1 / 12

Business Process Interoperation Using OWL-P Response to the Semantic Web Services Challenge

This article explores using OWL-P for business process interoperation, including protocol composition, mediation, discovery, and managing change. It discusses the role of protocols, policies, and commitments in achieving semantic interoperation in business processes.

piercej
Download Presentation

Business Process Interoperation Using OWL-P Response to the Semantic Web Services Challenge

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. Business Process Interoperation Using OWL-PResponse to the Semantic Web Services Challenge Amit Chopra, Nirmit Desai, Munindar P. Singh Department of Computer Science North Carolina State University 9 March 2006

  2. Highlights • OWL-P • Protocols, policies, and protocol composition • OWL-P for phase 1 and phase 2 • Mediation using protocols • Protocol adaptations for managing change • Discovery based on interaction compatibility • Not just on simple service attributes • Proposed directions • Commitments as a basis for semantics • Flexible interaction compatibility as criterion for selection

  3. Business Process 1 Abstract entity Concrete entity 1 aggregation of 2+ consults Implementation of Local Process 1 1 1 1 Business Logic enacts Implementation of 1 1 1 Agent 1 Composite Skeleton stipulates 1 1+ 1+ adopts 1+ involves defines Role 2+ 1 composition of 1 1 2+ couples Business Protocol Role Skeleton 1+ 1+ 1 2+ 1 1+ 1 1 Protocol Logic derives specified by 1 1 Composite Protocol derives composedOf OWL-P Basics • Protocols: abstract, modular, publishable specifications of business interactions • Policies: private business logic of the agents adopting roles • Commitments provide semantics of the interactions

  4. OWL-P Protocol Composition • Specify dependencies among the component protocols in terms of • Role definitions: Role r1 in protocol P1 is adopted by the same agent that adopts role r2 in P2 • Event ordering: Event e1 in protocol P1 precedes event e2 in protocol P2 • Data flows: Parameter p in protocol P1 is bound to parameter q in protocol P2 • Implications: Concept A in protocol P1 implies concept B in protocol P2 (used to tie operations on commitments: what counts as what)

  5. OWL-P Contributions for Phase 1 Using • Protocols as engineering abstractions for mediation and choreography • Protocol subsumption as a means of comparing protocols

  6. Mediation via OWL-P: 1 • PIP3A4 as a protocol between Buyer and Seller roles • PurchaseOrder as a protocol between LegacyBuyer and LegacySeller roles • Composite protocol Purchase composed of PIP3A4 and PurchaseOrder • Blue adopts Buyer, Mediator adopts Seller and LegacyBuyer, and Moon adopts LegacySeller • Mappings are the set of composition axioms used to compose PIP3A4 and PurchaseOrder

  7. Mediation via OWL-P: 2 Composition axioms not shown

  8. OWL-P as a Basis for Discovery • Match interactions, not just simple business attributes • Exact matches are impractical in open environments • Protocol subsumption supports flexible matching • General protocols subsume specific protocols • For example, a payment (in general) subsumes payment by credit card or payment with cash • The payment mechanism is not a simple attribute: parties interact in different ways depending on the mechanism

  9. OWL-P for Phase 2 • Change in the Moon interface or PIP: • Model the change as a transformation and applied to the original protocol; or • Recompose the protocols with a new set of composition axioms • Discovering a new business partner • The number of matching suppliers change according to the similarity function

  10. OWL-P Prototype for Moon and Blue Software Designer Blue 3 Composer Blue Skeleton (Jess) Local Policy Axioms specify + 2 PO OWL-P 7 PIP3A4 OWL-P Legacy OWL-P Blue Local Process 6 4 register 1 Protocol Repository 5 Moon (Not shown Here) OWLP2Jess 8 Lookup PO register Mediator Local Policy Mediator Skeleton (Jess) 9 + JMS JNDI Naming 10 register 11 Mediator Local Process

  11. Proposed Directions • Emphasize contractual semantics for business interactions • Contracts are bases of metrics of preference, risk assessment, opportunity, and so on • Basis for verification and compliance • Treat matching rigorously to support automated discovery • Base matching on the subsumption hierarchy of protocols, analogous to class hierarchies in object-oriented modeling

  12. References • Ashok U. Mallya. Modeling and Enacting Business Processes via Commitment Protocols Among Agents. PhD, NCSU, 2005 • Nirmit Desai, Ashok U. Mallya, Amit K. Chopra, Munindar P. Singh. Interaction Protocols as Design Abstractions for business Processes. IEEE transactions on software engineering, 31(12):1015-1027, 2005 • Amit K. Chopra, Munindar P. Singh. Contextualizing Commitment Protocols. AAMAS 2006, to appear • Nirmit Desai, Amit K. Chopra, Munindar P. Singh. Business Process Adaptations via Protocol Composition. (Unpublished) • OWL-P examples: http://research.csc.ncsu.edu/mas/OWL-P/

More Related