Post on 20-Dec-2015
1
2
Carnegie MellonUniversity
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
3
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
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
4
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
PART I: Introduction to Semantic Web
Services
Michael Stollberg
5
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
Contents
• The vision of the Semantic Web
• Ontologies as the basic building block
• Current Web Service Technologies
• Vision and Challenges for Semantic Web Services
6
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
Static
– 500 million users
– more than 3 billion pages
WWWURI, HTML, HTTP
The Vision
7
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
WWWURI, HTML, HTTP
Serious Problems in • information finding,• information extracting,• information representing,• information interpreting and• and information maintaining.
Semantic WebRDF, RDF(S), OWL
Static
The Vision
8
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
WWWURI, HTML, HTTP
Bringing the computer back as a device for computation
Semantic WebRDF, RDF(S), OWL
Dynamic Web ServicesUDDI, WSDL, SOAP
Static
The Vision
9
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
WWWURI, HTML, HTTP
Bringing the web to its full potential
Semantic WebRDF, RDF(S), OWL
Dynamic Web ServicesUDDI, WSDL, SOAP
Static
Semantic WebServices
The Vision
10
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
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
11
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
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
12
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
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
topiclecture
nr.
attends holds
holds(Professor, Lecture) =>Lecture.topic = Professor.researchField
13
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
Ontology TechnologyTo 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
14
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
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
15
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
The Promise of Web Services
web-based SOA as new system design paradigm
16
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
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)
17
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
UDDI• Universal Description, Discovery, and Integration Protocol • OASIS driven standardization effort
Registry for Web Services: - provider - service information - technical access
18
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
SOAP
• Simple Object Access Protocol
• W3C Recommendation
XML data transport: - sender / receiver - protocol binding - communication aspects - content
19
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
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
20
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
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
21
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
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)
22
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
Web Service Usage Process
1. Deployment create & publish Web service description
2. Discovery determine usable services for a request
3. Composition combine services to achieve a goal
4. Selection choose most appropriate service among the available ones
5. Mediation solve mismatches (data, protocol, process) that hamper interoperation
6. Execution invoke Web services following programmatic conventions
23
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
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
24
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
PART II: Semantic Web Service
OntologiesKatia Sycara
Michael Stollberg
25
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
Contents
• OWL-S
– Upper Ontology
– Service Profile
– Process Model
– Service Grounding
• WSMO
– WSMO top level notions
– Choreography and Orchestration
– Mediation
• Differences and Commonalities
26
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
OWL-S
Katia Sycara
27
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
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)
28
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
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
29
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
Service Profiles
Service Profile– Presented by a service.– Represents
what the service provides– Two main uses:
1. Advertisements of Web Services capabilities
2. Request of Web services with a given set of capabilities
30
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
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
31
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
OWL-S Service ProfileCapability 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)
32
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
OWL-S Service ProfileAdditional 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
33
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
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
34
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
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
35
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
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
36
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
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
37
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
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
OutputConstraints
Precondition
38
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
Ontology of Processes
Process
Atomic
Simple
CompositeProvides abstraction, encapsulation etc.
Defines a workflow composed of process performs
Invokablebound to grounding
39
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
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
40
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
Composite Processes
•Composite Processes specify how processes work together to compute a complex function•Composite processes define
1.Control FlowSpecify the temporal relations between the executions of the different sub-processes
2.Data FlowSpecify how the data produced by one process is transferred to another process
41
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
Example of Composite Process
SequenceBookFlight
DepartArrive
FlightsAirline
Airline Flight
Perform
Get FlightsFlight
Perform
Select Flight
Flights
Control Flow LinksSpecify order of execution
Data-Flow LinksSpecify transfer of data
Perform statementsSpecify the execution of a process
42
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
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
43
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
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
44
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
Data Flow
Dataflow allows information that is transferred from process to process.
OutputInput: 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
OutputOutput:The information produced by a subprocess is transferred to a
super-process
45
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
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
46
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
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.
47
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
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
48
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
Mapping OWL-S / WSDL 1.1
• Operations correspond to Atomic Processes
• Input/Output messages correspond to Inputs/Outputs of processes
49
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
Example of Grounding
SequenceBookFlight
DepartArrive
FlightsAirline
Airline Flight
Perform
Get FlightsFlight
Perform
Select Flight
Flights
Get Flights OpDepartArrive
Flights
WSDL
AirlineFlight
Select Flight op
Flights
50
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
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
51
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
Handling stateful vs stateless Web services
1. 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
2. Stateful Web services• The service does maintain the state• No need of dataflow links since transfer of
information is opaque to the client
52
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
Representing Stateful Web services
SequenceBookFlight
FlightsAirline
Airline Flight
Perform
Get FlightsFlight
Perform
Select Flight
Flights
Get Flights OpArrive Flights
Server
FlightSelect
Flight op
Flights
Stateless: no information is transferred between the two operations
Client
Server
53
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
Representing Stateless Web services
SequenceBookFlight
FlightsAirline
Airline Flight
Perform
Get FlightsFlight
Perform
Select Flight
Get Flights OpArrive Flights
Server
FlightSelect
Flight op
Flights
Client
Stateful: information is recorded by the server, no need of transfer between the two operations
54
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
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
55
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
Web Service Modeling Ontology WSMO
Michael Stollberg
56
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
Outline
• WSMO Working Groups
• Top Level Notions– Ontologies – Web Services– Goals– Mediators
57
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
WSMO Working Groups
A Conceptual Model for SWS
A Formal Language for WSMO
A Rule-based Language for SWS
Execution Environment for WSMO
58
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
WSMO Top Level Notions
Objectives that a client wants toachieve by using Web Services
Provide the formally specified terminologyof 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)
59
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
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
60
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
Non-Functional Properties ListDublin Core Metadata
Contributor Coverage Creator Description Format Identifier Language Publisher Relation Rights Source Subject Title Type
Quality of Service Accuracy NetworkRelatedQoSPerformanceReliability RobustnessScalability Security Transactional Trust
Other Financial Owner TypeOfMatch Version
61
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
WSMO Ontologies
Provide the formally specified terminologyof 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 toachieve by using Web Services
62
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
• 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
63
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
• 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
64
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
WSMO Web Services
Provide the formally specified terminologyof 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 toachieve by using Web Services
65
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
WSMO Web Service Description
Web ServiceImplementation(not of interest in Web Service Description)
Choreography --- Service Interfaces ---
Capability
functional description
WS
WS
- 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
WS
Orchestration
66
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
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)
67
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
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
VTAService
Date
Time
Flight, Hotel
Error
Confirmation
Hotel Service
Flight Service
Date, Time
Hotel
Error
Date, Time
Flight
Error
When the service is requested
When the service requests
68
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
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
69
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
Orchestration Aspects
- decomposition of service functionality
- other Web services consumed via their choreography interfaces
Behavior for Interaction with aggregated Web Services
WS
Web S
ervice Business Logic
1
2
3
4
WS
State in Orchestration
Control Flow
Data Flow
Service Interaction
70
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
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:
1. represent the dynamics of information interchange during service consumption and interaction
2. support ontologies as the underlying data model 3. appropriate communication technology for information interchange4. sound formal model / semantics of service interface specifications in
order to allow advanced reasoning on them5. support higher-level process constructs for more complex
reasoning tasks 6. provide graphical representation for editing and maintenance
71
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
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
72
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
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
73
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
WSMO Goals
Provide the formally specified terminologyof 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 toachieve by using Web Services
74
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
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
75
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
Goal-driven Architecture
ClientGoal
- 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
ServiceImplementation
(not of interest here)
functionalb
ehavio
ral
service detection & composition
Client-Side Service-Side
Domain Knowledge Ontology OntologyOntology Ontology
service usage
76
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
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): (1) Data Level: mediate heterogeneous Data Sources (2) Protocol Level: mediate heterogeneous Communication
Patterns (3) Process Level: mediate heterogeneous Business Processes
77
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
WSMO Mediators Overview
OO MediatorO O / G / WS / M
1 .. n 1 GG MediatorG G
1 .. n 1 ..n
WG MediatorG xor WS WS xor G1 .. n 1 ..n
Process Level(Communication)
WW MediatorWS WS1 1 ..n
terminology representation & protocol
Δ-Relation Mediation
data level mediation
Δ-Relation Mediation
Process Level (Communication)
Δ-Relation Mediation
technique used imports / reuses correlationLegend
Process Level (Cooperation)
78
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
Mediator Usage
79
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
OWL-S and WSMO
Commonalities and
Differences
80
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
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:
81
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
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
82
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
Semantic Representation
• OWL-S and WSMO adopt a similar view on the need of ontologies and explicit semanticsbut 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
83
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
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
84
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
Summary
OWL-S WSMOcurrent Web Service
technologies
DiscoveryWhat it does
ProfileGoals and Web
Services (capability)
UDDI API
Consumption & Interaction
How to consume & realize
Process ModelService Interfaces
(Choreography + Orchestration)
BPEL4WS
InvocationHow to invoke
Grounding+ WSDL/SOAP
Grounding
(WSDL / SOAP,
ontology-based)
WSDL/SOAP
85
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
PART III: Semantic Web Service
Techniques and SystemsMichael Stollberg
86
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
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
87
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
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
88
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
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?
James
Flight Booking
Hotel Booking
uses & aggregates
Service Provider
Service Provider
provides
Contract
Contract
VTA
89
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
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
90
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
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
91
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
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 .
92
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
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]).
93
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
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] .
94
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
Web Service Discovery
James Objective: „book a flight and a hotel for me for the HICSS-39.“
Service Registry WS Discoverer
has
searchesVTA
result set includes
Goal definition
95
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
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 Vocabularyontology-based key word matching
Semantic Matchmaking … what Semantic Web Services aim at
Ease of provision
Possible A
ccuracy
96
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
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
X
Keller, U.; Lara, R.; Polleres, A. (Eds): WSMO Web Service Discovery. WSML Working Draft D5.1, 12 Nov 2004.
97
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
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 ServiceDescriptions
invoke Web Service
98
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
Choreography Discovery
Requested Interface1) send request2) select from offer3) receive confirmation
Goal
defines
VTA
VTA WS ‘Trip Booking’
Capability
Interface (Chor.)1) get request2) provide offer 3) receive selection4) send confirmation
Interface (Orch.)1) flight request2) hotel request 3) book flight4) book hotel
Flight WS
Capability
Interface (Chor.)1) get request2) provide offer 3) receive selection4) send confirmation
Orch. ..
Hotel WS
Capability
Interface (Chor.)1) get request2) provide offer 3) receive selection4) send confirmation
Orch. ..
provides
Requested Capabilitybook 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
99
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
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
100
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
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
Start
ω2(C)
ω1(C)
ω3(C)
ω4(C)
Termination
existence of a valid Choreography
101
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
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 InterfaceStart
(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
102
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
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
103
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
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
104
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
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
105
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
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
106
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
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
Med
iator
107
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
Process Mediation – Addressed Mismatches
108
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
Unsolvable Mismatches
Business Partner1
Business Partner2
APM
?
Business Partner1
Business Partner2
APM
?BA B
Business Partner1
Business Partner2
PM
?A
Ack
109
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
itinerary[origin, destination, date]
time
price
origin
destination
itinerary[origin, destination]
date
itinerary [route,date, time, price]
REQUEST
SERVICE
Processes Mediator
Process Mediation Example
110
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
time
pricedate
REQUEST
SERVICE
Processes Mediator
Process Mediation Example
itinerary[origin, destination, date]
origin
destination
itinerary[origin, destination]
itinerary [route,date, time, price]
111
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
time
pricedate
REQUEST
SERVICE
Processes Mediator
Process Mediation Example
itinerary[origin, destination, date]
origin
destination
itinerary[origin, destination]
itinerary [route,date, time, price]
112
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
time
pricedate
REQUEST
SERVICE
Processes Mediator
itinerary[origin, destination, date]
origin
destination
itinerary[origin, destination]
itinerary [route,date, time, price]
Process Mediation Example
113
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
time
pricedate
REQUEST
SERVICE
Processes Mediator
itinerary[origin, destination, date]
origin
destination
itinerary[origin, destination]
itinerary [route,date, time, price]
Process Mediation Example
114
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
SWS Tools and Systems1. OWL-S Integrated Development IDE
– OWL-S tool suite
– WS implementation, deployment, discovery,
invocation, and verification
2. The Web Service Execution Environment WSMX
– Integrated Semantic Web Service system
– WSMO reference implementation
– The Web Service Modelling Toolkit (WSMT)
3. Internet Reasoning Service IRS
– Infrastructure for Semantic Web services
– Server acts as broker, as well as publisher
– Client allows goal-based invocation
Carnegie MellonUniversity
115
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
OWL-S IDE (CMU)
Integration of WS implementation, deployment, discovery, invocation and verification
116
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
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
117
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
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
118
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
Overview OWL-S IDE
OWL-S2UDDIOWL-S2UDDIConverterConverterProfileProfile
ProceProcessss
WSDL2OWL-SWSDL2OWL-SConverterConverter
OWL-S APIOWL-S API
OWL-S VMOWL-S VM
WSDLWSDLCodeCode
JavaJavaCodeCode
PublishPublish UDDI Port UDDI PortInquiryInquiry UDDI Port UDDI Port
Matching Engine
Green PagesBusiness Description
Yellow PagesService Properties
White PagesPorts and Bindins
Business RegistryBusiness Registry OWL inside
OWL inside
Capability Capability PortPort
Java Code
Generated OWL-S GroundingGrounding
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
119
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
OWL-S IDE Components
• WSDL2OWL-Smap 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 translatortranslate OWL-S Profiles in UDDI statements
• Semantic UDDIintegrate UDDI Registry and OWL reasoning to facilitate discovery
of Web services
120
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
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
121
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
WSMX Usage - P2P SWS Computing
Internet
Message
MessagePeerPeer
Internet
Message
Message
Bas
eSe
rvic
es
Reasoner Semantic Repository Triple Space
Data Mediation Communication Choreography
Negotiation and Contracting
Orchestration Planning
Management Discovery Process Mediation
App
licat
ion
Serv
ices
End
Use
r
Applications
Management & Monitoring
Dev
elop
er
Ontology Editor
Process Editor
Goal Editor
Mapping Editor
Vertical Services
Ver
tica
l Ser
vice
s
complete the functionality for all the boxes
122
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
Design Principles
Strong Decoupling & Strong Mediationautonomous components with mediators for interoperability
Interface vs. Implementationdistinguish 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
123
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
WSMX Architecture
MessagingMessaging
Application Management
Application Management
Service Oriented
Architectures
Service Oriented
Architectures
124
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
System Entry Points
Legend
Adapter
any Data format
CommunicationManager
(Requester Side)
Parser
ServiceRequester
WSML
ChoreographyEngine
CommunicationManager
(Provider Side)
ServiceProvider
SOAP
DataMediator
CommunicationManager
(Requester Side
Parser
ServiceRepository
Matchmaker
Selector
DataMediator
Editor
CommunicationManager
(Requester Side
Parser
ServiceProvider
receiveMessagereceiveGoalstoreEntity
Adapter
any Data format
ServiceRequester
WSMLWSML
ServiceRepository
WSMX components
External entities
Execution Flow
Usage
125
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
Web Services Modelling Toolkit
126
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
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
127
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
WSMX @ Sourceforge.net
128
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
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
129
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
IRS-III:
A framework and platform for building Semantic Web Services
Stefania Galizia and Barry Norton
130
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
The Internet Reasoning Service is an infrastructure for publishing, locating, executing and composing Semantic Web Services
131
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
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
132
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
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
133
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
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
134
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
IRS-3 Server
Domain Models
Web Service Specifications+ Registry of Implementors
Goal Specifications+ SOAP Binding
IRS Publisher
S O
A P
IRS Client
SOAP
IRS Publisher
IRS Publisher
IRS Publisher
Lisp
Java
Java WS
IRS-III Framework
135
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
LispWeb Server
IRS-III Architecture
IRS-III Server
WS Publisher Registry
OCML
WSMO Library
OWL(-S) HandlerOWL(-S)
Browser
Invocation Client
Publishing Clients
SOAP Handler
SOAP
Publishing Platforms
Web Service
Java Code
Web Application
SOAPBrowserHandler
PublisherHandler
InvocationHandler
Java
API
WSMX
136
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
Publishing Platform Architecture
IRS-III Publishing PlatformHTTP Server
SOAP Handler
ServiceRegistrar
ServiceInvoker
WS Service Registry
IRS-III Server
Invocation Client
SOAP
SOAP
Publishing Clients
SOAP
Web Service 1Web Service 2
Web Service 3
137
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
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)
138
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
IRS-III Demo
Stefania Galizia and Barry Norton
139
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
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’
140
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
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>)
141
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
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
142
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
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
143
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
European Currency Assumption
(kappa (?goal)
(member
(wsmo-role-value
?goal
'has_source_currency)
'(euro pound)))
144
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
Goal Based Invocation
Invocation
Instantiate Goal Description
Exchange-rate-goal Has-source-currency: us-dollarsHas-target-currency: pound
Web Service Discovery
European-exchange-rate-wsNon-european-exchange-rate-wsEuropean-bank-exchange-rate-ws
Solve GoalGoal -> WG Mediator -> WS/Capability/Used-mediator
Web service selection
European-exchange-rate
Mediate input values
‘$’ -> us-dollar
WS -> Capability -> Assumptionexpression Mediation
Invoke selected web service
European-exchange-rate
Invocation
145
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
Hands-On Session (with IRS III)
Barry Norton and Stefania Galizia
146
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
European Travel Scenario
147
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
European Travel Demo
148
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
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
149
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
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
WSMX
Mediator WSMO Descriptions
150
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
Travel Related Knowledge Models
151
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
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
152
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
Goals1- 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)
153
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
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
154
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
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
155
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
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."
156
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
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. "
157
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
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
158
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
Example: GoalIn IRS-III or In WSMT
159
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
Example: MediatorIn IRS-III or In WSMT
160
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
Example: ServiceIn IRS-III or In WSMT
161
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
Example: Publishing
162
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
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
163
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
Closing, Outlook, References, Acknowledgements
164
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
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
165
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
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
166
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
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
167
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
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
168
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
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
169
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
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
170
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
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)
171
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
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
172
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
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
173
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
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
174
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
References OWL-S
• FundamentalDavid 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.
175
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
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
176
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
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
177
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
References OWL-S
• Formal Models and VerificationAnupriya 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.
178
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
References OWL-S
• Policies and SecurityRonald 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.
179
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
References OWL-S
• ApplicationsSchlenoff, 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 SchaperSemantic 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
180
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
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/
181
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
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.
182
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
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.
183
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
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
184
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
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.
185
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
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.
186
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
References IRS IIIJ. 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
187
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
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
188
Semantic Web Services, HICSS 39, Kauai (Hawaii), 04 January 2006
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.