1 / 28

Applying Semantics in SOA – OWL , WSDL-S

Applying Semantics in SOA – OWL , WSDL-S. . 指導教授：吳秀陽 　報告人：陳建博 學號： 69621501. Outline. 1. Introduction. 2. OWL Synopsis. 3. OWL Description. 4. Example. 5. WSDL-S. 6. Conclusion. 1. Introduction – Why Semantics Need in SOA?.

sharlene-barbier
Download Presentation

Applying Semantics in SOA – OWL , WSDL-S

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. Applying Semantics in SOA – OWL , WSDL-S .指導教授：吳秀陽 　報告人：陳建博 學號：69621501

  2. Outline 1.Introduction 2.OWL Synopsis 3.OWL Description 4.Example 5. WSDL-S 6. Conclusion

  3. 1. Introduction– Why Semantics Need in SOA? • The main challenge of service discovery in SOA is using automated means to accurately discover services with minimal user involvement. • This requires explicating the semantics of both the services provider and requester. • They will facilitate the automation of Web service tasks including automated Web service discovery, execution, interoperation, composition and monitoring. • We need some simple, common, and standard semantic language to achieve such automation.

  4. 1. Introduction - What is OWL (Web Ontology Language)? • OWL is intended to be used to define domain-specific related knowledge in Web Ontologies. • An Ontology is a formal, explicit specifications of a shared conceptualization. [Grub:93] • OWL can be used to explicitly represent the meaning of terms in vocabularies and the relationships between those terms. • OWL hadbecame aW3C formal Recommendation for Web ontologies.

  5. 1. Introduction – The Evolution of OWL XML(S) → RDF(S) → DAML+OIL → OWL • XML/XML Schema (eXtensible Markup Language) → XML documents and also extends XML with datatypes. • RDF/RDF Schema (Resource Description Framework) →RDF with a semantics for generalization-hierarchies of such properties and classes. • DAML(DARPA Agent Markup Language) + OIL (Ontology Inference Layer) (replaced by OWL) → more sophisticated RDF(S) + inference system. • OWL (Web Ontology Language)→ W3C standard, ontology language.

  6. 2. OWL Synopsis – OWL Species • OWL Litesupports those users primarily needing a classificationhierarchy and simple constraints so it expludes enumerated classes, arbitrary cardinality, and so on. • OWL DL (Description Logic)supports those users who want the maximum expressiveness, retain computational completeness and decidability, but can be used only under certain restrictions. • OWL Fullfor users who want maximum expressiveness and the syntactic freedom of RDF with no computational guarantees.

  7. 2. OWL Synopsis - OWL Species (cont.) • Each of these sublanguages is an extension of its simpler predecessor, both in legally expressed and validly concluded. • Every legal OWL Lite ontology is a legal OWL DL ontology. • Every legal OWL DL ontology is a legal OWL Full ontology. • Every valid OWL Lite conclusion is a valid OWL DL conclusion. • Every valid OWL DL conclusion is a valid OWL Full conclusion.

  8. 2. OWL Synopsis – OWL Lite • OWL Lite Synopsis • Schema Features • Class (Thing, Nothing) • rdfs:subClassOf • rdf:Property • rdfs:subPropertyOf • rdfs:domain • rdfs:range • Individual • (In) Equality • equivalentClass • equivalentProperty • sameAs • differentFrom • AllDifferent • distinctMembers

  9. 2. OWL Synopsis – OWL Lite (cont.) • Property Characteristics • ObjectProperty • DatatypeProperty • inverseOf • TransitiveProperty • SymmetricProperty • FunctionalProperty • InverseFunctionalProperty • Property Restrictions • Restriction • onProperty • allValuesFrom • someValuesFrom • Restricted Cardinality • minCardinality (only 0 or 1) • maxCardinality (only 0 or 1) • cardinality (only 0 or 1) • Header Information • Ontology • imports

  10. 2. OWL Synopsis – OWL Lite (cont.) • Class Intersection • intersectionOf • Datatypes • xsd datatypes • Versioning • versionInfo • priorVersion • DeprecatedPropety • DeprecatedClass • incompatibleWith • Annotation Properties • rdfs:label • rdfs:comment • rdfs:seeAlso • rdfs:isDefinedBy • AnotationProperty • OntologyProperty

  11. 2. OWL Synopsis – OWL DL and Full • Class Axioms • oneOf, dataRange • disjointWith • equivalentClassrdfs:subClassOf • Arbitrary Cardinality: • minCardinality • maxCardinality • cardinality • Boolean Combinations of Class Expressions • unionOf • complementOf • intersectionOf • Filler Information: • hasValue

  12. 3. OWL Description – OWL Lite RDF Schema features • Class,subClass A class defines a group of individuals that belong together because they share some properties class.(Thing, Nothing) • individual Individuals are instances of classes, and properties may be used to relate one individual to another. • rdf:Property, rdfs:subProperty Properties can be used to state relationships between individuals or from individuals to data values. • rdfs:domain, rdfs:range A domain of a property limits the individuals to which the property can be applied.The range of a property limits the individuals that the property may have as its value.

  13. 3. OWL Description – OWL Lite Equality and Inequality • equivalentClass Two classes may be stated to be equivalent. Equivalent classes have the same instances. • equivalentProperty Two properties may be stated to be equivalent. Equivalent properties relate one individual to the same set of other individuals. • sameAs, differentFrom Two individuals may be stated to be the same or the different. • AllDifferent A number of individuals may be stated to be mutually distinct in one AllDifferent statement.

  14. 3. OWL Description – OWL Lite Property Characteristics • inverseOf One property may be stated to be the inverse of another property. For example, if property P1 is the inverse of property P2, then if X is related to Y by the P2 property, then Y is related to X by the P1 property . • FunctionalProperty, inverseFunctionalProperty Properties may be stated to have a unique value or not. If a property is a FunctionalProperty, then it has no more than one value for each individual. • TransitiveProperty Properties may be stated to be transitive. • SymmetricProperty Properties may be stated to be symmetric.

  15. 3. OWL Description – OWL Lite Restricted Cardinality • cardinality That is the restrictions constrain the cardinality of that property on instances of that class. OWL Lite cardinality restrictions are limited because they only allow statements concerning cardinalities of value 0 or 1. • minCardinality For Example, the class Parent would have a minimum cardinality of 1 on the hasOffspring property. • maxCardinality For example, the property hasSpouse on the class UnmarriedPerson may have a maximum cardinality of 0 .

  16. 3. OWL Description – OWL Lite other semantics • Property Restriction allValuesFrom, someValuesFrom • Class Intersection intersectionOf • Header Information • Anotation Properties • Versioning . .

  17. 3. OWL Description – OWL DL & OWL Full Increment • oneOf • hasValue • disjointWith • unionOf, complementOf, intersectionOf • minCardinality, maxCardinality, cardinality • Complex classes

  18. 4. Example – Academic OWL small ontology: <owl:Class rdf:ID="associateProfessor">      <rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="#academicStaffMember"/> </owl:Class> <owl:Class rdf:about="associateProfessor">      <owl:disjointWith rdf:resource="#professor"/>      <owl:disjointWith rdf:resource="#assistantProfessor"/>   </owl:Class><owl:Class rdf:ID="faculty">      <owl:equivalentClass rdf:resource="#academicStaffMember"/></owl:Class>

  19. 4. Example – Academic OWL (cont..) <owl:ObjectProperty rdf:ID="isTaughtBy">      <rdfs:domain rdf:resource="#course"/>      <rdfs:range rdf:resource="#academicStaffMember"/>      <rdfs:subPropertyOf rdf:resource="#involves"/>   </owl:ObjectProperty>   <owl:ObjectProperty rdf:ID="teaches">      <rdfs:range rdf:resource="#course"/>      <rdfs:domain rdf:resource="#academicStaffMember"/>      <owl:inverseOf rdf:resource="#isTaughtBy"/>   </owl:ObjectProperty>   <owl:Class rdf:about="#firstYearCourse">      <rdfs:subClassOf>         <owl:Restriction>            <owl:onProperty rdf:resource="#isTaughtBy"/>            <owl:allValuesFrom rdf:resource="#Professor"/>         </owl:Restriction>      </rdfs:subClassOf>   </owl:Class>

  20. 4. Example – Academic OWL (cont..) <owl:Class rdf:about="#course">      <rdfs:subClassOf>         <owl:Restriction>            <owl:onProperty rdf:resource="#isTaughtBy"/>            <owl:minCardinality rdf:datatype="&xsd;nonNegativeInteger">1</owl:minCardinality>         </owl:Restriction>      </rdfs:subClassOf>   </owl:Class>   <owl:Class rdf:ID="peopleAtUni">      <owl:unionOf rdf:parseType="Collection">      <owl:Class rdf:about="#staffMember"/>      <owl:Class rdf:about="#student"/>      </owl:unionOf>   </owl:Class>

  21. 4. Example – Academic OWL (cont..) some individuals: <academicStaffMember rdf:ID=“949352”>      <uni:age rdf:datatype=“&xsd;integer”>39<uni:age>   </academicStaffMember>   <course rdf:about=“CIT1111”>      <isTaughtBy rdf:resource=“949318”/>      <isTaughtBy rdf:resource=“949352”/>   </course>abstract syntax instances: Individual( CIT1111 type(course) value(isTaughtBy 949352) value(isTaughtBy 949318)) More Detail here.

  22. 5. WSDL-S - Brief • WSDL provides syntactic functional description in a technical manner of Web Service, solves the need of interoperability, but lacks in semantic information. • OWL supports developing of ontologies in a powerful way, but lacks in describing the technical details of services. • WSDL-S connecting WSDL and OWL to provide semantically enriched meanings of Web services. • WSDL-S is guided by the following principles: upwardly compatible, independent of semantics model(OWL, UML), data types are described in XML(S), rich mapping between Web Service schema types and ontologies.

  23. 5. WSDL-S - IOPE Mode • Input: Semantics is the meaning of input parameters as defined by some semantic model. • Output: Semantics is the meaning of output parameters as defined by some semantic model. • Precondition: A precondition is a set of semantic statements that are required to be true before an operation can be successfully invoked . • Effect: An effect is a set of semantic statements (or expressions represented using the concepts in a semantic model) that must be true after an operation completes execution after being invoked.

  24. 5. WSDL-S - IOPE Mode (cont.)

  25. 5. WSDL-S - Example <interface name="PurchaseOrder"> <operation name="processPurchaseOrder" pattern=wsdl:in-out wssem:modelReference="Rosetta:RequestPurchaseOrder"> <input messageLabel="processPurchaseOrderRequest" element="tns:processPurchaseOrderRequest"/> <output messageLabel="processPurchaseOrderResponse" element="processPurchaseOrderResponse"/> <!--Precondition and effect are added as extensible elements on an operation --> <wssem:precondition name="ExistingAcctPrecond" wssem:modelReference="POOntology#AccountExists"> <wssem:effect name="ItemReservedEffect" wssem:modelReference="POOntology#ItemReserved"/> </operation> </interface>

  26. <Operation> <Input1> <Output1> Web service 1 5. WSDL-S – Scope and Proposal <Operation> <Input2> <Output2> WSDL-S Web service 2 Composition Operation: buyTicket Input1: <Operation> TravelDetails Output1: <Input1> Confirmation Semantic UDDI Operation: Search <Output1> cancel Ticket Input1: Service Template TravelDetails Publish Output1: Confirmation Annotations Sivashanmugam, K., Verma, K., Sheth, A., Miller, J., Adding Semantics to Web Services Standards, ICWS 2003

  27. 6. Conclusion • OWL is sufficiently rich to be used in practice, further related projects are in the making, such as OWL-QL, Protege, OWL 2.0 ... • Formal semantics and reasoning support is provided through the Description Logics, a field of research that had been continually studied until nowadays. • WSDL-S intends just modeling the IOPEs for all the steps of the process semantically, seems not enough to achive whole semantic-SOA. • But adding semantics within the SOA would provide explicitly a shared meaning of business services.

  28. References: • W3C Semantic Web Ontology Language (OWL 1.0) http://www.w3.org/2004/OWL/ • WSDL-S 1.0 http://lsdis.cs.uga.edu/projects/meteor-s/wsdl-s/ http://www.w3.org/Submission/WSDL-S/ • Applying Semantics (WSDL, WSDL-S, OWL) inService Oriented Architectures (SOA), Michael Herrmann1, Muhammad Ahtisham Aslam2, Oliver Dalferth • Yuh-Jong Hu, 2005, “Semantic Web and Web Services” http://www.cs.nccu.edu.tw/~jong • Grigoris Antoniou, Frank van Harmelen, “A semantic web primer” , http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl/swprimer/

More Related