1 / 24

Tomas Vitvar, Marco Brambilla tomas.vitvar@deri, marco.brambilla@polimi.it

Towards Semantic Interoperability: In-depth Comparison of Two Approaches to Solving Semantic Web Service Challenge Mediation Tasks. Maciej Zaremba, Tomas Vitvar, Matthew Moran, Marco Brambilla, Stefano Ceri, Dario Cerizza, Emanuele della Valle, Federico Facca, Christina Tziviskou.

cedric-reilly
Télécharger la présentation

Tomas Vitvar, Marco Brambilla tomas.vitvar@deri, marco.brambilla@polimi.it

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Towards Semantic Interoperability: In-depth Comparison of Two Approaches to Solving Semantic Web Service Challenge Mediation Tasks Maciej Zaremba, Tomas Vitvar, Matthew Moran, Marco Brambilla, Stefano Ceri, Dario Cerizza, Emanuele della Valle, Federico Facca, Christina Tziviskou The 9th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems Madeira, Portugal, 2007 Tomas Vitvar, Marco Brambilla tomas.vitvar@deri.org, marco.brambilla@polimi.it

  2. Overview • SWS Challenge Scenario • DERI Solution – WSMO, WSML, WSMX • Politecnico di Milano + CEFRIEL Solution – WebML, Glue • Comparision and Conclusion

  3. Scenario • Moon company wants to build B2B integration with Blue company • Blue – RosettaNet to be integrated with Moon back-end CRM and OMS

  4. Scenario: Blue RosettaNet PO[id, item1, item2, item3] POC[confirmationID • Blue sends purchase order (customer id, and items to be ordered) and expects order confirmation with confirmation id • Blue uses RosettaNet Standard PIP3A4 for Purchase Orders

  5. Scenario: Moon Back-end Systems id cid openOrder addItem* closeOrder • Internal customer id must be obtained from CRM system based on provided ID by Blue • Order must be opened in OMS system • Individual items are placed in OMS • Order is closed in OMS

  6. Scenario: Interoperability Problems Data Interoperability Id’ PO[id, item1, item2, item3] cid Process Interoperability openOrder POC[confirmationID addItem* closeOrder • Interoperability Problems: • Incompatible XML schemas for Blue’s and Moon’s messages • Incompatible processes of Blue’s and Moon’s systems

  7. Overview • Mediation Scenario • DERI Solution – WSMO, WSML, WSMX • Politecnico di Milano + CEFRIEL Solution – WebML, Glue • Comparision and Conclusion

  8. SWS: WSMO, WSML, WSMX • Semantic Web Services in DERI • SWS: WSMO, WSML, WSML • community Effort driven by DERI • EU FP6 and national funding • Web Service Modelling… • … Ontology -> WSMO • Conceptual model for SWS: goal, ontologies, mediators, services • … Language -> WSML • Ontology Language for SWS • WSML Variants: WSML Core, WSML DL, WSML Rule, WSML Full • … Execution Environment and Architecture -> WSMX • Middleware platform for SWS • Now in OASIS SEE TC

  9. Scenario: WSMX to Facilitate Integration Modelling of information and behaviour of standard RosettaNet definitions Modelling of information and behaviour of proprietary back-end systems

  10. Scenario: What to model RosettaNet PIP 3A4 CRM, OMS systems WSMO Ontology WSMO Ontology Grounding Grounding WSMO Service WSMO Service

  11. Scenario: Deploy Models and Ontology Mappings RosettaNet PIP 3A4 CRM, OMS systems WSMO Ontology WSMO Ontology mapping rules Grounding Grounding WSMO Service WSMO Service

  12. WSMO Ontology: Modelling of Information Web Service RosettaNet PIP 3A4 Lowering Schema Mapping WSMO Ontology XML Schema Lifting Schema Mapping Lifting Rules in XSLT

  13. WSMO Service: Modelling of Choreography, Grounding WSDL Web Service Operations, Input and output messages Web Service WSMO Choreography and Grounding Definition a b Abstract State Machine Rules stateSignature in a →wsdl.interfaceMessageReference … out b → wsdl.interfaceMessageReference … … transitionRules If a then add(b) … RosettaNet PIP 3A4 If message A is in the memory, then add message B to the memory from invocation of related operation.

  14. Conversation: Process and Data Mediation WSMO Ontology (Blue-PIP3A4) Mapping Rules WSMO Ontology (Moon-CRM/OMS) a ↔ o, b ↔ p, c ↔ q, d ↔ r Data Mediator Process Mediator Send PO GetCustomer OpenOrder Choreography Engine AddItem blue moon CloseOrder Receive POC

  15. Overview • Mediation Scenario • DERI Solution – WSMO, WSML, WSMX • Politecnico di Milano + CEFRIEL Solution – WebML, Glue • Comparision and Conclusion

  16. The WebML-SWEET framework WebML SWS Semantic Web Service Application

  17. Model-driven design for WSMO Ontology importing and/or semantic annotation Business process modeling Web application modeling WebMLhypertext model WebML Datamodel Automatic code generation WF-driven WebML generator WebML skeleton Running application BPMN model WSML WS Capabilty Generator WSML Ontology Generator WSML Goal Cap. Generator WSML WS Chor. Generator WSML Ontology WSML Goal WSML WS Choreography WSML WS Capability The SWE-ET is a top-down approach to the development of applications employing Semantic Web Services, that combines semantic methods and tools with Software Engineering ones.

  18. WebML Data Mediation • Semantics-enabled data models @ participants (enriched E-R models vs. ontologies) • Lowering and lifting implemented through XSLT transformations: • Participant model  XML messages

  19. WebML-WSMO Choreography Choreography interface of the service can be extracted from the description and registered in a Semantic Execution Environment (i.e. WSMX)

  20. WebML – WSMO capabilities

  21. Overview • Mediation Scenario • DERI Solution – WSMO, WSML, WSMX • Politecnico di Milano + CEFRIEL Solution – WebML, Glue • Comparision and Conclusion

  22. Comparison

  23. Conclusions • Two different approaches to semantic mediation • WebML: starting from a software engineering background. Focus on design time • WSMO: starting from semantic web experience. Focus on runtime dynamic integration • Most explicit evidence • WebML: design-time process mediation model, based on BPMN • WSMO: no design-time process mediation model; runtime dynamic process mediation

  24. Thanks!

More Related