Transcript Semantic Information Integration

Conceptual Comparison
WSMO/OWL-S
1st F2F meeting SDK cluster working group on Semantic Web Services
Wiesbaden, Germany, 15-03-2004
Rubén Lara, (Dumitru Roman, Axel Polleres)
Digital Enterprise Research Institute Innsbruck
[email protected]
Agenda
• Motivation
• Summary of the comparison
15-03-2004
Rubén Lara
[email protected]
2
Motivation
• Semantic Web Services can have a great impact in areas of the
relevance of e-Commerce and Enterprise Application
Integration.
• Their great potential benefits have led to the establishment of an
important research area to realize Semantic Web Services.
• Two major initiatives
– WSMO
– OWL-S
– Goal: world-wide standard for the semantic description of Web Services,
grounding its application in a real setting
– Identify their overlaps and differences in order to evaluate their real potential to
realize the vision of Semantic Web Services and to be adopted in real applications
15-03-2004
Rubén Lara
[email protected]
3
What we have compared
• Versions compared
– OWL-S 1.0
– WSMO 0.1 (WSMO-Standard)
• Full comparison:
http://www.wsmo.org/2004/d4/d4.1/v01/
• Future versions:
– Update to succesive versions of both OWL-S and WSMO
– Include modeling of use cases
15-03-2004
Rubén Lara
[email protected]
4
Core results
Comparison aspect
WSMO-Standard v0.1
OWL-S 1.0
Purpose
Clear goal, specific application
domains
Too wide, not clear
Principles
Explicit conceptual work and wellestablished principles
Not explicit, only specifies set of
tasks to be solved
Coupling
Loose coupling, independent
definition of description elements
Tight coupling in several aspects
Extensibility
Extensible in every direction
Limited extensibility, only through
OWL subclassing
Implementation &
business layer
Will be clearly separated in WSMOFull
Messed up e.g. use of the Resource
concept
Registry
Not dictated
Not dictated
Requester needs &
service capabilities
Two different points of view,
modeled independently and linked
via wgMediators
Not separated, unified view in the
service profile
15-03-2004
Rubén Lara
[email protected]
5
Core results (II)
Comparison aspect
WSMO-Standard v0.1
OWL-S 1.0
Functionality description
Explicit and complete description
Incomplete
Non-functional
properties
Pre-defined properties. Flexible
extension but not explicit
mechanism
Few pre-defined properties. Explicit
extension mechanism but
improvable flexibility
Orchestration
Supports static and dynamic
composition, but under-defined
Limited dynamic composition
Grounding
Multiple groundings, not pre-defined
grounding
Multiple groundings, WSDL predefined grounding
Mediation
Scalable mediation between loosely
coupled elements
No mediation
Layering
3-layers (WSMO-Lite, WSMO-Standard,
WSMO-Full) covering different complexity
levels of the domain
No layering (layering inherited from OWL,
does not reflect complexity of the
application domain)
Languages
F-Logic for logical expressions. Detailed
justification for the choice. Ontology
language not imposed
Language for conditions not defined.
OWL is used with no justification
15-03-2004
Rubén Lara
[email protected]
6
</ Conceptual Comparison
WSMO/OWL-S >
<Q&A>