1 / 8

Metadata Representation, Knowledge Representation, and Ontologies Section

Metadata Representation, Knowledge Representation, and Ontologies Section. Line Pouchard Oak Ridge National Laboratory. What makes the Semantic Grid different from the Semantic Web (according to Line). SG is focused on the needs of applications that use Grid technologies in various context.

autumn-lancaster
Download Presentation

Metadata Representation, Knowledge Representation, and Ontologies Section

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Metadata Representation, Knowledge Representation, and Ontologies Section Line Pouchard Oak Ridge National Laboratory

  2. What makes the Semantic Grid different from the Semantic Web (according to Line) • SG is focused on the needs of applications that use Grid technologies in various context. • These tend to be scientific applications from scientific domains whose needs are quite different from those of typical web users. But they all use the Web in various clunky, home grown packages. • So the SG is focused on developing bridges, leveraging and cross-cutting technologies from the SW and assess them for scientific applications.

  3. Drivers(Line and Jim) • Need to share context-dependent data across community(ies) (data dissemination/discovery) • Support mapping between data models (across domains, over time) • Managing non-hierarchical data relationships / multiple hierarchies at once • Describing hypothesis/statements of trust /reification (statements about other statements) • Numerous XML schemas and DTDs, most are domain, or even application specific.

  4. More drivers • Mechanisms for re-use, mediation, aggregation, semantic federation are needed. • Needs for ontology repositories, discovery and capturing tools • Granularity of ontologies • Applying semantic stuff to large data/complex workflow/distributed independent contributors • Maintaining links between data and ontologies, evolving schemas, …

  5. Languages • RDF, RDFS, OWL descriptions: gather in one place a description of the characteristics of each language • comparison, including when to use each. Some of this already exists but needs updating and gathering. • For instance,

  6. More on languages • Collection of assertions and triples, properties • Range and domain of the triples • Equivalences • Booleans • Restrictions on classes and properties • Cardinality • class properties • Other possible languages (there are some!): PSL, Ontolingua, KIF, etc..: what is suitable, not suitable for the semantic grid and why.

  7. Existing Grid technologies that can potentially be enhanced by SG: • These would include the ones that we think are the most receptive to the work performed on SG. • It should make a clear case for why each Grid technology presented here would benefit from semantic grid technologies, for metadata and knowledge representation, ontologies, etc…. and where. • Here are just a few bullets:

  8. Metadata Catalog Services • OGSI service description • WS-Resource Framework • Data Format Description Language

More Related