Presentation on theme: "Semantic Web Services Landscape Ontolog Tutorial Nov. 6, 2003 Revised Dec. 7, 2003 Bob Smith, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus, CSU Tall Tree Labs-Semtation USA."— Presentation transcript:
Semantic Web Services Landscape Ontolog Tutorial Nov. 6, 2003 Revised Dec. 7, 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 granularity Useful for developing roadmaps between where you are now and where you wish to go Assure 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 0.8) Part 1 Objective: Integrated Project Plan Part 2 NIST and Funding of Ontolog Plan Part 3 Pronto and Cladistics (Understand Patterns of evolving web standards ~SBIR) Part 4 SemTalks essential roles; BPMN Part 5 Next Steps towards Ontolog Landscape and SBIR proposal-award cycles
Current Work to synthesize Funding Sources for Ontolog WG SBIR proposals as opportunity to add value Pronto as potential project Code Name Pragmatic Ontologies? Production Rules and Business Rules? Processes for UBL Solutions? What strategy to use to identify feasible and productive questions for our SPIR proposal?
Landscape 1 : Experts in context M. Daconta et. al. 2003: The Semantic Web: a Guide to the Future of XML, Web Services, and Knowledge Management H. Smith & P. Fingar, 2002 BPM3 (www.BPMI.org)www.BPMI.org P. Harmon, Business Process Change, 2003, Morgan Kaufmann (www.bptrends.com )www.bptrends.com 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 M. Denny, 2002, Ontology Building: a Survey of Editing Tools ( The Survey www.xml.com/pub/a/2002/11/06/ontolgies.html) www.xml.com/pub/a/2002/11/06/ontolgies.html (Survey 2002 Results) http://www.xml.com/2002/11/06/Ontology_Editor_Survey.html O. Corcho & A. Gomez-Perez 2000, A Roadmap to Ontology Specification Languages (http://delicias.dia.fi.upm.es/articulos/ocorcho/ekaw2000-corcho.pdf).http://delicias.dia.fi.upm.es/articulos/ocorcho/ekaw2000-corcho.pdf J. Heflin, 2003 OWL Use Cases & Requirements W.M.P. van der Aalst et. Al. 2003, Business Process Management: A Survey http://tmitwww.tm.tue.nl/staff/wvdaalst/Publications/p174.pdf
Where would you scan for new ideas? Published experts in related domains Current issues; problems with existing standards and tools Major vendors (Geoff Moores Gorillas) Technology Trends anticipated 2-5 years out SBIR Requirements and their recent awards
Knowledge Perpetuation Projects MS: Whidbey and Longhorn: topology of your IT Stack to 2006 BizTalk 2004 Beta (Third time a charm?) Win95- Longhorn VB 6 -- Whidbey TRL Processes (Tech Readiness Levels DoD) UML 2.0, OMG, SOA, MDA workouts Other gorillas in the big picture IBM, Oracle, Cisco, Wal-Mart, Anthem, BofA
Placement of UBL and Ontolog? 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?
W3C Stack 1
Ontology Spectrum (Stack 2)
Time Lanes and TRL TRL and Time Lanes picture goes here
Business Process Markup Notation
Transition to Part 3 : SemTalk Landscaping SWS for Ontolog Funding Obviously need better tools than Visio… Process includes environmental scan of selected domain experts for issues; major players for explicit future plans; and Govt planning and auditing tools Michael Dennys Survey of Ontology Tools SemTalk EON2003 (October, 2003) Semantic Web Export / Import Interface Test
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
Simple SemTalk Ontology
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.
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.
Experiments with 8 EON2002 models Loom 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 (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.
Pronto A landscape describes the dominant features of an interesting space dominant forces may be visualized to understand feasible technical, economic, organizational, and political constraints, "push" and "pull" forces or vectors suggest reasonable pathways or roadmaps MS MapPoint 2004 provides a useful analogy to planning a roadmap in physical world. computer simulation applications (COCOMO II, Construx's Estimate, etc.) = Project Resources games (Teknowledge's recent Phase 2 SBIR award) provide analogies to Ontology and SWS roadmaps
Locating the SBIR Opportunities Gap analysis goes here Elaboration of project issues goes here