1 / 19

WSMO - revisited

WSMO - revisited. SWSL phone conference, 17-06-2004 Dieter Fensel Digital Enterprise Research Institute dieter.fensel@deri.org. Outline. The new structure and main deliverables: WSMO Working Group WSML Working Group WSMX Working Group Links to SWSL Rule language

jacob
Télécharger la présentation

WSMO - revisited

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. WSMO - revisited SWSL phone conference, 17-06-2004 Dieter Fensel Digital Enterprise Research Institute dieter.fensel@deri.org

  2. Outline • The new structure and main deliverables: • WSMO Working Group • WSML Working Group • WSMX Working Group • Links to SWSL • Rule language • Choreography/Orchestration language Dieter Fensel dieter.fensel@deri.org

  3. Working Groups – general overview WSMO WG A Conceptual Model for SWS WSML WG WSMX WG A Formal Language for WSMO An Execution Environment for WSMO A Rule-based Language for SW Dieter Fensel dieter.fensel@deri.org

  4. WSMO WG • Web site at http://www.wsmo.org/ • Chairs: Christoph Bussler and Dieter Fensel. • Mailing list for group members: deri-wsmo@informatik.uibk.ac.at • Mailing list for technical discussions:deri-wsmo-discussion@informatik.uibk.ac.at • Contact: dumitru.roman@deri.ie • Activity sheet: http://www.wsmo.org/2004/d6/d6.1/v1/Around 14 deliverables with defined editors and deadlines. • Members: http://www.wsmo.org/people.htmlCurrently 58 members. • Presentations: http://www.wsmo.org/presentations.htmlCurrently more than 45 presentations on related aspects. • Current working drafts: http://www.wsmo.org/2004/ Dieter Fensel dieter.fensel@deri.org

  5. WSMO – main deliverables • Conceptual model for Semantic Web Services • WSMO Standard (D2) • WSMO Lite (D11) • WSMO Full (D12) • Choreography (D14) and Orchestration (D15) • Not yet clearly defined. • Intention: use ASMs. • Showcasing: WSMO Primer (D3.1) and Case Studies (D3.2) • Conceptual Comparison WSMO/OWL-S (D4.1) • WSMO Tutorial (D17) • WSMO in DIP(D19.1), KW(D19.2) and SEKT(D19.3) Dieter Fensel dieter.fensel@deri.org

  6. WSML WG • Web site at http://www.wsmo.org/wsml • Chair: Dieter Fensel. • Mailing list for group members: deri-wsml@informatik.uibk.ac.at • Mailing list for technical discussions:deri-wsmo-discussion@informatik.uibk.ac.at • Contact: dumitru.roman@deri.ie • Activity sheet: http://www.wsmo.org/2004/d6/d6.2/v1/Around 18 deliverables with defined editors and deadlines. • Members: http://www.wsmo.org/people.htmlCurrently 16 members. • Presentations: http://www.wsmo.org/presentations.htmlCurrently 13 presentations on related aspects • Current working drafts: http://www.wsmo.org/2004/ Dieter Fensel dieter.fensel@deri.org

  7. WSML – main deliverables • WSML language • WSML User language (D16.1) • WSML/XML (An XML Syntax for WSML) (D16.3) • F-logic/XML (An XML Syntax for F-logic) (D16.2) • WSML OWL Syntax (D16.5) – not yet defined • Inferencing with WSML • Inferencing support for SWS: Proof Obligations (D5.1) • Inferencing Support for Semantic Web Services: Tools for Semantic Support (D5.2) • Language Evaluation and Comparison (D8) • Mapping to OWL-S (D4.3) – not yet defined. • Ontology Language API (D18) • OWL-Lite¯ (D20) Dieter Fensel dieter.fensel@deri.org

  8. WSMX WG • Web site at http://www.wsmx.org/ • Chair: Christoph Bussler. • Mailing list for group members: deri-wsmx@informatik.uibk.ac.at • Mailing list for technical discussions:deri-wsmo-discussion@informatik.uibk.ac.at • Contact: michal.zaremba@deri.ie • Activity sheet: http://www.wsmo.org/2004/d6/d6.3/v1/Around 12 deliverables with defined editors and deadlines. • Members: http://www.wsmo.org/people.htmlCurrently 33 members. • Current working drafts: http://www.wsmo.org/2004/ Dieter Fensel dieter.fensel@deri.org

  9. WSMX – main deliverables • WSMO Editor (D9) • WSMO Registry (D10) • Overview and Scope of WSMX (D13.0) • WSMX Conceptual Model (D13.1) • WSMX Execution Semantics (D13.2) • WSMX Mediation (D13.3) • WSMX Architecture (D13.4) • WSMX Implementation (D13.5) – first version expected end of June, 2004. Dieter Fensel dieter.fensel@deri.org

  10. Links to SWSL • Rule language effort • Choreography and orchestration language Dieter Fensel dieter.fensel@deri.org

  11. Rule language effort Six points I want to make: • DL is an interesting subset of 1st order logic • HL is an interesting subset of 1st order logic • Full 1st order logic is an interesting language • Pure logics are cumbersome tools for modeling • SWRL is crap • A useful rule language for the semantic web must follow a DL-minimalistic approach Dieter Fensel dieter.fensel@deri.org

  12. (1) DL is interesting • because of its decidability/tractability properties • spoken for the man on the street it is the fragment of logic that can be computationally explored around the existential quantifier. • it is therefore worth to become standardized in OWL • besides the fact that I do not like at all OWL-Lite which is an overkill, • a smooth extension of RDFS would have been much more appropriate. • Therefore we develope OWL-Flight (restricting OWL-Lite to DLP and extend it by RDF features).      Dieter Fensel dieter.fensel@deri.org

  13. (2) HL is interesting • because of its decidability/tractability properties • Spoken for the man on the street it is the fragment of logic that can be computationally explored around the all quantifier • without function symbols it is decidable and • with minimal-model semantics function symbols, non-monotinicity of negation, and even transitive closure (an extension of first order logic) can be expressed. • It is therefore worth to become standardized by W3C, however, not in a way that destroy all features of rule languages by mixing it up too much with DL type of expressions. • Therefore we develope OWL-Flight (restricting OWL-Lite to DLP and extend it by rule features).   Dieter Fensel dieter.fensel@deri.org

  14. (3) First order logic is interesting • In oposition to DLs and HLs it provides significant more flexibility in writing down required axioms. • This language is not fully mechanizable in terms ofreasoning support, however, • many interesting theorems can be proven and the theorem prover community has made significant progress over the last years. • First order language could define the common umbrella, where DLs and HLs are sublanguages and unified. • Therefore, we will redefine OWL-Full. Dieter Fensel dieter.fensel@deri.org

  15. (4) Pure logic is cumbersom • Pure logics is a cumbersome tool for modeling • Therefore, extensions like Flogic that allow quantification over classes and attributes are that helpful. • W3C recommendations should care for this if they want to make their languages widely adopted. • OWL-Flight provide these features. Dieter Fensel dieter.fensel@deri.org

  16. (5) I strongly dislike SWRL • since it spoils the nice properties of rule languages for the price of defining the rule language as an extension of DLs. • SWRL is meaningless since it defines a syntactical restriction of 1st order logic without any computational justification. • SWRL is as undecidable and untractable as first order logic. • Therefore, it is meaningless to syntactically restrict first order logic in that way. Dieter Fensel dieter.fensel@deri.org

  17. (6) A useful rule language for the semantic web must follow a different approach • It should emply the full power of the HL fragment and include DL features only in case they do not harm this language type. • Therefore, a HL language should be defined as an extension of RDFS and/or OWL-Lite (where OWL Lite is reduced to an actual lite subset of DL). • That is the rationale underlying OWL-Flight. Dieter Fensel dieter.fensel@deri.org

  18. Choreography and orchestration • Choreography is about communication • Orchestration is about task decomposition • Both elements require the specification of dynamics • We are using Abstract State Machines as a point of departure to formalize the basic principles for these languages. • And we are very eager to learn from you! Dieter Fensel dieter.fensel@deri.org

  19. </ WSMO > <Q&A>

More Related