1 / 8

<WSMO D8 – Language Evaluation and Comparison>

<WSMO D8 – Language Evaluation and Comparison>. 1st F2F meeting SDK cluster working group on Semantic Web Services Wiesbaden, Germany, 2004-03-15 Jos de Bruijn Digital Enterprise Research Institute Innsbruck jos.de-bruijn@deri.ie. Agenda. Participants Motivation Evaluation Framework

lawrence-acosta
Download Presentation

<WSMO D8 – Language Evaluation and Comparison>

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. <WSMO D8 – Language Evaluation and Comparison> 1st F2F meeting SDK cluster working group on Semantic Web Services Wiesbaden, Germany, 2004-03-15 Jos de Bruijn Digital Enterprise Research Institute Innsbruck jos.de-bruijn@deri.ie

  2. Agenda • Participants • Motivation • Evaluation Framework • Languages to be evaluated • Towards a formal foundation for WSMO and WSML Jos de Bruijn <jos.de-bruijn@deri.ie>

  3. Participants Editors Uwe Keller Jos de Bruijn Co-Authors Axel Polleres Juan M. Gomez Ying Ding Rubén Lara Jos de Bruijn <jos.de-bruijn@deri.ie>

  4. Motivation • Languages for the Semantic Web need formal Semantics! • In WSMO and WSML we specify static knowledge: • WSMO itself • Ontologies • Knowledge transferred between Web Services • We specify dynamic knowledge: • Web Services change the state of both the information space and the state of the world • We need to reason over these state transitions, for example: • Proving a composition of web services matches a capability • Proving a Web Service choreography matches the Web Service Capability • Dynamics in Choreography and Orchestration • Different existing efforts for formally specifying static and dynamic knowledge Jos de Bruijn <jos.de-bruijn@deri.ie>

  5. Evaluation Framework • Syntax • usability • web syntax • states / state-transitions • Semantics • model-theoretic / minimal model semantics • states / state transitions • Operationalization • Proof system • (average and worst-case) Complexity and Decidability • Existing implementations? • Representing Statics • Representing Dynamics • Can the language be easily extended or combined? Jos de Bruijn <jos.de-bruijn@deri.ie>

  6. Languages to Compare • Static Languages: • F-Logic • OWL (+SWRL) • TRIPLE • Dynamic Languages: • Transaction Logic • Dynamic Logic • Temporal Logic • Modal Change Logic • Abstract State Machines • Current interaction and protocol standards: • BPEL4WS • BPML/WSCI • WSCL • RosettaNet Jos de Bruijn <jos.de-bruijn@deri.ie>

  7. Towards a formal foundation for WSMO and WSML • D16.6: WSML-Full (Full FOL) • D16.7: WSML-DL (Description Logic fragment of WSML-Full) • D16.8: WSML-HL (Horn fragment of WSML-Full) • How to incorporate dynamic languages? Jos de Bruijn <jos.de-bruijn@deri.ie>

  8. </ WSMO D8 – Language Evaluation and Comparison > Questions?

More Related