Upload
phoenix-dimock
View
224
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Semantic Interoperabilityin InteliGrid
Ž. Turk and P. Katranuschkov
with input fromthe inteliGrid consortiumwww.inteliGrid.com
Semantic interoperability in context
• Business process are:• material and information
• Information processes include:• Value-adding activities• Communication activities / cooperation activities
• Communication and cooperation are possible when humans / software actors:
• can ‘talk’ to each other syntactic interoperability• can ‘understand’ each other semantic interoperability• can properly ‘respond’ to
changes in the environment knowledgeable interoperability
inteliGrid “stack”
• business process• dynamic VO
• semantics• schemas• conceptual models• ontologies
• technology• CORBA, DCOM• Web Services, .net• Grid
Part 1: BUSINESS PROCESS
60's60's
70's70's
80's80's
70's70's
Engineering Design
FEM
Prefabricatedcomponentmodelling
90's90's
StructuralStructuralanalysisanalysisStructuralStructuralanalysisanalysis
ParametricParametricdesigndesignParametricParametricdesigndesign
Great Information Barrier Reef
80's80's
90's90's
3D 3D visualizationvisualization 3D 3D visualizationvisualization
Building Use & Maintenance
FMFMFMFM
EDI
60's60's
70's70's
80's80's
90's90's
80's80'sConstruction
Production Planning
Production Automation
Accounting Accounting & data mgt& data mgtAccounting Accounting & data mgt& data mgt
Under construction:IFC GATE
Will be ready real soon now
PDMPDM
Product Product data data basesbases
Product Product data data basesbases
Architectural Design
QuantityQuantitycalculationcalculationQuantityQuantitycalculationcalculation
DXFferryInformation
brokers
CAD
Internet 2D 2D DraughtingDraughting 2D 2D DraughtingDraughting
VO Spanning Islands of Automation
Matti Hannus, VTT
Human Centred VO
ENGINEER 1
Project A
Project N
Project A
Engineer 1
Engineer n
project centered
user centeredR.J.Scherer, TUD
Dynamic VO
• need to go in and out of a VO fast• how?• if you carry your own
• not bring much luggage• small semantic footprint• files, documents• costs down the road
• if you have some help• lots of semantic luggage• big semantic footprint• objects• savings down the road
Part 2: SEMANTICS
Footnote on Semantics
• does this have meaning?
• how about this?• <name>ziga</name>• <firstName>turk</firstname>• <project>inteliGrid</project>
• it’s the same, just the font is different• so where is meaning?
I, too, am a line
location
dimensions
material
description
performance
characteristi
cs
quality
interrelation
ships
Structured vs. unstructured
traditional• unstructured• low-level semantic• document based• sequential work
modern• structured• high-level semantics• shared databases• distributed coordinated
teamwork
I’m a line
So am I
I’m a wall
I’m a window
Before ontology engineering: Conceptual product modeling
• NIAM• ISO 10303 Express, Express-g• UML• XML Schema• RDF Schema• DAML/OIL, OWL, OWL-S• ACL/KIF, KL1 family• ???
• … nodes and arcs
1980s Wall Concept (NIAM)
1990s WallExpress-G, Express
2000s Wall (XML)
...<Wall id="EoWall02"><Properties><name>EoWall02</name> <description>Wall instance based on the Engineering Ontology Definitions.</description> <material ref="EoMaterial01" /> <crossSectionType>rectangle</crossSectionType> <crossSectionParameters><parameter unit="{m}">0.3</parameter> <parameter unit="{m}">0.3</parameter>
</crossSectionParameters><length unit="{m}">2.8</length>
</Properties></Wall>...
The real problem
• not the current fashion of encoding the nodes and arches
• but what are the nodes and arches• what is a wall• what is the wing of an airplane• what is a keel of a ship
Continuous research efforts:
• C. K. Ogden (1923) The Meaning of Meaning• A. Tarski (1944) The Semantic Conception of Truth,
Philosophy and Phenomenological Research• A. Newell (1982) The Knowledge Level• C. Hewitt (1985) Open Systems• C. Eastman (1992) Modelling of Building: Evolution and
Concepts• T. Gruber (1993) Towards Principles of the Design of
Ontologies Used for Knowledge Sharing • J. Benjamin (1998) Ontology Construction in Technical
Domains
• footnote: but is the world really built out of objects with properties
The answer to the problem
• ISO DPAS 12006-2• Classification System
• ISO 10303 STEP• Standard for the Exchange of Product
Data • 103 classes• automotive, aerospace, shipbuilding
• ISO PAS 16739 IFC 2.x• Industry Foundation Classes• 103 classes• AEC
Software support
Part 3: TECHNOLOGY
ISO STEP reference architecture for manufacturing
Enterprise Product Model
Business Object
ProprietaryEnvironment
ProprietaryKnowledge
ProprietaryEnvironment
ProprietaryKnowledge
Requirements/feasibility
Design Simulation Manufacturing Product support
ProprietaryEnvironment
ProprietaryKnowledge
defines
Integrated schema Product model dataReference data library
Inte
r-d
iscip
lin
ary
collab
ora
tion
Intr
a-d
iscip
lin
ary
collab
ora
tion
PDM schema
Op
en
Data
S
tan
dard
s
ISO15926
Life-cycle
AP233 AP203e2 AP214 AP210 AP209 AP237 AP233 AP238 AP239
Business Object •Data completion•Methods•Data validation•Data conversion•Check-in/check-out•Versioning/history•Configurations•Origin/rights•Design Intent
Business Object
Enterprise Product ModelReference Data Library
Application
Aspect
Represents a subset of the
product model population e.g. transmission, door, wing,
landing gear, etc.
Represents a view of
the product model, e.g. structural, electrical,
etc.
Methods for accessing/updating
the underlying data contained in
the business object.
Rules
The meaning triangle interpreted
ConceptConceptRepositoryRepository
Proxy
representationreferenceD
esig
nati o
n
Den
otat
ion
TermsTerms contained in design/construction documents and in the heads of the designers – eng. knowledge (“site”, “building”, “storey” …)
Business objects (IFC product model dataBusiness objects (IFC product model data)) contained e.g. in CAD drawings(IfcSite, IfcBuilding, IfcBuildingStorey …)
IfcProject
IfcProcess
IfcProduct
IfcBuilding
IfcSite
IfcElement
IfcSpatialElement
IfcObject
IfcRoot
Real world objectsReal world objects
Fuzzy, ambiguous
Difficult to realise completely
Complex
Middleware Extensions – a possibility
ogsa-dai
ifo-oi
The Ontology Layer Suggested in inteliGrid
• Provide an ontology-committed view to grid information and services
• Ontology used as formal, explicit specification of a shared conceptualisation
- formal ontology should be machine readable- explicit explicit definition of concept types and
constraints - shared used to define a common standard in the
domain• Needed for improvements in
- data/service discovery- data/service integration (for disparate sources)- data/service quality improvement (management of consistency)- flexibility and maintainability of the grid- IFC based semantic interoperability through I-OWL- possibly ontology-enabled user interfaces
intelligent semantic interoperabilityintelligent semantic interoperability
OGSA-DAI
Product Data and Ontology Framework
OWL(RDF/XSD/XML)
ontology tools-editors-parsers
-reasoners-servers
generic ontology specifications
(generic definitions/specifications)
AEC specificontology
(ifcOWL)
ifcXML
databases
IFC / ISOstandard product
data models
engineering applications
(application access)
defined
by
specializationof
ontologydef.
dataaccess
guidedby
guided
by
product
servers
existing
tools
(CAD,etc.)
Ontology Augmented Data Access Scenario
Information request by client Interpret information need Request list of available information Transform information request Retrieve & transform model based info Fill A-box based with available information Specify required information resources Request information resources Deliver information resources offer information to client
Ontology Information Logistic
InfoServer I
InfoServer II
InfoServer III
Ontology Server
Taxonomy
Assertions
…Basic AssertionsWhat resources, where
Geometry view
Ontology-Enabled GUI
Challenges
Challenges: Research, Development, Migration
• can grids compete with web services as interoperability platform? what are the advantages, disadvantages? Is WSRF the right solution?
• ontology committed semantics not one service of the grid but a feature of the grid as a whole
• what kind of ontology?• lean or fat,• one – hardwired, one – exchangeable• for documents or for objects• several competing ontologies
Challenges: Research, Development, Migration
• grid toolkits are de-facto “distributed processing job” biased
• immaturity of the technologies: OGSI, WSRF, what’s next?
Challenges: Research, Development, Migration
• business model: one AEC grid with several project Web/portal providers or one grid or portals evolve to grids?
• does this work for software developers and service providers, how can they be motivated for grid-based solutions
• does this simplify the IT access for an VO
The end