Semantic Web Services Landscape

Semantic Web Services Landscape

Ontolog Tutorial Nov. 6, 2003

Bob Smith, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus, CSU

Tall Tree Labs-Semtation USA

Christian Fillies Semtation, Inc.

Objectives

Landscape = a geographic “Orientation” at some level of granularityUseful for developing roadmaps between

where you are now and where you wish to go Assume explicit goal criteria and metrics of time-

distance-cost-value added Avoid disasters by building on past experiences Avoid tarpits, swamps, cliffs, etc. by inspection and

introspection

Outline (draft version 0.4)

Part 1 Objective: Integrated Project Plan

Part 2 NIST and Funding of Ontolog “Plan”

Part 3 SemTalk’s essential roles

Part 4 Summary

Part 5 Next Steps

Current Work to synthesize

Funding Sources for Ontolog WGSBIR proposals as opportunity to add valuePronto as potential project Code Name

Pragmatic Ontology _____**____ Production Rules and Business Rules?

Business Processes and UBL Solutions

Landscape 1: Authors in context

M. Daconta et. al. 2003: The Semantic Web: a Guide to the Future of XML, Web Services, and Knowledge Management

H. Smith & Fingar, 2002 BPM3 (www.BPMI.org)

D. Jenz 2003; BPMO Tutorial (www.JenzundPartner.de)

C. Fillies 2003; Ontology Tools (www.SemTalk.com) D. McComb 2003; Semantics in Business Systems: The

Discipline Underlying Web Services, Business Rules, and the Semantic Web (www.semantics.bz)

A. Tiwana 2002, the Knowledge Management Toolkit: Orchestrating IT, Strategy, and Knowledge Platforms

TBD

Knowledge Perpetuation Projects

Whidbey and Longhorn: topology of your IT Stack to 2006 Win95-Longhorn VB 6 -- Whidbey

Timelines vs TimeLanes? (TRL Processes) UML 2.0, OMG, SOA, MDA workouts

Other gorillas in the “big picture” IBM, Oracle, Cisco, Wal-Mart, Anthem, BofA

Placement of UBL

Focus remains on content and context of the SBIR proposal What is the critical technology topic at NIST? How do we organize to phrase our most relevant

“Query”? Who best understands the content and context for this

“Query”? Which resources do we need to marshal for this

project?

Part 3: Christian Fillie’s Section

SemTalk EON2003 Semantic Web Export / Import Interface Test

October, 2003

Business IT Stack 1

Picture 1 goes here

Business IT Stack 2

Picture 2 goes here

Time Lanes and TRL

TRL and Time Lanes picture goes here

Simple SemTalk Ontology

SemTalk

MS-Visio based generic graphical modeling tool Main Application Areas (all of them using ontologies)

Business Process Modeling Product Configuration Ontology Modeling

Open Meta Model to define other graphical Methods Generates

HTML MS Word MS PowerPoint MS Project

SemTalk Engine

In memory engine that ensures consistency within one Visio drawing

Expressiveness somewhere in the middle between RDFS and OWL multiple inheritance instances object- and data type properties

UML-style object notation Sufficient to cover most ontology / taxonomy

modeling issues related to BPM.

OWL Stencil

Interfaces to Inference Engines

F-Logic based interface to Ontobroker / OntoEdit of Ontoprise GmbH (we also have used DAML)

Cerebra Construct is 100% compatible with SemTalk. OWL & Visio drawing Construct is integrated with the Cerebra Engine of

Network Inference Ltd.

Results of the Experiment based on EON2002 modelsLoom We did not try to convert the Lisp files

OilEd After fixing some issues on the SemTalk DAML import, a subset of the model could be imported. The OildEd model differs significantly from the other models because it makes frequent use of those DAML features which are not support by SemTalk for DAML: intersectionOf, unionOf etc.

On the other hand this model is quite close to OWL. We tried to rename some XML elements to OWL, but finally failed to import it mainly because of the combination of “cons”-ed Lists and operators.

OntoEdit Since SemTalk has only an F-Logik export and not an F-Logik import function, the flo file

could not be imported. Using DAML import classes, instances and properties could be imported. Cardinalities are

ignored.

OpenKnoME We did not try to convert the Smalltalk files

Protégé Using RDFS import. Ignored by SemTalk RDFS Import even if the SemTalk engine could represent them: OverridingProperty Cardinalities Allowed Values / Defaultvalues All Data types Inverse properties are mapped as properties

Terminae We did not try to convert the text / Oil files

WebODE Failed to import classes as rdf:description with rdf:type Class

KAON Successful import after manually removing the XML-namespace “a:”

OilEd (DAML)

OntoEdit (DAML)

Protégé (RDFS)

KAON (DAML)

OilEd (new with OWL.vst)

Summary

SemTalk failed to import DAML models with complex expressions

This issue has already been fixed for OWL SemTalk succeeded in importing taxonomies from all

tools, which support DAML or RDFS From a business point of view the lack of importing

models having axioms and rich logical expressions is not very relevant since those expressions are not included in the other SemTalk methodologies such as Business Process Modelling. Being able to import taxonomies with subclassing and properties is the main point for our current customers.

Locating the SBIR Opportunities

Gap analysis goes here Elaboration of project issues goes here