1. 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.

2. 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 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

3. 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

4. Current Work to synthesize Funding Sources for Ontolog WG  SBIR proposals as opportunity to add value  Pronto as potential project Code Name Pragmatic Ontology _____**____ Production Rules and Business Rules?  Business Processes and UBL Solutions

5. 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)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

6. 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

7. 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?

8. Part 3: Christian Fillie’s Section SemTalk EON2003 Semantic Web Export / Import Interface Test October, 2003

9. Business IT Stack 1 Picture 1 goes here

10. Business IT Stack 2 Picture 2 goes here

11. Time Lanes and TRL TRL and Time Lanes picture goes here

12. Simple SemTalk Ontology

13. 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

14. 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.

15. OWL Stencil

16. 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.

17. Results of the Experiment based on EON2002 models LoomWe did not try to convert the Lisp files OilEdAfter 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. OpenKnoMEWe did not try to convert the Smalltalk files ProtégéUsing 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 TerminaeWe did not try to convert the text / Oil files WebODEFailed to import classes as rdf:description with rdf:type Class KAONSuccessful import after manually removing the XML-namespace “a:”

18. OilEd (DAML)

19. OntoEdit (DAML)

20. Protégé (RDFS)

21. KAON (DAML)

22. OilEd (new with OWL.vst)

23. 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.

24. Locating the SBIR Opportunities Gap analysis goes here Elaboration of project issues goes here