An Experimental Assessment of Semantic Web-based Integration Support - Industrial Interoperability Focus - Nenad Anicic, Nenad Ivezic, Serm Kulvatunyou National Institute of Standards and Technology

Outline MotivationObjectives XML Schema-based integration OWL DL-based integration Expected Contributions Issues

Motivation Content standards are hard to implement for application-level interoperability because of : the lack of explicit application-level semantics in these standards the lack of explicit application-level semantics in these standards the very flexible, syntax-level specifications used in the standards the very flexible, syntax-level specifications used in the standards The consequences are : Costly and effort-intensive translation process among the independently implemented content standards Costly and effort-intensive translation process among the independently implemented content standards Hard to test vendor products for application-level interoperability. Hard to test vendor products for application-level interoperability.

Objectives Assess usability of OWL to support industry interoperability efforts Develop an experimental toolset that will enable formalization of current content standards Develop an experimental toolset that will enable formalization of current content standards Demonstrate potential positive effects of this formalization on a series of interoperability problems from on-going industrial efforts. Demonstrate potential positive effects of this formalization on a series of interoperability problems from on-going industrial efforts. Help design, re-use, and distribution of XML Schema business document

The general application integration situation and target integration capability OAG XML Schema STAR XML Schema AIAG XML Schema translation STAR XML data AIAG XML data STAR XML data AIAG XML data AIAG OWL DL STAR OWL DL OAG OWL DL DL Reasoner XSLT Mapping

OWL-based integration approach – expected contributions Procedure and Tools for Model-based Equivalence Test of Schema Documents Model-based Equivalence Test of Schema Documents Validating XML data using OWL-DL reasoner Validating XML data using OWL-DL reasoner Semantic equivalence tests between source and target XML instances Semantic equivalence tests between source and target XML instances

Model-based Equivalence of Schema Documents Create a merged ontology from independently developed STAR and AIAG ontologies Check for any inconsistencies in the merged ontologies Identify similarity between two schemas based on the comparison of their respective semantic views We assume that a high degree of equivalence may be obtained assuming common usage of core components as is the case of OAG standard XML Schema STAR XML Schema AIAG OWL DL STAR OWL DL AIAG Equivalent to ? Close to? Translation Tools

Validating XML data using OWL-DL reasoner Validate the XML data with respect to the XML Schema Translate XML data to OWL instance Validate the OWL individual with respect to the ontology XML Schema OWL DL Conforms to ? Translation Tools XML Instance OWL DL STAR OWL Instance

XML-to-OWL Translation Procedure DL Reasoner DIG interface OAG XML-to-OWL Translation tool XML Schema XML Schema instances Others interfaces XSLT TBOX ABOX AIAG STAR OWL DL OAG TBOX

Semantic Equivalence test between two XML instances Validate the XML data with respect to the OWL Add set of assertion to check equivalence XML Schema STAR XML Schema AIAG Translation Tools XML Instance STAR XML Instance AIAG OWL DL STAR OWL Instance OWL DL STAR AIAG OWL Instance ?=?= STAR OWL DL OAG AIAG

Mapping Definitions Issues KEY ISSUE: choose optimal OWL constructs that will be suitable for future reasoning about the original XML schema and in support of interoperability. What are the necessary and sufficient conditions for identifying an XML BOD component in an OWL model? Can we extract that information from XML Schema? What are the necessary and sufficient conditions for identifying an XML BOD component in an OWL model? Can we extract that information from XML Schema? OAG Resources (i.e., fundamental data elements) define semantically different / similar concepts. OAG Resources (i.e., fundamental data elements) define semantically different / similar concepts. How does one uniquely identify every OAG OWL concept? How does one uniquely identify every OAG OWL concept? How to define constraints which are defined as simpleType definition How to define constraints which are defined as simpleType definition

Relevant publications [1] D.Trastour, C.Preist, and D.Coleman, “Using Semantic Web Technology to Enhance Current Business-to-Business Integration Approaches”. 7th IEEE International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference, EDOC 2003, Brisbane, Australia, Sept 16-19th, 2003 [2] P.Lehti and P.Fankhauser: XML data integration with OWL: experiences and challenges. Applications and the Internet, Proceedings International Symposium, Jan Pages:160 – 167 [2] P.Lehti and P.Fankhauser: XML data integration with OWL: experiences and challenges. Applications and the Internet, Proceedings International Symposium, Jan Pages:160 – 167 [3] V. Haarslev and R. M¨oller. Description of the RACER system and its applications. In Proceedings InternationalWorkshop on Description Logics (DL-2001), [4] Web Ontology Language (OWL) Reference Version 1.0,- [5] Jena2 Semantic Web Toolkit: [6] A. Boukottaya, C. Vanoirbeek, F. Paganelli, O. Abou Khaled “Automating XML document Transformations: A conceptual modelling based approach” The First Asia-Pacific Conference on Conceptual Modelling, Dunedin, New Zealand, January , 2004 [7] M.Klein1, D.Fensel1, F.Harmelen, and I.Horrocks “The relation between ontologies and XML schemas” Linkoping Electronic Articles in Computer and Information Science Vol. 6(2001)