[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [regrep-semantic] Blurb about SCM Work (For Interview)
Dr. Dogac and colleagues, Thank you for your follow-up you raise some wonderful points. Some minor comments; mostly semantics ;-) 1.a - I think we may be playing language games a little, but it is difficult for us to decouple the inferencing from the queries: without the query interface into an inferred ontology it is pretty much useless for machine-to-machine use (typically researchers will visualize it graphically and observe changes from its 'told' state or the addition of new concepts). Our system uses XQuery. 1.b - A far as performance, we've found that the number of rules is indeed a big factor, which is quite important in large ontology (1000's of concepts) but also that the style of modeling is crucial. It is possible to model the same domain in various ways that can result in query times that differ by an order of magnitude. In some simple ways this is analogous to using different normal forms in ER modeling. 1.c - I appreciate the opportunity to work with your team, I would personally welcome that. Unfortunately, we are quite busy with commercial projects at the moment and are not really engaging with University work anymore. NI has a development license plan, but no longer supports any pure (free) academic license structures. 2. - We are really excited about the possibility of OWL-S and each of the implementations that you've mentioned. We think that, in addition to typical service lookups, there is great promise for reasoning over service interfaces to 'discover' services with greater accuracy. Of course the BPEL, WSDL & WSMO work offer robust profile architectures, but in languages that are not so good for reasoning about. These are exciting times, I am thrilled to engage with like-minded people who's families no doubt wonder what we're talking about sometimes. Thank you for your presentation, I strongly agree with the direction you have gone and hope that this SCM group leverages your work in mappings to design an interface that OWL-driven tools can point to and use. Kind Regards, -Jeff- -----Original Message----- From: Asuman Dogac [mailto:asuman@srdc.metu.edu.tr] Sent: Sunday, April 04, 2004 9:30 PM To: Jeff Pollock Cc: Chiusano Joseph; carlmattocks@checkmi.com; Farrukh.Najmi@Sun.COM; David RR Webber; regrep-semantic@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: Re: [regrep-semantic] Blurb about SCM Work (For Interview) Dear Colleagues, First of all, many thanks for providing me the opportunity to share some of the work we do. As a follow up to Jeff's email, allow me to present some clarification to the issues that I have discussed: 1. Ontologies can be taken advantage of both through reasoning and through querying. For ebXML registries, the querying facilities are available and we used them. When reasoners with good performances are available; we will be more than happy to use them. It is a generally accepted fact that the performance of rule based systems degrade considerably when there are many rules. To the best of my knowledge to reason about an ontology; rules are created from the constructs of the ontology. However it seems Network Inference has the tools for this purpose, if they wish we may become their trial site. 2. OWL-S presents i. Service Profile: this is an upper ontology applicable to all services. We need domain specific ontologies to complement this. ii. Service Modelling: OWL-S consortium complains that BPEL4WS proceeds without considering this work. iii. Service Grounding: Currently accepted service grounding standard is WSDL. 3. I agree with Jeff that with ontologies we should aim the "Semantic Web" vision of Tim Berners Lee. Best regards, Asuman > Farrukh, et al. > > This has been a fascinating thread to follow. Over the course of the > past couple weeks I have been consciously disengaging to this group > because of what I perceived as a soft commitment to OWL and, more > importantly, a soft commitment to actual 'semantic capabilities' - > beyond simply storing ontology and defining mappings to RIM concepts. > > However, if this group's statements (albeit, some have been removed) > during this thread about a commitment towards (1) data harmonization, > (2) semantic web server of the future, (3) precise content discovery, > and (4) semantic web services are indeed the intention for the SCM > group > - then I have misunderstood the direction thus far. > > It seems to me that the charter is loose in regard to the visionary > statements made on this thread and that internal fractures to SCM have > misdirected the effort away from the vision I am hearing folks > describe today. > > Recently, with this group's statements, and with the compelling work > presented by professor Dogac on Tuesday, I am inclined to offer a few > thoughts about Network Inference's position with respect to this > RegRep SCM work. > > First, I want to state the obvious ... Network Inference is a > technology vendor that is highly committed to the widespread use and > adoption of all OWL, and in particular OWL-DL. With regard to our > participation here, we do not wish to be perceived as too > vendor-centric with our thoughts, instead we want to be supportive and > share ideas about our vision and implementation of OWL-based semantic tools. > > Second, our position is that we strongly favor a tight binding between > OWL and the RegRep RIM interfaces. This position is clearly > influenced by my first point, but most importantly, we favor this > tight binding because we feel that it will enable a new generation of > tools to directly interact with a regrep implementation to provide > valuable semantic capabilities (inference, mediation, dynamic > workflow, etc.) without requiring kludgy/lossy adaptors to move > between ontological representations. This pluggability of semantic > tools is crucial, in our opinion, to making the regrep relevant for > next-gen Semantic Web Services capabilities. > > Third, our expertise and early customer implementations with OWL > should be valuable, to this SCM group, but in a 'tightly-bound OWL/regrep' > scenario. We have built Xquery and WSDL/SOAP interfaces to an OWL/RDF > inference engine that allows users to merge, inference across, and > query instances or classifications within inferred and told OWL/RDF models. > Without getting into implementation specifics (Abox,Tbox,performance > metrics etc.) about the inference engine - it should be apparent that > our interfaces (Xquery and OWL manipulation) could have some relevance > to this SCM effort. As we drill into certain use cases this could > become useful, but only when/if the binding is tighter. > > Finally, I want to share with you some technical use cases for how we > are seeing people use ontologies and web services together. With due > respect to professor Dogac's assertion that there are two primary > roles for ontologies in web services (service orchestration & > ontological reasoning), we disagree and believe that the possible > roles for ontologies is limited only by the number of architectural > layers in a web services architecture. A further distinction is that > we believe that the _only significant_ advantage for using ontologies > is that you can reason or reason across them - thus, all of our use > cases leverage the value of the precision that OWL & RDF provide in a > data representation language. With that said, our emerging technical use cases include: > > Service Orchestration - this involves the use of a reasoning engine to > enable dynamic discovery, composition and monitoring of services > without apriori codified knowledge of those services. We view OWL-S -- > as it has been most recently embodied in OWL-DL -- as the crucial > enabler of these capabilities. > > Business Inferencing - this involves the use of a reasoning engine to > load multiple DL-based ontology, merge them into a common inferred > model and then query that inferred model for answers about the > domain(s) that accurately reflect the rules that have been asserted in > the model (via DL axioms). > > Query Mediation - this involves the use of a reasoning engine, plus > other EAI type adapters, to mediate queries across federated sources. > By issuing queries against conceptual models that logically overlay > different physical systems (or objects inside the RIM for that matter) > vendors can build tools that reachout in native query languages and > get subsets of data from a centrally issued query. > > Transformation Mediation - this involves the use of a reasoning engine > that can read ontology-based maps, in OWL-DL for example, that unify > schema/instances in a point-to-point or hub-and-spoke manner and then > resolve the physical data's incongruities as an output of the > newly-aligned schema/instance semantics found in the reasoner. > > The "semantic" aspect of these use cases is two-fold (1) the metadata > precision allowed by OWL/RDF to treat relationships as first-class > objects and (2) that their context is late-bound to their execution > state. In other words, since these capabilities (mediation, > inferencing and orchestration) are loaded "just-in-time" from models, > they are dynamic and unique at any given time. Add in the feature > that models can change based upon the output of these capabilities, > the feedback loop is closed and you can begin to see meaningful > emergent and adaptive behavior. > > To wrap up this winded email, I just want to ask for clarification > around the RegRep SCM scope and charter: > > Are we in fact moving towards a position that supports the idea that > (vendor) tools *should* use a RegRep implementation _directly_ to > support semantic capabilities --- or are we going to take an > intermediary (perhaps wiser?) step to simply ensure RIM support for > ontology storage in multiple formats? (thus allowing tools to store > ontology in RegRep, but not reason directly to it) > > This will help me to determine the level of involvement from our team. > > Thoughts? Opinions? > > Many kind regards and no offense intended to anyone, > > -Jeff- > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Chiusano Joseph [mailto:chiusano_joseph@bah.com]=20 > Sent: Friday, April 02, 2004 10:13 AM > To: carlmattocks@checkmi.com > Cc: David RR Webber; SCM > Subject: Re: [regrep-semantic] Blurb about SCM Work (For Interview) > > Great! Let's tweak these a bit for a Web Services perspective... > > Joe > > Carl Mattocks wrote: > >=20 > > small tweaks ... > >=20 > > Its clear that DOD and other agencies are investing heavily in =20 > >developing semantic based techniques to provide consistent=20 > >understanding and content discovery for both eGov and G2C > applications. One key need > > this brings up is having * federated * registry facilities that > store > > OWL ontologies and harmonize taxonomies . The OASIS Registry TC is > > addressing this need with their work on Semantic Content > >Management=20 use cases and industry specific scenarios =20 take > >deep breaths carl =20 <quote who=3D"David RR Webber"> > > > Joe, > > > > > > Hows this : > > > > > > "Its clear that DOD and other agencies are investing heavily in > > > =20 developing semantic content with OWL based techniques to > > > provide=20 consistent understanding and discovery for both eGov > > > and G2C=20 applications. One key need this brings up is having > > > central=20 registry facilities to store and distribute from. > > > The OASIS Registry TC is addressing this need with their work > > > on=20 Semantic Content Management use cases and specifications". > > > > > > DW > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Chiusano Joseph" <chiusano_joseph@bah.com> > > > To: "SCM" <regrep-semantic@lists.oasis-open.org> > > > Sent: Friday, April 02, 2004 10:55 AM > > > Subject: [regrep-semantic] Blurb about SCM Work (For Interview) > > > > > > > > >> All, > > >> > > >> I am being interviewed by GCN (Government Computer News) next > > >> Wed.=20 for a dedicated Q&A session on Web Services standards. > > >> The article=20 will have a circulation of about 100,000 > > >> subscribers, plus the > online audience. > > >> > > >> I would like, if the opportunity areas during the interview, > > >> to=20 include a blurb about the work that the SCM SC is doing. So > > >> I ask:=20 If you could feed a reporter one or 2 sentences about > > >> this work, > what would they be? > > >> > > >> Thanks in advance! > > >> -- > > >> Kind Regards, > > >> Joseph Chiusano > > >> Associate > > >> Booz | Allen | Hamilton > > >> > > > > >=20 > > -- > > Carl Mattocks > >=20 > > co-Chair OASIS (ISO/TS 15000) ebXMLRegistry Semantic Content SC > >CEO=20 CHECKMi v/f (usa) 908 322 8715 www.CHECKMi.com Semantically > >Smart=20 Compendiums > > (AOL) IM CarlCHECKMi > > -- > Kind Regards, > Joseph Chiusano > Associate > Booz | Allen | Hamilton > > ________________________________________________________________________ ____ Professor Asuman Dogac Internet: asuman@srdc.metu.edu.tr Director Phone: +90 (312) 210 5598, or Software R&D Center +90 (312) 210 2076 Department of Computer Eng. Fax: +90 (312) 210 1259 Middle East Technical University WWW: http://www.srdc.metu.edu.tr/~asuman/ 06531 Ankara Turkey
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]