V I C E Processes Mediator itinerary[origin, destination, date] origin destination itinerary[origin, destination] itinerary [route, date, time, price] Process Mediation Example

Slide114: 

SWS Tools and Systems OWL-S Integrated Development IDE OWL-S tool suite WS implementation, deployment, discovery, invocation, and verification The Web Service Execution Environment WSMX Integrated Semantic Web Service system WSMO reference implementation The Web Service Modelling Toolkit (WSMT) Internet Reasoning Service IRS Infrastructure for Semantic Web services Server acts as broker, as well as publisher Client allows goal-based invocation

OWL-S IDE (CMU): 

OWL-S IDE (CMU) Integration of WS implementation, deployment, discovery, invocation and verification

Integrated WS Development cycle: 

Integrated WS Development cycle OWL-S IDE aims at automating WS-Development and invocation cycle Based on Eclipse to support WS programmers (Semi) Automated generation of WSDL and OWL-S descriptions Consistency checking Automated publication with UDDI Integrated Semantic discovery in UDDI Automated generation of client code

WS Development and invocation: 

WS Development and invocation Web Service Development Implement Web service Produce WSDL and OWL-S WS description Deploy Web service Advertise to available UDDI Make service available for invocation Web Service invocation on client side Find Web service in UDDI Translate internal data representation to WS data representation Invoke Web service consistently with specification of OWL-S Process Model All descriptions should fit together otherwise interaction with Web service fails

Overview OWL-S IDE: 

Overview OWL-S IDE OWL-S2UDDI Converter WSDL2OWL-S Converter Java Code Generated OWL-S Grounding Embed guided generation of WSDL and schematic OWL-S directly from Java exploiting Java2WSDL and WSDL2OWL-S tools OWL-S VM provides an execution environment for OWL-S Web services Automatic publication, inquiry and capability-based discovery with Semantic UDDI OWL-S Editor integrated with Eclipse OWL-S API provide easy processing in Java Integrated editing of all OWL-S modules

OWL-S IDE Components: 

OWL-S IDE Components WSDL2OWL-S map WSDL descriptions into OWL-S descriptions OWL-S API transform OWL-S code in an equivalent set of Java classes for easy processing OWL-S Virtual Machine control interaction with Web service consistently with Process Model and Grounding OWL-S/UDDI translator translate OWL-S Profiles in UDDI statements Semantic UDDI integrate UDDI Registry and OWL reasoning to facilitate discovery of Web services

WSMX Motivation: 

WSMX Motivation Provide middleware ‘glue’ for Semantic Web Services Allow service providers focus on their business Provide a reference implementation for WSMO Eat our own cake Provide an environment for goal based service discovery and invocation Run-time binding of service requester and provider Provide a flexible Service Oriented Architecture Add, update, remove components at run-time as needed Keep open-source to encourage participation Developers are free to use in their own code Define formal execution semantics Unambiguous model of system behaviour

WSMX Usage - P2P SWS Computing: 

WSMX Usage - P2P SWS Computing complete the functionality for all the boxes

Design Principles: 

Design Principles Strong Decoupling & Strong Mediation autonomous components with mediators for interoperability Interface vs. Implementation distinguish interface (= description) from implementation (=program) Peer to Peer interaction between equal partners (in terms of control) WSMO Design Principles == WSMX Design Principles == SOA Design Principles

WSMX Architecture: 

WSMX Architecture Messaging Application Management Service Oriented Architectures

System Entry Points: 

System Entry Points

Web Services Modelling Toolkit: 

Web Services Modelling Toolkit

Web Services Modelling Toolkit: 

Web Services Modelling Toolkit Allow description of goals, services and mediation in WSMO Allows WSMO domain ontologies to be built Communicates goals and service definitions to execution environments

WSMX @ Sourceforge.net: 

WSMX @ Sourceforge.net

WSMX Wrap Up: 

WSMX Wrap Up Conceptual model is WSMO End to end functionality for executing SWS Has a formal execution semantics Real implementation Open source code base at SourceForge Event-driven component architecture Growing functionality - developers welcome 

Slide129: 

IRS-III: A framework and platform for building Semantic Web Services Stefania Galizia and Barry Norton

Slide130: 

The Internet Reasoning Service is an infrastructure for publishing, locating, executing and composing Semantic Web Services

Design Principles: 

Design Principles Ontological separation of User and Web Service Contexts Capability Based Invocation Ease of Use One Click Publishing Agnostic to Service Implementation Platform Connected to External Environment Open Complete Descriptions Inspectable Interoperable with SWS Frameworks and Platforms

Features of IRS-III (1/2): 

Features of IRS-III (1/2) Based on Soap messaging standard Provides Java API for client applications Provides built-in brokering and service discovery support Provides capability-centred service invocation

Features of IRS-III (2/2): 

Features of IRS-III (2/2) Publishing support for variety of platforms Java, Lisp, Web Applications, Java Web Services Enables publication of ‘standard code’ Provides clever wrappers One-click publishing of web services Integrated with standard Web Services world Semantic web service to IRS ‘Ordinary’ web service

IRS-III Framework: 

IRS-III Framework

IRS-III Architecture: 

LispWeb Server IRS-III Architecture IRS-III Server WS Publisher Registry OWL(-S) Handler OWL(-S) SOAP Handler SOAP Publishing Platforms Web Service Java Code Web Application SOAP

Publishing Platform Architecture: 

Publishing Platform Architecture IRS-III Publishing Platform HTTP Server SOAP Handler Service Registrar Service Invoker WS Service Registry IRS-III Server Invocation Client SOAP SOAP SOAP Web Service 1 Web Service 2 Web Service 3

IRS-III/WSMO differences: 

IRS-III/WSMO differences Underlying language OCML Goals have inputs and outputs IRS-III broker finds applicable web services via mediators Used mediator within WS capability Mediator source = goal Web services have inputs and outputs ‘inherited’ from goal descriptions Web service selected via assumption (in capability)

Slide138: 

IRS-III Demo Stefania Galizia and Barry Norton

SWS Creation & Usage Steps: 

SWS Creation & Usage Steps Create a goal description (e.g. exchange-rate-goal) Add input and output roles Include role type and soap binding Create a wg-mediator description Source = goal Possibly add a mediation service Create a web service description Used-mediator of WS capability = wg-mediator above Specify Operation <-> Lisp function mapping in Choreography Grounding Publish against web service description Invoke web service by ‘achieve goal’

Multiple WS for goal: 

Multiple WS for goal Each WS has a mediator for used-mediator slot of capability Some WS may share a mediator Define a kappa expression for assumption slot of WS capability Kappa expression format (kappa (?goal) <ocml relations>) Getting the value of an input role (wsmo-role-value ?goal <role-name>)

Defining a Mediation Service: 

Defining a Mediation Service Define a wg-mediator Source = goal Mediation-service = goal for mediation service Mediation goal Mediation goal input roles are a subset of goal input roles Define mediator and WS as normal

Valid Relations: 

Valid Relations Classes are unary relations e.g. (country ?x) Slots are binary relations e.g. (is-capital-of ?x ?y) Standard relations in base (OCML toplevel) ontology =, ==, <, >, member

European Currency Assumption: 

European Currency Assumption (kappa (?goal) (member (wsmo-role-value ?goal 'has_source_currency) '(euro pound)))

Goal Based Invocation: 

Goal Based Invocation Instantiate Goal Description Exchange-rate-goal Has-source-currency: us-dollars Has-target-currency: pound Web Service Discovery European-exchange-rate-ws Non-european-exchange-rate-ws European-bank-exchange-rate-ws Solve Goal Goal -> WG Mediator -> WS/Capability/Used-mediator Web service selection European-exchange-rate Mediate input values ‘$’ -> us-dollar WS -> Capability -> Assumption expression Mediation Invoke selected web service European-exchange-rate Invocation

Hands-On Session (with IRS III): 

Hands-On Session (with IRS III) Barry Norton and Stefania Galizia

European Travel Scenario: 

European Travel Scenario

European Travel Demo : 

European Travel Demo

IRS-III Hands On Task: 

IRS-III Hands On Task Develop an application for the European Travel scenario based on SWS. The application should support a person booking a train ticket between 2 European cities at a specific time and date Create Goal, Web service and Mediator WSMO descriptions in IRS-III (european-travel-service-descriptions) for available services. Your descriptions should choose a specific service depending on the start and end locations and the type of traveller. Use the assumption slot to do this Publish available lisp functions against your descriptions Invoke the web services Solution to be shown at the end of this session

Tutorial Setup: 

Tutorial Setup IRS Server (3000) Domain Models Web Service WSMO Descriptions + Registry of Implementors Goal WSMO Descriptions + SOAP Binding Travel Services (3001) IRS Lisp Publisher IRS-III Knowledge Model Browser & Editor Mediator WSMO Descriptions

Travel Related Knowledge Models: 

Travel Related Knowledge Models

Key Classes, Relations, Instances : 

Key Classes, Relations, Instances Is-in-country <city> <country> e.g. (is-in-country berlin germany) -> true (student <person>) -> true, for john matt michal (business-person <person>) -> true, for liliana michael

Goals: 

Goals 1- Get train timetable Inputs: origin and destination cities (city), date (date-and-time, e.g. (18 4 2004)) Output: timetable (string) 2- Book train Inputs: passenger name (person), origin and destination cities, departure time-date (list-date-and-time, e.g. (20 33 16 15 9 2004)) Output: booking information (string)

Services: 

Services 1 service available for goal 1 No constraints 6 services available for goal 2 As a provider write the constraints applicable to the services to satisfy the goal (assumption logical expressions) 1 wg-mediator mediation-service Used to convert time in list format to time in universal format

Service constraints: 

Service constraints Services 2-5 Services for (origin and destination) cities in determined countries Service 4-5 Need a mediation service to map goal time-date to service time-date Services 6-7 Services for students or business people in Europe

Available Functions (1/3): 

Available Functions (1/3) 1- get-train-times paris london (18 4 2004) "Timetable of trains from PARIS to LONDON on 18, 4, 2004 5:18 …23:36" 2- book-english-train-journey christoph milton-keynes london (20 33 16 15 9 2004) "British Rail: CHRISTOPH is booked on the 66 going from MILTON-KEYNES to LONDON at 16:49, 15, SEPTEMBER 2004. The price is 169 Euros." 3- book-french-train-journey sinuhe paris lyon (3 4 6 18 8 2004) "SNCF: SINUHE is booked on the 511 going from PARIS to LYON at 6:12, 18, AUGUST 2004. The price is 27 Euros."

Available Functions (2/3): 

Available Functions (2/3) 4- book-german-train-journey christoph berlin frankfurt 3304251200 "First Class Booking German Rail (Die Bahn): CHRISTOPH is booked on the 323 going from BERLIN to FRANKFURT at 17:11, 15, SEPTEMBER 2004. The price is 35 Euros." 5- book-austrian-train-journey sinuhe vienna innsbruck 3304251200 "Austrian Rail (OBB): SINUHE is booked on the 367 going from VIENNA to INNSBRUCK at 16:47, 15, SEPTEMBER 2004. The price is 36 Euros. "

Available Functions (3/3): 

Available Functions (3/3) 6- book-student-european-train-journey john london nice (3 4 6 18 8 2004) "European Student Rail Travel: JOHN is booked on the 916 going from LONDON to NICE at 6:44, 18, AUGUST 2004. The price is 94 Euros. " 7- book-business-european-train-journey liliana paris innsbruck (3 4 6 18 8 2004) "Business Europe: LILIANA is booked on the 461 going from PARIS to INNSBRUCK at 6:12, 18, AUGUST 2004. The price is 325 Euros." 8- mediate-time (lisp function) or JavaMediateTime/mediate (java) (9 30 17 20 9 2004) 3304686609

Example: Goal: 

Example: Goal In IRS-III or In WSMT

Example: Mediator: 

Example: Mediator In IRS-III or In WSMT

Example: Service: 

Example: Service In IRS-III or In WSMT

Example: Publishing: 

Example: Publishing

Tips: 

Tips Order matters for input roles Input roles in goal must match order of arguments to function Need to specify both input roles and output role Be careful with soap binding sexpr as default String for one line output Use xml for multiple line output Input roles for web services inherited from goal Slot names can not be the same as class names Goal <-> web service linking mediator in the capability used mediators

Closing, Outlook, References, Acknowledgements: 

Closing, Outlook, References, Acknowledgements

Tutorial Wrap-up: 

Tutorial Wrap-up The targets of the presented tutorial were to: understand aims & challenges within Semantic Web Services understand OWL-S and WSMO: design principles & paradigms ontology elements .. an overview of ‘hot topics’ within the Semantic Web and Semantic Web Services .. OWL-S and WSMO Tools and System Presentation .. do-it-yourself Hands-On Session => you should now be able to correctly assess emerging technologies & products for Semantic Web Services and utilize these for your future work

OWL-S and WSMO: 

OWL-S and WSMO North-American and European initiatives with converging aims Offer a SWS platforms to be used by B2C and B2B applications Provide a backbone for advanced integration and automation of industrial and business processes Are the most developed SWS technologies up to now available to be used in commercial and industrial applications Developments towards refining and interconnecting them

Future work – OWL-S: 

Future work – OWL-S OWL-S is close to conclusion, but a few issues still need to be addressed An exception mechanism is still missing There is a need of an exec instruction for loading and executing Process Models dynamically A new Grounding for WSDL 2 should be developed Additional issues that OWL-S does not address Security and Policies are not directly expressed in OWL-S yet There are no facilities for Contracting and agreement There are no facilities for Web service management

Future work – OWL-S (2): 

Future work – OWL-S (2) Standardization The OWL-S coalition is planning to submit a W3C note to draw attention and create momentum for W3C standardization activities on Semantic Web services Members of the OWL-S coalition are already active in standardization committee such as UDDI, WSDL 2 and WS Coordination The Future of OWL-S OWL-S is nearing its completion and it will converge in the results of the SWSI working group or future standardization activities The OWL-S coalition plans to remain in existence to maintain and further develop the language if needed

Future work - WSMO: 

Future work - WSMO Further develop and consolidate concepts and implementation aspects of WSMO, WSML and WSMX Choreography and orchestration Business process execution Web services composition Process and protocol mediation Open to new ideas, contributions and suggestions

Future Work WSMO (2): 

Future Work WSMO (2) Standardization … WSMO & WSMX – applied in several case studies within EU funded projects WSMO Studio development WSMX v2 to be release in November

Future Work IRS: 

Future Work IRS IRS III further integration with WSMX toolset on-going IRS-III to be applied in: Business Processes Modelling (w/ SAP in DIP, and new EU project SUPER) Geographical Information Systems (DIP project) Biomed Modelling (new EU project Living Human Digital Library) eLearning (new EU project LUISA)

Future Work IRS (2): 

Future Work IRS (2) IRS orchestration and choreography to be extended to three-level model: Graphical language: UML Activity Diagrams Workflow language: Cashew Executable language: Ontologized Abstract State Machines extends OWL-S aligns with Workflow Patterns expresses choreography, as well as orchestration

Beyond OWL-S and WSMO: 

Beyond OWL-S and WSMO Although OWL-S and WSMO are the main initiatives on Semantic Web services, they are not the only activities Semantic Web Services Interest Group Interest group founded at W3C to discuss issues related to Semantic Web Services (http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/swsig/) SWSI: International initiative to push toward a standardization of SWS (http://www.swsi.org) WSDL-S: Semantic Annotation of WSDL interfaces Semantic Web services are entering standardization W3C working groups currently starting OASIS working groups currently starting => eventually major influence on next generation Web technology

References OWL-S: 

References OWL-S The main repository of papers on OWL-S is at http://www.daml.org/services/owl-s/pub-archive.html that contains many papers produced by the coalition as well as from the community at large The main source of information on OWL-S is the Web site http://www.daml.org/services/owl-s The rest of this section will report what we believe to be the most influential papers on OWL-S as well as paper referred in this tutorial

References OWL-S: 

References OWL-S Fundamental David Martin, Massimo Paolucci, Sheila McIlraith, Mark Burstein, Drew McDermott, Deborah McGuinness, Bijan Parsia, Terry Payne, Marta Sabou, Monika Solanki, Naveen Srinivasan, Katia Sycara, "Bringing Semantics to Web Services: The OWL-S Approach", Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Semantic Web Services and Web Process Composition (SWSWPC 2004), July 6-9, 2004, San Diego, California, USA. The DAML Services Coalition (alphabetically Anupriya Ankolenkar, Mark Burstein, Jerry R. Hobbs, Ora Lassila, David L. Martin, Drew McDermott, Sheila A. McIlraith, Srini Narayanan, Massimo Paolucci, Terry R. Payne and Katia Sycara), "DAML-S: Web Service Description for the Semantic Web", Proceedings of the First International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC), Sardinia (Italy), June, 2002. DAML Services Coalition (alphabetically A. Ankolekar, M. Burstein, J. Hobbs, O. Lassila, D. Martin, S. McIlraith, S. Narayanan, M. Paolucci, T. Payne, K. Sycara, H. Zeng), "DAML-S: Semantic Markup for Web Services", in Proceedings of the International Semantic Web Working Symposium (SWWS), July 30-August 1, 2001.

References OWL-S: 

References OWL-S Discovery Lei Li and Ian Horrocks. A software framework for matchmaking based on semantic web technology. In Proc. of the Twelfth International World Wide Web Conference (WWW 2003), 2003 B. Benatallah, M. Hacid, C. Rey, F. Toumani Towards Semantic Reasoning for Web Services Discovery,. In Proc. of the International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC 2003), 2003 Daniel J. Mandell and Sheila A. McIlraith. Adapting BPEL4WS for the Semantic Web: The Bottom-Up Approach to Web Service Interoperation. In Proceedings of the Second International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC2003), Massimo Paolucci, Takahiro Kawamura, Terry R. Payne, Katia Sycara; Importing the Semantic Web in UDDI. In Proceedings of Web Services, E-business and Semantic Web Workshop, 2002 Massimo Paolucci, Takahiro Kawamura, Terry R. Payne, Katia Sycara; "Semantic Matching of Web Services Capabilities." In Proceedings of the 1st International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC2002), 2002

References OWL-S : 

References OWL-S Composition and Invocation Evren Sirin, Bijan Parsia, Dan Wu, James Hendler, and Dana Nau. HTN planning for web service composition using SHOP2. In Journal of Web Semantics, To appear, 2004 Katia Sycara, Massimo Paolucci, Anupriya Ankolekar and Naveen Srinivasan, "Automated Discovery, Interaction and Composition of Semantic Web services," Journal of Web Semantics, Volume 1, Issue 1, September 2003, pp. 27-46 Massimo Paolucci, Anupriya Ankolekar, Naveen Srinivasan and Katia Sycara, "The DAML-S Virtual Machine," In Proceedings of the Second International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC), 2003, Srini Narayanan and Sheila McIlraith ``Analysis and Simulation of Web Services" Computer Networks, 42 (2003), 675-693, Elsevier Science, 2003

References OWL-S: 

References OWL-S Formal Models and Verification Anupriya Ankolekar, Massimo Paolucci, and Katia Sycara Spinning the OWL-S Process Model -- Toward the Verification of the OWL-S Process Models In Proceedings of Workshop on Semantic Web Services: Preparing to Meet the World of Business Applications (ISWC 2004) Narayanan, S. and McIlraith, S. ``Simulation, Verification and Automated Composition of Web Services''. IN the Proceedings of the Eleventh International World Wide Web Conference (WWW-11), May, 2002 Anupriya Ankolekar, Frank Huch and Katia Sycara. "Concurrent Semantics for the Web Services Specification Language DAML-S." In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Coordination Models and Languages, York, UK, April 8-11, 2002. Anupriya Ankolekar, Frank Huch, Katia Sycara. "Concurrent Execution Semantics for DAML-S with Subtypes." In The First International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC), 2002.

References OWL-S: 

References OWL-S Policies and Security Ronald Ashri, Grit Denker, Darren Marvin, Mike Surridge,Terry Payne, Semantic Web Service Interaction Protocols: An Ontological Approach, 3rd International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC2004), Hiroshima, Japan Lalana Kagal, Grit Denker, Tim Finin, Massimo Paolucci, Naveen Srinivasan and Katia Sycara, "An Approach to Confidentiality and Integrity for OWL-S", forthcoming in Proceedings of AAAI 2004 Spring Symposium. Grit Denker, Lalana Kagal, Tim Finin, Massimo Paolucci, Naveen Srinivasan and Katia Sycara, "Security For DAML Web Services: Annotation and Matchmaking" In Proceedings of the Second International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC 2003), Sandial Island, Fl, USA, October 2003, pp 335-350.

References OWL-S: 

References OWL-S Applications Schlenoff, C., Barbera, A., Washington, R., “Experiences in Developing an Intelligent Ground Vehicle (IGV) Ontology in Protégé” In Proceedings of the 7th International Protege Conference, Bethesda, MD, July 6 - 8, 2004. Aabhas V Paliwal, Nabil Adam, Christof Bornhövd, and Joachim Schaper Semantic Discovery and Composition of Web Services for RFID Applications in Border Control In Proceedings of Workshop on Semantic Web Services: Preparing to Meet the World of Business Applications (ISWC 2004) Mithun Sheshagiri, Norman Sadeh and Fabien Gandon, Using Semantic Web Services for Context-Aware Mobile Applications,  Proceedings of MobiSys2004 Workshop on Context Awareness, Boston, June 2004 Zhexuan Song, Yannis Labrou and Ryusuke Masuoka, "Dynamic Service Discovery and Management in Task Computing," pp. 310 - 318, MobiQuitous 2004, August 22-26, 2004, Boston, USA

References WSMO: 

References WSMO The central location where WSMO work and papers can be found is WSMO Working Group: http://www.wsmo.org WSMO languages – WSML Working Group: http://www.wsml.org WSMO implementation WSMX working group : http://www.wsmx.org WSMX open source can be found at: https://sourceforge.net/projects/wsmx/

References WSMO: 

References WSMO [WSMO Specification]: Roman, D.; Lausen, H.; Keller, U. (eds.): Web Service Modeling Ontology, WSMO Working Draft D2, final version 1.2, 13 April 2005. [WSMO Primer]: Feier, C. (ed.): WSMO Primer, WSMO Working Draft D3.1, 18 February 2005. [WSMO Choreography and Orchestration] Roman, D.; Scicluna, J., Feier, C. (eds.): Ontology-based Choreography and Orchestration of WSMO Services, WSMO Working Draft D14, 01 March 2005. [WSMO Use Case] Stollberg, M.; Lausen, H.; Polleres, A.; Lara, R. (ed.): WSMO Use Case Modeling and Testing, WSMO Working Drafts D3.2; D3.3.; D3.4; D3.5, 05 November 2004. [WSML] de Bruijn, J. (Ed.): The WSML Specification, WSML Working Draft D16, 03 February 2005.

References WSMO: 

References WSMO [Arroyo et al. 2004] Arroyo, S., Lara, R., Gomez, J. M., Berka, D., Ding, Y. and Fensel, D: "Semantic Aspects of Web Services" in Practical Handbook of Internet Computing. Munindar P. Singh, editor. Chapman Hall and CRC Press, Baton Rouge. 2004. [Berners-Lee et al. 2001] Tim Berners-Lee, James Hendler, and Ora Lassila, “The Semantic Web”. Scientific American, 284(5):34-43, 2001. [Chen et al., 1993] Chen, W., Kifer, M., and Warren, D. S. (1993). HILOG: A foundation for higher-order logic programming. Journal of Logic Programming, 15(3):187-230. Domingue, J. Cabral, L., Hakimpour, F., Sell D., and Motta, E., (2004) IRS-III: A Platform and Infrastructure for Creating WSMO-based Semantic Web Services WSMO Implementation Workshop (WIW), Frankfurt, Germany, September,2004 [Fensel, 2001] Dieter Fensel, “Ontologies: Silver Bullet for Knowledge Management and Electronic Commerce”, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2001.

References WSMO: 

References WSMO [Gruber, 1993] Thomas R. Gruber, “A Translation Approach to Portable Ontology Specifications”, Knowledge Acquisition, 5:199-220, 1993. [Grosof et al., 2003] Grosof, B. N., Horrocks, I., Volz, R., and Decker, S. (2003). Description logic programs: Combining logic programs with description logic. In Proc. Intl. Conf. on the World Wide Web (WWW-2003), Budapest, Hungary. [Kifer et al., 1995] Kifer, M., Lausen, G., and Wu, J. (1995). Logical foundations of object-oriented and frame-based languages. JACM, 42(4):741-843. [Pan and Horrocks, 2004] Pan, J. Z. and Horrocks, I. (2004). OWL-E: Extending OWL with expressive datatype expressions. IMG Technical Report IMG/2004/KR-SW-01/v1.0, Victoria University of Manchester. Available from http://dl-web.man.ac.uk/Doc/IMGTR-OWL-E.pdf. [Stencil Group] - www.stencilgroup.com/ideas_scope_200106wsdefined.html

References Discovery: 

References Discovery B. Benatallah, M. Hacid, C. Rey, F. Toumani Towards Semantic Reasoning for Web Services Discovery,. In Proc. of the International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC 2003), 2003 Herzog, R.; Lausen, H.; Roman, D.; Zugmann, P.: WSMO Registry. WSMO Working Draft D10 v0.1, 26 April 2004. Keller, U.; Lara, R.; Polleres, A. (Eds): WSMO Web Service Discovery. WSML Working Draft D5.1, 12 Nov 2004. Keller, U.; Lara, R.; Lausen, H.; Polleres, A.; Fensel, D.: Automatic Location of Services. In Proc. of the 2nd European Semantic Web Symposium (ESWS2005), Heraklion, Crete, 2005. M. Kifer, R. Lara, A. Polleres, C. Zhao, U. Keller, H. Lausen and D. Fensel: A Logical Framework for Web Service Discovery. Proc. 1st. Intl. Workshop SWS'2004 at ISWC 2004,Hiroshima, Japan, November 8, 2004, CEUR Workshop Proceedings, ISSN 1613-0073 Lara, R., Lausen, H.; Toma, I.: (Eds): WSMX Discovery. WSMX Working Draft D10 v0.2, 07 March 2005. Lei Li and Ian Horrocks. A software framework for matchmaking based on semantic web technology. In Proc. of the Twelfth International World Wide Web Conference (WWW 2003), 2003.

References Discovery: 

References Discovery Lei Li and Ian Horrocks. A software framework for matchmaking based on semantic web technology. In Proc. of the Twelfth International World Wide Web Conference (WWW 2003), 2003 Daniel J. Mandell and Sheila A. McIlraith. Adapting BPEL4WS for the Semantic Web: The Bottom-Up Approach to Web Service Interoperation. In Proceedings of the Second International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC2003), Massimo Paolucci, Takahiro Kawamura, Terry R. Payne, Katia Sycara; Importing the Semantic Web in UDDI. In Proceedings of Web Services, E-business and Semantic Web Workshop, 2002 Massimo Paolucci, Takahiro Kawamura, Terry R. Payne, Katia Sycara; "Semantic Matching of Web Services Capabilities." In Proceedings of the 1st International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC2002), 2002 Preist, C.: A Conceptual Architecture for Semantic Web Services. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC 2004), 2004, pp. 395 - 409. Stollberg, M.; Keller, U.; Fensel. D.: Partner and Service Discovery for Collaboration on the Semantic Web. Proc. 3rd Intl. Conference on Web Services (ICWS 2005), Orlando, Florida, July 2005.

References IRS III: 

References IRS III J. Domingue, L. Cabral, F. Hakimpour, D. Sell and E. Motta: IRS-III: A Platform and Infrastructure for Creating WSMO-based Semantic Web Services. Proceedings of the Workshop on WSMO Implementations (WIW 2004) Frankfurt, Germany, September 29-30, 2004, CEUR Workshop Proceedings, ISSN 1613-0073, online http://CEUR-WS.org/Vol-113/paper3.pdf. J. Domingue and S. Galizia: Towards a Choreography for IRS-III. Proceedings of the Workshop on WSMO Implementations (WIW 2004) Frankfurt, Germany, September 29-30, 2004, CEUR Workshop Proceedings, ISSN 1613-0073, online http://CEUR-WS.org/Vol-113/paper7.pdf. Cabral, L., Domingue, J., Motta, E., Payne, T. and Hakimpour, F. (2004). Approaches to Semantic Web Services: An Overview and Comparisons. In proceedings of the First European Semantic Web Symposium (ESWS2004); 10-12 May 2004, Heraklion, Crete, Greece. Motta, E., Domingue, J., Cabral, L. and Gaspari, M. (2003) IRS-II: A Framework and Infrastructure for Semantic Web Services. In proceedings of the 2nd International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC2003) 20-23 October 2003, Sundial Resort, Sanibel Island, Florida, USA. These papers and software downloads can be found at: http://kmi.open.ac.uk/projects/irs

Acknowledgements: 

Acknowledgements We would like to acknowledge the contribution of the past and present members of the OWL-S coalition for their hard work in the development of the language. Furthermore, we would like to thank the community at large for contributing to tools and ideas. Furthermore, we would like to thank to all the members of the WSMO, WSML, and WSMX working groups for their advice and input into this tutorial. Special thanks to Sheila McIlraith, Craig Schlenoff, Daniel Elenius and Naveen Srinivasan for providing slides and suggestions on this tutorial. Slide design by Roberta Hart-Hilber, DERI Austria

Acknowledgements: 

Acknowledgements The development of OWL-S has been funded almost exclusively by the DAML DARPA program. The WSMO working groups are funded by the European Commission under the projects DIP, Knowledge Web, SEKT, SWWS, and ASG; by Science Foundation Ireland under the DERI-Lion project; and by the Vienna city government under the FIT-IT Programme in the projects RW2 and TCP. IRS development is funded by the European Commission under the DIP project, and formerly IBROW, and by the UK EPSRC under the AKT project, and formerly MIAKT.

authorStream Live Help