1 / 29

Filtering & Selecting Semantic Web Services with Interactive Composition Techniques

Filtering & Selecting Semantic Web Services with Interactive Composition Techniques. By Evren Sirin, Bijan Parsia, and James Hendler. Presenting By : Mirza Tania Nasreen Mohammad Hasan. Main Idea of the Paper Works done by Authors Relevant Terms Comparisonal Work Flow

vivi
Télécharger la présentation

Filtering & Selecting Semantic Web Services with Interactive Composition Techniques

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. Filtering & Selecting Semantic Web Services with Interactive Composition Techniques By Evren Sirin, Bijan Parsia, and James Hendler Presenting By : Mirza Tania Nasreen Mohammad Hasan

  2. Main Idea of the Paper Works done by Authors Relevant Terms Comparisonal Work Flow Technology Used Implementation details Conclusion Outline of the Presentation

  3. Main Idea of the Paper Composition of Web Services Dynamically

  4. Why Composition ??? • Goal:applications will be able to communicate each other very flexibly to achieve some combined and new functionality from existing ones. • Present Condition: failed to achieve this goal • the expected ability to compose web services has not been achieved yet

  5. Developed goal-oriented interactive composition approach Help the users to dynamically compose web services from internet with filtering capabilities Works Done by the Authors • Implemented • In a Prototype system

  6. No Semantics in WSDL Web Service • Web Service is a software system designed to support interoperable Machine to Machine interaction over a network. [W3C] • A web service is a collection of protocols and standards used for exchanging data between applications or systems. [Wikipedia] Current State of SOA

  7. Drawback with Example

  8. Semantic Web Service • a services whose properties, capabilities, interfaces, and effects are encoded in an unambiguous, machine-understandable form. World Wide Web Web Service [ HOW & WEHERE ] Semantic Web Service Semantic Web [ WHAT & WHY ] Web Service + Semantics = Semantic Web Service

  9. Why Semantics ???? • (Discovery)Neither WSDL nor UDDI allows for software to determine what a Web service offers to the client. A Semantic Web service describes its properties and capabilities so that software can automatically determine its purpose. • (Invocation) A Semantic Web service provides a descriptive list of what an agent needs to be able to do to execute and fulfill the service. This includes what the inputs and outputs of the service are. • (Monitoring) services can interoperate with each other seamlessly and can combine results for a valid solution. Dynamic Composition

  10. Dictionary Translator WSDL WSDL How & Where How & Where Why Semantics? An Example French to English Dictionary string string string string word translated word word meaning WS 2 WS 1 translated English word meaning French word + What & Why + What & Why Semantic Annotation is the main concept behind Dynamic Composition

  11. How Semantics ???? • UDDI Standards for Service Directory • WSDL Standards for Description • SOAP Standards for Messaging Protocols WSDL + OWL-S = Semantic Web Service Description First System to directly combine the OWL-S semantic service descriptions with actual invocations of the WSDL descriptions. Dynamic Composition

  12. Filtering Selecting Interactive Composition Techniques Major Focuses of the Paper Filtering and Selecting Semantic Web Services with Interactive Composition Techniques

  13. Filtering • Filter is designed to examine each input or output request for certain qualifying criteria and then process or forward it accordingly. • When a service goes into the composition, this service’s information about input, output, preconditions, and effects (IOPE) serves to automatically filter the services whose outputs are incompatible with the current selection. • Filtering helps to determine the service that best fits user’s/clients personal preferences. • Filtering for their tool done by using matchmaking algorithms

  14. Selecting Human Controlled

  15. Interactive Composition • Gradually generates the composition with a forward or backward chaining of services. • At each step, their system adds a new service to the composition and filters further possibilities based on the current context and user decisions. Filtering + Selecting =Interacting Compositing Techniques • A successful, executable composition correctly combines a set of compatible components to achieve the composition’s overall goal.

  16. Filtering Auto. Filtering List of Services RESULT Selecting Step-by-step Composition Monitoring Fixing a GOAL Auto. Filtering Filtering List of Services Select 1st web Service Selecting Selection Select 2nd web Service Compose 2 web services Manual Composition Partial Automation of Composition Dynamic Composition

  17. Creating Semantic Service Description – OWL-S • OWL : Enables greater access only to content • OWL-S ( formerly DAML-S): Enables greater access to the Web Services • OWL-S partitions a Web Service’s description into three components : 1. Service Profile - IOPE parameters - service parameter 2. Process Model -Atomic Process -Composite Process 3. Grounding -Mapping from OWL-S to WSDL

  18. Translation from WSDL to OWL-S • WSDL Operation ≡ OWL-S Atomic Process • WSDL message parts ≡ OWL-S Process’s Parameters • Difficulties with Type Conversion : • Message parts are described by XML Schema data types • OWL itself permits only a subset (constrained range) of XML Schema data types (integers / strings). • OWL references data types by URI • No canonical way in XML Schema to determine a URI for a complex data type • Preferred Solution :Parameter types of OWL-S services be OWL classes

  19. Translation from WSDL to OWL-S cont’d… • Author’s Solution: • Treated the WSDL-supplied types as descriptions of the service parameters • i.e. the serialization of the values the process actually uses. • Extended the OWL-S grounding to include marshaling and unmarshaling functions using XSLT • Unmarshalling function : XML Schema type to an RDF graph serialized in the RDF/XML exchange syntax • That graph encodes the relevant assertions about the individual, which becomes the actual input to the service • Difficulties: • It’s difficult to write XSLT that can handle all the legal serializations of a given RDF graph.

  20. Implementation The Prototype System

  21. Implementation • 4 Types of IOPE Matching: • Exact:If advertisement A and request R are equivalent concepts • PlugIn: If request R is a subconcept of advertisement A • Subsume: If request R is a superconcept of advertisement A • Fail: No match.

  22. Matching IOPE • Only IO was used for matching • Specifications of PE are still an open OWL-S issue • Exact and Plug-In matches between the parameters of ServiceProfiles yields useful results • Returns an ordered list

  23. Matching Service Parameters • To get rid of long list of available choice • Service names themselves might not contain enough information • Means of introducing more user constraint • Applies the result of this new query to the previous result set

  24. Matching Service Parameters

  25. Generating and Executing Composed Services • Generation : • Each Composition ≡ OWL-S CompositeProcess • It can also be advertised, discovered, and composed with other services • Generates exactly such a CompositeProcess description • Creates the corresponding ServiceProfile • Execution : • Invoking each individual services and passing the data • Client program serves as the central control authority

  26. Improvement and further automation • Strong need for a suitable set of service descriptions of sufficient and compatible detail to support • Converting the IO type descriptions from XML Schema data types to OWL classes • Removing human interaction from the loop by integrating a planner • Introduce machine learning – better and preferred suggestions

  27. Conclusion Web Service Semantic Web Semantic Web Service Maturity Hill Partial Automation of Composition Full Automation

  28. References • Filtering and Selecting Semantic Web Services with Interactive Composition Techniques. IEEE Intelligent Sytems. 19(4): 42-49 (2004). • Semantic Web Services. IEEE Intelligent Systems, Volume: 16 Issue: 2, March-April 2001, Pages: 46 -53 • Semantic Web Service Architecture — EvolvingWeb Service Standards toward the Semantic Web. American Association for Artificial Intelligence (www.aaai.org). • Bringing Together Semantic Web and Web Services. Proceedings 1st International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC 02), 2002. • http://www.w3.org/Submission/OWL-S/

  29. Thank You ...

More Related