Sem web tutorial general

545 views

Published on

Published in: Education, Technology
1 Comment
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Infoeminent Technology, a Web Design and Development Company based in India specialized in cutting edge high quality web design solutions, custom web development, web based software innovations, SEO and web marketing services. In Connect Infosoft we foresee the customers' requirements (on and after discussion) and attempt the accomplishment through round the clock effort.

    infoeminent
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
545
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
5
Comments
1
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Disjunctive Datalog, ACM Transactions On Database Systems
  • Stack on left Tim Berners-Lees vision of the semantic web. Working from the bottom:
    Unicode provides the character set. Unicode provides a unique ‘number’ for every character in the world (it is claimed). The URI provides the uniqueness of each data item, as we have discussed.
    XML and XML schemata define the syntax. Namespaces are used to define the scope of terms used.
    RDF provides the semantics. The RDF schemata define the vocabulary being used. Hence more logical to put RDF schemata in vocabulary layer.
    The ontology vocabulary is defined by, e.g. DAML+OIL. At this level there is likely to be some simple logic.
    More sophisticated logic is likely to occur at the next level up.
    It is not sufficient to use logic to produce an answer, one must be able to prove that the answer is correct.
    Finally, we need to understand whom we can trust, and how much. But why does this not support proof, i.e. be below it in the stack?
    Digital signatures are necessary for authentication etc, and support trust. But why do they not extend right down the stack?
    Stack on right is idealised version, aligned to show that in practice some levels span more than one function.
  • The Web was designed to enable people, initially researchers, to access documents stored on computers distributed across the globe. So it was designed for human-to-machine communication, rather than machine-to-machine interworking. Specifically, the free text nature of a web page makes it hard to automatically identify relevant information. HTML identifies the layout of the pages, it does not identify the semantics.
    To take a specific example, we may wish to design an intelligent agent system which helps us select a new car, by visiting manufacturers’ web-sites, obtaining data, filtering on the basis of our stated preferences, and making comparisons. We will obviously want to know the price. However, every web-site will have price intermingled in the text in a haphazard way. We may be able to design software which is more-or-less successful in identifying the price information. But even if we can, it will never cope with the cost of extras etc. And other information, e.g. safety information, will be more complex still.
    In addition, the current web is difficult to search because of the lag of tagging. If we want a document authored by Paul Warren we search for a document with the ‘Paul Warren’ string. But this may be about Paul Warren, written for Paul Warren, or may be written by some other Paul Warren.
  • RDF is an XML application defined using a document type definition (DTD). A DTD was used because the design of RDF essentially pre-dates XML schema.
    RDF is made up of triples which are like simple grammatical sentences with a subject, a verb and an object (in that order). The subject and the verb will be a URI, the object may be a URI or may be a literal. A literal is a character string or other primitive datatype defined by XML.
    The uniqueness of the URI convention prevents confusion. Frequently the URI will be a URL where information about the data is stored. E.g. if I want to represent myself (Paul Warren) uniquely then I can create a URL somewhere (with a reasonable chance of guaranteeing persistence). The URL may have a descriptive identifier, e.g. …paul_warren.htm - but this is merely incidental. The page pointed at should preferably say something about the fact that the URL represents me. What we do require is that the URL be persistent.
    Someone else, e.g. the tax office, may construct a URI representing me, and all the intelligent agents in the world will be blissfully ignorant that the two URIs refer to the same person … until a human intervenes and defines an equivalence between them.
    Besides URLs, other forms of URI include identification of electronic mailboxes.
  • This example is taken from a paper by Aaron Swartz and James Hendler - ‘The Semantic Web: A Network of Content for the Digital City’, http://blogspace.com/rdf/SwartzHendler
    Actually, it’s not in RDF, but in Notation3, a kind of RDF ‘pseudocode’.
    <http://aaronsw.com> is a URI to represent Aaron Swartz. It’s actually a URL, and if you go there you can read about him.
    <http://love.example.org/terms/reallyLikes> represents the verb ‘really likes’. This doesn’t seem to be a URL, but in principle http://love.example.org/terms might be a vocabulary of terms about liking.
    <http://www.w3.org/People/Berners-Lee/Weaving/> is a URL where you can go to read about Berners-Lee’s book ‘Weaving the Web’.
    Remember:
    URIs are a superset of URLs - we may use URLs, but we don’t have to;
    The URI itself does not have to mean anything. Aaron Swartz could have used <http://xyz.com> to represent himself - if that wasn’t already taken by somebody else.
    Forrester gives 3 practical examples of how this could work out in real-life situations: http://www.intellact.nat.bt.com/intellact/reports/forrestr/2001/ereports/13387/document.htm
    When one organisation creates a vocabulary, another organisation is free to use whatever it likes from the vocabulary, and augment this with a vocabulary of its own. Data dictionaries will add translation tools.
    Elementary examples (from Forrester).
    Create RDF vocabularies for simple news ‘domains of discourse’, e.g. the weather. A very limited vocabulary is required. This would enable easy translation into any language.
    Sting and poet Gordon Sumner are the same person - but a search for one will not find the other.
  • RDFS provides some KR techniques, but is still not sufficient for applying real KR to semi-structured data on the web.
    how to apply KR - ontologies - to semi-structured data on the internet?
    only natural language spec.
    Only subsumption inference possible, no: transitivity, inverse, etc.
  • There are many definitions of ontology, this one comes from:
    Agents and the Semantic Web, James Hendler, IEEE Intelligent Systems, march/april 2001, http://www.cs.umd.edu/users/hendler/AgentWeb.html
    DAML = Darpa Agent Markup Language
    OIL = Ontology Inference Layer
    They have been combined to form DAML+OIL. This is now known as OWL (Ontology Web Language).
    To an extent (?) RDF Schemata also provide vocabularies.
    To see some ontologies go to www.daml.org/ontologies/
    The specific example is at: http://opencyc.sourceforge.net/daml/cyc.daml
    Dublin core (http://dublincore.org) - open forum developing ‘interoperable online metadata standards’ - library-oriented - uses RDF/XML Dublin is a city in Ohio, in the U.S.
    You can add more sophisticated logics on top of this, e.g. SHOE for Horn-clause-like-rules and even first and higher-order logics.
  • We need to be able to prove, e.g. that a commitment has been entered into.
    This example is from the Hendler paper referenced earlier. It is very much a standard, eBusiness proof application. Perhaps in the world of the semantic web proof would also have to do with proving the accuracy of referenced information. How do we prove that some, e.g. historical information on the Web is true, perhaps by having an audit trail back to source documents or highly-respected texts.
    As part of the proof mechanism, we need the concept of trust. A trusts B; B trusts C - does A trust C? Probably yes, but not as much as B trusts C or A trusts B. Then again, if A trusts B but B distrusts C, does A distrust C?
  • Stack on left Tim Berners-Lees vision of the semantic web. Working from the bottom:
    Unicode provides the character set. Unicode provides a unique ‘number’ for every character in the world (it is claimed). The URI provides the uniqueness of each data item, as we have discussed.
    XML and XML schemata define the syntax. Namespaces are used to define the scope of terms used.
    RDF provides the semantics. The RDF schemata define the vocabulary being used. Hence more logical to put RDF schemata in vocabulary layer.
    The ontology vocabulary is defined by, e.g. DAML+OIL. At this level there is likely to be some simple logic.
    More sophisticated logic is likely to occur at the next level up.
    It is not sufficient to use logic to produce an answer, one must be able to prove that the answer is correct.
    Finally, we need to understand whom we can trust, and how much. But why does this not support proof, i.e. be below it in the stack?
    Digital signatures are necessary for authentication etc, and support trust. But why do they not extend right down the stack?
    Stack on right is idealised version, aligned to show that in practice some levels span more than one function.
  • This slides shows the evolution of the Web from static information to Semantic Web-enabled Web Services.
  • Today’s Web Service technology does not provide for a formal description of the service a particular Web Service offers.
    In the future, we will go beyond relatively simple registration and description capabilities to a fully-fledged Web Service modelling framework, which will be highly scalable and support fully automatic service discovery, selection, invocation and composition. Looking a little further ahead, even automated negotiation by a Web Service on behalf of its owner may be possible.
  • The Semantic Web has been proposed by Tim Berners-Lee, the founder of the original web. Hs vision is that information (and services) in the future will be Marked-up semantically.
    Today’s HTML langugae specifies the appearance of a WWW page on a browser. On the Semantic Web, much more detail is also provided about the content of a Web page, as well how to lay it out.
    2 particular Semantic Web initiatives are relevant to Web Services.
  • Reference
    Management Update: The Semantic Web - Will It Link the World?12 September 2001 By Alexander Linden
    Document Type: InSide Gartner Group Source: Research and Advisory Services Note Number: IGG-09122001-04
    http://www.intellact.nat.bt.com/intellact/reports/gartner/intraweb/research/100800/100846/100846.html
  • Sem web tutorial general

    1. 1. Semantic Web John Davies Head of Next Generation Web Research, BT
    2. 2. Overview of this talk • History of the (Semantic) Web • Semantic Web Languages – XML – RDF(S) – OWL • Ontologies • Semantic Web Applications – Knowledge Management – Web Services
    3. 3. History of the Semantic Web • Web was “invented” by Tim Berners-Lee (amongst others), a physicist working at CERN • TBL’s original vision of the Web was much more ambitious than the reality of the existing (syntactic) Web: “... a goal of the Web was that, if the interaction between person and hypertext could be so intuitive that the machine-readable information space gave an accurate representation of the state of people's thoughts, interactions, and work patterns, then machine analysis could become a very powerful management tool, seeing patterns in our work and facilitating our working together through the typical problems which beset the management of large organizations.”
    4. 4. History (continued) • TBL (and others) have since been working towards realising this vision, which has become known as the Semantic Web – E.g., see article in May 2001 issue of Scientific American
    5. 5. Scientific American, May 2001:
    6. 6. 10000 100000 1000000 10000000 100000000 Dez94 Jun95 Dez95 Jun96 Dez96 Jun97 Dez97 Jun98 Dez98 Jun99 Dez99 Jun00 Dez00 Jun01 Dez01 Jun02 Dez02 Jun03 Dez03 Time WebServerNumber [ Source: http://www.zakon.org/robert/internet/timeline/ ] „Web data transfer larger than FTP data transfer“ „Kifer, Lausen, Woo, Logical foundations of object-oriented and frame-based languages“ „A. Borgida, On the relative expressiveness of description Logics and predicate logic“ ... Semantic Web HISTORY „W3C Semantic Web Standardization: Work on Web Ontology Language (OWL)“ „W3C standardization of Semantic Web starts Work on Resource Description Framework (RDF) Work on RDF Schema (RDFS)“ 10.2.2004: Resource Description Framework(RDF)Resource Description Framework(RDF) Web Ontology Language (OWL)Web Ontology Language (OWL) become W3C recommendationsbecome W3C recommendations Semantic WebSemantic Web = Web + Data base technology + Knowledge Representation „W3C Standardization of XML starts“ „Research projects on Web Ontologies start EU : On-To-Knowledge (01/00) and US (DARPA): DAML (07/00)“
    7. 7. Semantic Web „The Semantic Web is an extension of the current web in which information is given well- defined meaning, better enabling computers and people to work in co-operation.“ [Berners-Lee et al., 2001]
    8. 8. Semantic Web Vision
    9. 9. Where we are Today: the Syntactic Web [Hendler & Miller 02]
    10. 10. The Syntactic Web is… • A hypermedia, a digital library – A library of documents called (web pages) interconnected by a hypermedia of links • A database, an application platform – A common portal to applications accessible through web pages, and presenting their results as web pages • A platform for multimedia – BBC Radio 4 anywhere in the world! Terminator 3 trailers! • A naming scheme – Unique identity for those documents [Goble 03]
    11. 11. i.e. the Syntactic Web is… • A place where – computers do the presentation (easy) and – people do the linking and interpreting (hard). • Why not get computers to do more of the hard work? [Goble 03]
    12. 12. Hard Work using the Syntactic Web… • Complex queries involving background knowledge – Find information about “animals that use sonar but are not either bats, dolphins or whales” • Locating information in data repositories – Travel enquiries – Prices of goods and services – Results of human genome experiments • Delegating complex tasks to web “agents” – Book me a holiday next weekend somewhere warm, not too far away, and where they speak French or English , e.g., Barn Owl
    13. 13. What is the Problem? • Consider a typical web page: • Markup consists of: – rendering information (e.g., font size and colour) – Hyper-links to related content • Semantic content is accessible to humans but not (easily) to computers…
    14. 14. What information can we see… WWW2002 The eleventh international world wide web conference Sheraton waikiki hotel, Honolulu, hawaii, USA 7-11 may 2002, 1 location 5 days learn interact Registered participants coming from australia, canada, chile denmark, france, germany, ghana, hong kong,, norway, singapore, switzerland, the united kingdom, the united states, vietnam, zaire Register now On the 7th May Honolulu will provide the backdrop of the eleventh international world wide web conference. This prestigious event.. Speakers confirmed Tim berners-lee Tim is the well known inventor of the Web, … Ian Foster Ian is the pioneer of the Grid, the next generation internet …
    15. 15. What information can a machine see…                                                                                                                                                                                                                   
    16. 16. XML User definable and domain specific markup <H1>Knowledge Management</H1> <UL> <LI>Manager: John Davies <LI>Project: SEKT </UL> <H1>Knowledge Management</H1> <UL> <LI>Manager: John Davies <LI>Project: SEKT </UL> HTML: <research-topic> <title>Knowledge Management</title> <manager>John Davies</manager> <project>SEKT</project> </research-topic> <research-topic> <title>Knowledge Management</title> <manager>John Davies</manager> <project>SEKT</project> </research-topic> XML:
    17. 17. XML: Document = labelled tree course teachertitle students name http <course date=“...”> <title>...</title> <teacher>...</teacher> <name>...</name> <http>...</http> <students>...</students> </course> = • DTD: simple grammars to describe legal trees • node = label + contents
    18. 18. XML example <play> <title>The Life and Death of King John</title> <Dramatis Personae> <persona>The Earl of PEMBROKE</persona> <persona>The Earl of ESSEX</persona> …… </Dramatis Personae> <Stagedir>SCENE England, the Court.</Stagedir> <act>Act 1 <scene>Scene I. <speech> <speaker>JOHN</speaker> <line>Now, Chatillon, what would France with us?</line> </speech>
    19. 19. Solution: XML markup with “meaningful” tags? <name>                          </name> <location>                  </location> <date>  </date> <slogan>              </ slogan> <participants>                                                                                                                                            </participants>
    20. 20. But What About… <conf>                          </conf> <place>                  </place> <date>  </date> <strapline>             </strapline> <participants>                                                                                                                                            </participants>
    21. 21. XML: limitations for semantic markup XML per se makes no commitment on: • Domain specific ontological vocabulary • Which words shall we use to describe a given set of concepts? • Ontological modelling primitives • How can we combine these concepts, e.g. “car is a-kind-of (subclass-of) vehicle”  requires pre-arranged agreement on vocab and primitives Only feasible for closed collaboration – agents in a small & stable community – pages on a small & stable intranet .. not for sharable Web-resources
    22. 22. Limitations of the Web today Machine-to-human, not machine-to-machine
    23. 23. XML is a first step • Semantic markup – HTML  layout – XML  meaning • Metadata – within documents, not across documents – prescriptive, not descriptive – No commitment on vocabulary and modelling primitives • RDF is the next step
    24. 24. Resource Description Framework (RDF) • A standard of W3C • Relationships between documents • Consisting of triples or sentences: – <subject, property, verb> – <Tolkien, wrote, The Lord of the Rings> • RDFS extends RDF with standard “ontology vocabulary”: – Class, Property – Type, subClassOf – domain, range
    25. 25. An example “Tolkein wrote ISBN00001047582” hasWritten (‘http://www.famouswriters.org/tolkein/’, http://www.books.org/ISBN00001047582’)
    26. 26. RDF and RDFS • RDFS defines the ontology – classes and their properties and relationships – what concepts do we want to reason about and how are they related – there are authors, and authors write books • RDF defines the instances of these classes and their properties – Mark Twain is an author – Mark Twain wrote “Adventures of Tom Sawyer” – “Adventures of Tom Sawyer” is a book • Notation: RDF(S) = RDF + RDFS
    27. 27. hasName (‘http://www.famouswriters.org/twain/mark’, “Mark Twain”) hasWritten (‘http://www.famouswriters.org/twain/mark’, ‘http://www.books.org/ISBN00001047582’) title (‘http://www.books.org/ISBN00001047582’, “The Adventures of Tom Sawyer”) XML version: <rdf:Description rdf:about=http://www.famouswriters.org/twain/mark> <s:hasName>Mark Twain</s:hasName> <s:hasWritten rdf:resource=http://www.books.org/ISBN0001047/> </rdf:Description> RDF
    28. 28. twain/mark /ISBN000010475 hasWritten “Mark Twain” “The Adventures of Tom Sawyer” hasName title An example RDF data graph
    29. 29. RDF(S) definitions subclassof(FamousWriter, Writer) type(‘http://www.books.org/ISBN00001047582’, ‘http://www.description.org/schema#Book’)
    30. 30. An example RDF Schema Writer hasWritten Book FamousWriter /twain/mark ../ISBN00010475 Schema(RDFS) Data(RDF) hasWritten type subClassOf domain range type Annotation of WWW resources and semantic links
    31. 31. Conclusions about RDF(S) • Next step up from plain XML: – (small) ontological commitment to modeling primitives – possible to define vocabulary • However: – no precisely described meaning – no inference model
    32. 32. Web Ontology Language Requirements Desirable features identified for Web Ontology Language: • Extends existing Web standards – Such as XML, RDF, RDFS • Easy to understand and use – Should be based on familiar KR idioms • Formally specified • Of “adequate” expressive power • Possible to provide automated reasoning support
    33. 33. OWL Language • OWL is based on Description Logics knowledge representation formalism • OWL (DL) benefits from many years of DL research: – Well defined semantics – Formal properties well understood (complexity, decidability) – Known reasoning algorithms – Implemented systems (highly optimised) • Three species of OWL – OWL full is union of OWL syntax and RDF – OWL DL restricted to FOL fragment – OWL Lite is “easier to implement” subset of OWL DL • OWL DL based on SHIQ Description Logic
    34. 34. Why OWL? • OWL = Web Ontology Language • Owl’s superior intelligence is known throughout the Hundred Acre Wood, as are his talents for Writing, Spelling, other Educated and Special tasks. • "My spelling is Wobbly. It's good spelling, but it Wobbles, and the letters get in the wrong places."
    35. 35. • a philosophical discipline • a branch of philosophy that deals with the nature and the organisation of reality • Science of Being (Aristotle, Metaphysics, IV, 1) • Tries to answer the questions: • What characterizes being? • Eventually, what is being? Ontology: Origins and History
    36. 36. What (for our purposes) are Ontologies? Ontologies provide a shared and common understanding of a domain – a shared specification of a conceptualisation – ‘concept map’ – for WWW resources – defined using RDF(S) or OWL
    37. 37. Ontology as Taxonomy Living Beings Plants InvertebratesVertebrates Animals Taxonomy is a classification system where each node has only one parent – simple ontology
    38. 38. Ontology of People and their Roles Employee Manager Expert Analyst Programme Mgr Project Mgr funds advises Contractor Typically, we want a richer ontology with more relationships between concepts:
    39. 39. Structure of an Ontology Ontologies typically have two distinct components: • Names for important concepts and relationships in the domain – Elephant is a concept whose members are a kind of animal – Herbivore is a concept whose members are exactly those animals who eat only plants or parts of plants • Background knowledge/constraints on the domain – Adult_Elephants weigh at least 2,000 kg – No individual can be both a Herbivore and a Carnivore
    40. 40. Why develop an ontology? • To define web resources more precisely and make them more amenable to machine processing • To make domain assumptions explicit – Easier to change domain assumptions – Easier to understand and update legacy data • To separate domain knowledge from operational knowledge – Re-use domain and operational knowledge separately • A community reference for applications • To share a consistent understanding of what information means
    41. 41. Types of Ontologies [Guarino, 98] Describe very general concepts like space, time, event, which are independent of a particular problem or domain. It seems reasonable to have unified top-level ontologies for large communities of users. Describe the vocabulary related to a generic domain by specializing the concepts introduced in the top-level ontology. Describe the vocabulary related to a generic task or activity by specializing the top-level ontologies. These are the most specific ontologies. Concepts in application ontologies often correspond to roles played by domain entities while performing a certain activity.
    42. 42. Ontologies - Some Examples • General purpose ontologies: – WordNet / EuroWordNet, http://www.cogsci.princeton.edu/~wn – The Upper Cyc Ontology, http://www.cyc.com/cyc-2-1/index.html – IEEE Standard Upper Ontology, http://suo.ieee.org/ • Domain and application-specific ontologies: – RDF Site Summary RSS, http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rss-dev/files/schema.rdf – RETSINA Calendering Agent, http://ilrt.org/discovery/2001/06/schemas/ical- full/hybrid.rdf – AIFB Web Page Ontology, http://ontobroker.semanticweb.org/ontos/aifb.html – Dublin Core, http://dublincore.org/ – UMLS, http://www.nlm.nih.gov/research/umls/ – Open Biological Ontologies: http://obo.sourceforge.net/ • Ontologies in a wider sense – Agrovoc, http://www.fao.org/agrovoc/ – Art and Architecture, http://www.getty.edu/research/tools/vocabulary/aat/ – UNSPSC, http://eccma.org/unspsc/ • DAML.org library with all kinds of different ontologies!
    43. 43. RSS (RDF Site Summary) • RDF Site Summary (RSS) is a lightweight multipurpose extensible metadata description and syndication format. • The underlying RDF(S) ontology is extremely simple, mainly consisting of: title link channel description language item hasItem title link description
    44. 44. UMLS (Unified Medical Language System) (I) • provided by the US National Library of Medicine (NLM), a database of medical terminology • terms from several medical databases (MEDLINE, SNOMED International, Read Codes, etc.) are unified so that different terms are identified as the same medical concept • access at http://umlsks.nlm.nih.gov/
    45. 45. UMLS (Unified Medical Language System) (II) • UMLS Knowledge Sources: – Metathesaurus provides the concordance of medical concepts: • 730,000 concepts • 1.5 million concept names in different source vocabularies
    46. 46. Dublin Core • The Dublin Core Metadata Initiative is an open forum engaged in the development of interoperable online metadata standards that support a broad range of purposes and business models • Ontology includes elements like – TITLE – CREATOR – SUBJECT – DESCRIPTION – PUBLISHER – DATE... Simple set of elements that people can agree on! see http://dublincore.org/
    47. 47. Open Biological Ontologies • Various ontologies in the biological domain • obo.sourceforge.net • e.g. Gene Ontology (www.geneontology.org) “Biologists currently waste a lot of time and effort in searching for all of the available information about each small area of research. This is hampered further by the wide variations in terminology that may be common usage at any given time, and that inhibit effective searching by computers as well as people. For example, if you were searching for new targets for antibiotics, you might want to find all the gene products that are involved in bacterial protein synthesis, and that have significantly different sequences or structures from those in humans. But if one database describes these molecules as being involved in 'translation', whereas another uses the phrase 'protein synthesis', it will be difficult for you — and even harder for a computer — to find functionally equivalent terms. The Gene Ontology (GO) project is a collaborative effort to address the need for consistent descriptions of gene products in different databases.” • Hundreds of classes
    48. 48. Ontology and Logic • Reasoning over ontologies • Inferencing capabilities X is author of Y  Y is written by X X is supplier to Y; Y is supplier to Z  X and Z are part of the same supply chain Cars are a kind of vehicle; Vehicles have 2 or more wheels  Cars have 2 or more wheels
    49. 49. Proof and Trust
    50. 50. Semantic Web Vision
    51. 51. Semantic Web areas of application • Semantic Web & Knowledge Management – SEKT (sekt.semanticweb.org) • Semantic Web-enabled Web Services – SWWS (swws.semanticweb.org) – DIP (dip.semanticweb.org)
    52. 52. Semantic Web & KM • Making WWW information machine processable – annotation via ontologies & metadata – offers prospect of enhanced knowledge management • “Rank all the documents containing the word Tolkien” • “Show me the non-fiction books written by Tolkien about philology before 1940” • Data integration – significant research & technology challenges are outstanding
    53. 53. Major research challenges • Improve automation of ontology and metadata generation • Research and develop techniques for ontology management and evolution • Develop highly-scalable solutions • Research sound inferencing despite inconsistent models • Develop semantic knowledge access tools • Develop methodology for deployment
    54. 54. Semantic Web-enabled Web Services WWW static, unstructured info Web Services computational objects Semantic Web structured info SWWS - intelligent service discovery, interoperation, composition
    55. 55. Current Web Services • UDDI, WDSL, SOAP – Web Service discovery and description – No semantic (formal) description – Don’t support automatic • web service discovery • mediation • composition into complex services • negotiation
    56. 56. Future Web Services - exploiting the Semantic Web • OWL-S – an OWL-based language for WS description – US-based consortium • WSMF - Web Services Modelling Framework – EU initiative (DIP project) – Extends and enhances OWL-S capability – P2P approach with emphasis on mediation – www.wsmo.org – more on this later!
    57. 57. Semantic Web Services • Automatic discovery Find a book selling service • Automatic invocation Purchase the latest Delia Smith book • Automatic composition and interoperation Purchase the cheapest latest Delia Smith book • Automatic execution monitoring What is the status of my book order?
    58. 58. Semantic Web Services - benefits • More flexible use of internal IT systems • Cost savings via software re-use • Repurposing legacy systems • Easier B2B integration along supply chain • Software as a commodity – Web-based services – Usage-based charging
    59. 59. Semantic Web and AI? • No anthropomorphic claims • As with today’s WWW – large, inconsistent, distributed • Requirements – scalable, robust, decentralised – tolerant, mediated • As with WWW, Semantic Web will (need to) adapt fast
    60. 60. What Gartner says ... • To 2004, significant Semantic Web activity in improving information access for e-marketplaces (see later) • To 2006, wider-scale success not certain for several reasons: – potentially prolonged poor economic climate – lack of clear business models around ontologies but much sector-specific activity – overhead of creating and maintaining ontologies • There is significant ongoing research addressing the above challenges • Information-intensive enterprises should definitely do more than just take note.
    61. 61. Summary • The emergence of the Semantic Web – machine-processable information – Language stack: XML/RDF(S)/OWL – Ontologies • Semantic Web for KM – next generation WWW-based KM tools (inside) • Semantic Web for Web Services – automating Web Services processes (buy/sellside) “… great implications for a huge range of industrial and social applications” Gartner Group, Dec 2003
    62. 62. Acknowledgements • York Sure, University of Karlsruhe. • Frank van Harmelen, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. • Ian Horrocks, University of Manchester.
    63. 63. Thanks for your time & attention • Any questions? • Here’s 3 for you: – What are the semantic web layers? – What is the key difference between the semantic and syntactic web? – Name 3 ontologies in use today John Davies Next Generation Web Research, BT John.nj.davies@bt.com

    ×