1. May 23, 2004OWL-S straw proposal for SWSL1 OWL-S Straw Proposal Presentation to SWSL Committee May 23, 2004 David Martin Mark Burstein Drew McDermott Deb McGuinness Sheila McIlraith Massimo Paolucci Bijan Parsia

2. May 23, 2004OWL-S straw proposal for SWSL2 Outline Overview & Features of OWL-S –General –Profile –Process Model –Grounding Relationships with commercial Web service technologies Tools, applications & related work Case Studies Bridging to other SWSL proposals Roadmap for SWSL use of OWL-S

3. May 23, 2004OWL-S straw proposal for SWSL3 Based on OWL (DL) ontology of services, with selected uses of rules (SWRL+) Analysis + OWL-S services are part of the Semantic Web +SWS require the use of domain ontologies; many will be rep'n in OWL; these will be easily exploited and integrated +W3C status; potential for wide adoption + Can make direct use of OWL and SWRL + Rich data modeling features + Convenient and natural for (SW)S + OWL and SWRL reasoners / tools can be used –Restricted expressive power: some aspects of SWS cannot be adequately expressed within the language General Features of OWL-S

4. May 23, 2004OWL-S straw proposal for SWSL4 Based on OWL (DL) ontology of services, with selected uses of rules (SWRL+) Analysis (contd) -Usefulness of DL-based reasoning with process modeling not established -Unwieldy syntax (addressable by an OWL-S editor and/or surface language) +OWL has well-defined semantics -OWL semantics do not capture all and only the intended interpretations of our OWL-S ontology (because we can't describe them within the language). Thus, there are unintended models. General Features of OWL-S

5. May 23, 2004OWL-S straw proposal for SWSL5 Conceptual model +Fairly well-developed; represents significant evolution –Lacks some rigour (could be addressed) General Features of OWL-S

6. May 23, 2004OWL-S straw proposal for SWSL6 Growing tool base and user community +Tools are what brings people -Many of these tools don't exploit the semantics of the language; they just use OWL-S as a syntax General Features of OWL-S

7. May 23, 2004OWL-S straw proposal for SWSL7 High-level characterization/summary of a service What does it do? Used for Constructing advertisements, requisitions Populating service registries A service can have many profiles Automated service discovery Service selection (matchmaking) Service Profile (overview):

8. May 23, 2004OWL-S straw proposal for SWSL8 Service Profile: Functionality Description Functional Specification of what the service does in terms of –preconditions –inputs –outputs –effects Summarizes the top- level Process

9. May 23, 2004OWL-S straw proposal for SWSL9 Service Profile: NonFunctional Properties Provides supporting information about the service.

10. May 23, 2004OWL-S straw proposal for SWSL10 Supports 2 styles of use (A) Class-hierarchical yellow pages++ Implicit capability characterization Arrangement of attributes on class hierarchy Can use multiple inheritance Relies primarily on non-functional properties (B) Process summaries for planning purposes Inputs, outputs, preconditions, effects Less reliance on formal hierarchical organization Summarizes process model specs Analysis +(A) leverages work on DL-based matchmaking +(B) leverages work on planning Profile Features (1)

11. May 23, 2004OWL-S straw proposal for SWSL11 There can be multiple profiles for a service; each loosely related to process model Analysis +Allows for adverts tailored to different contexts and audiences +Allows for advertising at the right level of detail -Fully automatic generation and consistency checking of profile not possible Profile Features (2)

12. May 23, 2004OWL-S straw proposal for SWSL12 Same representation for: Service advertisements Service requisition Analysis +Helpful in constructing matchmakers, brokers Profile Features (3)

13. May 23, 2004OWL-S straw proposal for SWSL13 Service Model How does it work? Process –Interpretable description of service providers behavior –Tells service user how and when to interact (read/write messages) & Process control –Ontology of process state; supports status queries –(stubbed out at present) Used for: –Service invocation, planning/composition, interoperation, monitoring All processes have –Inputs, outputs, preconditions and effects –Function/dataflow metaphor; action/process metaphor Composite processes –Control flow –Data flow Process Model (overview)

14. May 23, 2004OWL-S straw proposal for SWSL14 Service Model / Process Model (overview)

15. May 23, 2004OWL-S straw proposal for SWSL15 Service Model How does it work? Expression language Relation between outputs and effects Dataflow and bindings Surface syntax Process Model: Recent Progress

16. May 23, 2004OWL-S straw proposal for SWSL16 Atomic Process Definitions...

17. May 23, 2004OWL-S straw proposal for SWSL17 Results (@mil:motion_possible) true (location ?dest)

18. May 23, 2004OWL-S straw proposal for SWSL18 Embedding Expressions We treat expressions in logical languages as literals, to avoid any danger of accidental interpretation Two broad classes: XML literals and other. The former are for SWRL and DRS expressions, the latter for KiF, PDDL, etc. expressions.

19. May 23, 2004OWL-S straw proposal for SWSL19 Another Result false

20. May 23, 2004OWL-S straw proposal for SWSL20 Dataflow Output producee From step1 Is input param consumee To step2 Why is this a Literal? Because any expression can go Here.

21. May 23, 2004OWL-S straw proposal for SWSL21 Surface Syntax Clarity is great, but …RDF is tough to read and write. do1: Step1; Step2(consumee <= do1.producee)

22. May 23, 2004OWL-S straw proposal for SWSL22 Process Syntax Vanilla conventions; infix notation, more C- like than Lisp-like Logical expressions now dont have to be quoted in a funny way Output parameter values written step.param Input parameter bindings written param <= val

23. May 23, 2004OWL-S straw proposal for SWSL23 Inputs/outputs have OWL types Analysis + OWL-S processes are part of the Semantic Web + Rich data modeling features + Convenient and natural for (SW)S + OWL and SWRL reasoners / tools can be used –Usefulness of DL-based (subsumption) reasoning with process modeling not established –Unresolved issues about grounding of OWL types to WSDL message types Process Model features (1)

24. May 23, 2004OWL-S straw proposal for SWSL24 Ontology-based process description Analysis +Allows for inheritance hierarchy of processes (e.g. MIT process handbook) +May be useful for tools (search?, internal representations, interchange) -OWL expressiveness limitations force a cumbersome representation Process Model features (2)

25. May 23, 2004OWL-S straw proposal for SWSL25 Service Grounding (overview) Implementation-specific Message formatting, transport mechanisms, protocols, serializations of types Service Model + Grounding give everything needed for using the service Builds upon WSDL

26. May 23, 2004OWL-S straw proposal for SWSL26 OWL-S / WSDL Grounding (overview)

27. May 23, 2004OWL-S straw proposal for SWSL27 Reliance on WSDL Analysis + Allows for use of SWS with WS + Reuse of WSDL work on signatures, bindings, etc. –Integration details can be somewhat awkward (e.g. use of XSLT scripts often required) –More work is needed on some aspects of the OWL-S / WSDL mapping (e.g., exceptions, …) –WSDL 2.0 will allow arbitrary MEPs –Service has different meaning Grounding Features (1)

28. May 23, 2004OWL-S straw proposal for SWSL28 Mapping of OWL-S IO to WSDL Message Types Analysis + Reuse of WSDL work on signatures, bindings, etc. –Unresolved issues about grounding of OWL types to WSDL message types Grounding Features (2)

29. May 23, 2004OWL-S straw proposal for SWSL29 Outline Overview & Features of OWL-S Relationships with commercial Web service technologies –Registry-based discovery work (e.g. UDDI) recognizes the need for a basis for matchmaking Several matchmaking approaches have been developed using OWL-S and (at least one) integrated with UDDI Organizing services in class hierarchies ties in with some industry directions –Grounded Atomic Processes Tools, applications & related work Case Studies Bridging to other SWSL proposals Roadmap for SWSL use of OWL-S

30. May 23, 2004OWL-S straw proposal for SWSL30 Exploiting Taxonomies of Services ServiceProfile ProductProviding Service Manufacturing Transportation ActionService InfoService PhysicalProduct Service Repair Information Product+ physicalProduct+ manufacturer+ deliveryRegion* deliveryProvider* deliveryType Physical_ Product+ transportationMode+ geographicRegion+ physicalProduct+ Tie in with UDDI, UNSPSC, … DL Basis for matchmaking Multiple profiles; multiple taxonomies name provider role+ avgResponseTime? … FeeBased feeBasis+ paymentMethod+

31. May 23, 2004OWL-S straw proposal for SWSL31 Grounded Atomic Processes Resources/Concepts WSDL OWL-S Process Model Atomic Process Operation Message Inputs / Outputs Binding to SOAP, HTTP, etc.

32. May 23, 2004OWL-S straw proposal for SWSL32 Outline Overview & Features of OWL-S Relationships with commercial Web service technologies Tools, applications & related work Case Studies Bridging to other SWSL proposals Roadmap for SWSL use of OWL-S

33. May 23, 2004OWL-S straw proposal for SWSL33 OWL-S Authoring ToolsOWL-S Authoring Tools KSL OWL-S Editor CMU WSDL2OWL-S Mind-Swap Ontolink Web Service DiscoveryWeb Service Discovery CMU OWL-S/UDDI Matchmaker KSL Semantic Discovery Service CMU OWL-S Broker CMU OWL-S for P2P Automatic WS InvocationAutomatic WS Invocation CMU OWL-S Virtual Machine Web Service CompositionWeb Service Composition Mind-Swap Composer KSL Composition Tool CMU Computer Buyer Libraries LibrariesLibraries OWL-S API OWL-S API Tools & Components

34. May 23, 2004OWL-S straw proposal for SWSL34 Tools & Components OWL-S is just another OWL ontology All the tools & technologies for OWL are relevant OWL-S Tools and ApplicationsSee also the accompanying slides: OWL-S Tools and Applications See also: http://www.daml.org/services/http://www.daml.org/services/ –Tools page

35. May 23, 2004OWL-S straw proposal for SWSL35 Some Applications Using OWL-S CoSAR-TS demo (shown at SWMU) CMU demo(s) –Travel planning, Electronic parts buying, DAMLzon, … Golog composition demo MyGrid: (http://mygrid.man.ac.uk)http://mygrid.man.ac.uk AgentCities (www.agentcities.org)www.agentcities.org Task Computing (Fujitsu Labs with MINDSWAP) Composer demo (http://www.mindswap.org/~evren/composer/) MyCampus ( http://128.2.199.68/project ) http://128.2.199.68/project Secure Mobile Services (UMBC/Finin)

36. May 23, 2004OWL-S straw proposal for SWSL36 Other Resources DAML-S/OWL-S publications –Many and varied, tying in with several research areas & communities –See http://www.daml.org/services/owl-s/ for a partial listing http://www.daml.org/services/owl-s/ Formal semantics –McIlraith & Narayanan: Simulation, Verification and Automated Composition of Web Services –Ankolekar, Huch, Sycara: Concurrent Execution Semantics for DAML-S with Subtypes

37. May 23, 2004OWL-S straw proposal for SWSL37 Outline Overview & Features of OWL-S Relationships with commercial Web service technologies Tools & related work Case Studies –Financial transaction example –Amazon example: see OWL-S-Amazon.ppt –Travel service scenario: see OWL-S-Composition.ppt –WS Discovery (proposed) Bridging to other SWSL proposals Roadmap for SWSL use of OWL-S

38. May 23, 2004OWL-S straw proposal for SWSL38 Outline Overview & Features of OWL-S Relationships with commercial Web service technologies Tools, applications & related work Case Studies Bridging to other SWSL proposals Roadmap for SWSL use of OWL-S

39. May 23, 2004OWL-S straw proposal for SWSL39 Use of rules has potential to merge with Benjamins proposals re: contracting Define an API for composite process modeling (as suggested by Benjamin) Bridging to other SWSL proposals

40. May 23, 2004OWL-S straw proposal for SWSL40 Outline Overview & Features of OWL-S Relationships with commercial Web service technologies Tools, applications & related work Case Studies Bridging to other SWSL proposals Roadmap for SWSL use of OWL-S

41. May 23, 2004OWL-S straw proposal for SWSL41 Roadmap Keep the OWL-S Profile as the basis of our work on Advertising and Discovery See if it can be extended to provide a basis for contracting / negotiation Keep the grounded atomic processes with IOPEs –Smooth out issues regarding OWL WSDL mapping Select a more natural approach for composite process modeling –Evolve it so as to accomodate IOPEs expressed using OWL / SWRL –Merge with grounded atomic processes