1 / 31

Ontolog Landscape: Developing Roadmaps for Semantic Web Services

This tutorial provides an overview of the ontolog landscape, its objectives, and the tools and resources available for developing roadmaps in the field of semantic web services. It explores various funding sources, ontology tools, business process modeling notations, and knowledge management platforms. The tutorial also discusses the importance of environmental scanning and collaboration with domain experts and major players in the industry.

gaviny
Download Presentation

Ontolog Landscape: Developing Roadmaps for Semantic Web Services

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. 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.

  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 • 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+--

  3. Outline (draft version 0.8) • Part 1 Objective: Integrated Project Plan • Part 2 NIST and Funding of Ontolog “Plan” • Part 3 Pronto and Cladistics (UnderstandPatterns of evolving web standards ~SBIR) • Part 4 SemTalk’s essential roles; BPMN • Part 5 Next Steps towards Ontolog Landscape and SBIR proposal-award cycles

  4. 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?

  5. 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) • P. Harmon, Business Process Change, 2003, Morgan Kaufmann (www.bptrends.com ) • D. Jenz 2003; BPMO Tutorial (www.JenzundPartner.de) • C. Fillies2003; Ontology Tools(www.SemTalk.com) • D. McComb2003; Semantics in Business Systems: The Discipline Underlying Web Services, Business Rules, and the Semantic Web (www.semantics.bz) • A. Tiwana2002, 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) • (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). • 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

  6. Where would you scan for new ideas? • Published “experts” in related domains • Current issues; problems with existing standards and tools • Major vendors (Geoff Moore’s Gorillas) • Technology Trends anticipated 2-5 years out • SBIR Requirements and their recent awards

  7. 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

  8. 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?

  9. W3C Stack 1

  10. Ontology Spectrum (Stack 2)

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

  12. TRL 2

  13. TRL 3

  14. Business Process Markup Notation

  15. 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 Denny’s Survey of Ontology Tools • SemTalk EON2003 (October, 2003) • Semantic Web Export / Import Interface Test

  16. 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

  17. Simple SemTalk Ontology

  18. 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.

  19. OWL Stencil

  20. 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.

  21. Experiments with 8 EON2002 models

  22. OilEd (DAML)

  23. OntoEdit (DAML)

  24. Protégé (RDFS)

  25. KAON (DAML)

  26. OilEd (new with OWL.vst)

  27. 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.

  28. 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

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

More Related