|
|
|
by |
|
|
|
Leo Obrst, Jack Park, Peter Yim |
|
|
|
April 2, 2002 |
|
|
|
|
Purpose of this presentation |
|
XML and Web Interoperability |
|
Vision of the Semantic Web |
|
Ontology & Ontologies |
|
The ebXML-CC & UBL approach |
|
UBL & Ontologies – commonalities &
differences |
|
What can we learn from Ontologists when
constructing UBL |
|
Some Frontiers of the Semantic Web pioneers |
|
What will help facilitate smooth migration and
optimize re-use |
|
What’s Next? |
|
References |
|
|
|
|
|
|
To start a dialog between UBL TC members with
colleagues working on Knowledge Representation, Ontologies and certain
aspects of the future “Semantic Web” |
|
Allow both to take a closer look at what the
other party is doing |
|
To confirm a gut feel that UBL is essentially
building a “business ontology” (even if we don’t call it by that name) |
|
Explore “if” and “how” we can continue this
dialog so that it can be beneficial to both parties’ work |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"The great thing about XML is that it
enables the incredible experimentation we see in the marketplace. But
there are hundreds of XML groups creating Internet commerce 'languages'.
This, coupled with the various transaction standards in common use,
presents formidable obstacles to organizations wishing to build or
participate in global trading webs."
Howard
Smith, Director, Ontology.org, &
Director of Strategy,
E-Business, CSC Europe, 2000 |
|
|
|
|
“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 cooperation.” [SA2001] |
|
“The Semantic Web will bring structure to the
meaningful content of Web pages, creating an environment where software
agents roaming from page to page can readily carry out sophisticated tasks
for users.” [SA2001] |
|
“The Semantic Web is a vision: the idea of
having data on the web defined and linked in a way, that it can be used by
machines - not just for display purposes, but for using it in various
applications.” [SW] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
“Interoperable computing solutions imply the
existence of a sharable ontology, or common set of object semantics.
Implementers will still be able to use localized and otherwise customized
XML markup languages if they choose, but it should be possible to express
and validate the semantics of the design as well as the raw XML
syntax.”
Robin Cover, “XML & Semantic Transparency”,
http://www.oasisopen.org/cover/xmlAndSemantics.html |
|
|
|
|
An ontology defines the terms used to describe
and represent an area of knowledge. |
|
Ontologies are used by people, databases, and
applications that need to share domain information (a domain is just a
specific subject area or area of knowledge, like medicine, tool
manufacturing, real estate, automobile repair, financial management, etc.). |
|
Ontologies include computer-usable definitions
of basic concepts in the domain and the relationships among them … They
encode knowledge in a domain and also knowledge that spans domains. In this
way, they make that knowledge reusable. |
|
The word ontology has been used to describe
artifacts with different degrees of structure. These range from simple
taxonomies (such as the Yahoo hierarchy), to metadata schemes (such as the
Dublin Core), to logical theories. The Semantic Web needs ontologies with a
significant degree of structure. |
|
|
|
|
Ontologies are usually expressed in a
logic-based language, so that detailed, accurate, consistent, sound, and
meaningful distinctions can be made among the classes, properties, and
relations. |
|
Ontologies figure prominently in the emerging
Semantic Web as a way of representing the semantics of documents and
enabling the semantics to be used by web applications and intelligent
agents. |
|
Ontologies can prove very useful for a community
as a way of structuring and defining the meaning of the metadata terms that
are currently being collected and standardized. |
|
Using ontologies, tomorrow's applications can be
"intelligent", in the sense that they can more accurately work at
the human conceptual level. |
|
|
|
|
|
Ontology is the standardization of meanings
(i.e., terms and concepts of a language) |
|
An Ontology models the meaning (“semantics”) of
a Domain(s) |
|
Ontology thus includes: |
|
Objects (things) in the many domains of interest |
|
The relationships between those things |
|
The properties (and property values) of those
things |
|
The functions and processes involving those
things |
|
Constraints on and rules about those things |
|
|
|
|
Philosophy: “a particular system of categories
accounting for a certain vision of the world” or domain of discourse, a conceptualization
(Big O) |
|
Artificial Intelligence: “an engineering product
consisting of a specific vocabulary used to describe a part of reality,
plus a set of explicit assumptions regarding the intended meaning of the
vocabulary words”, “a specification of a conceptualization” (Little O) |
|
Ontological Engineering: towards a formal,
logical theory, usually ‘concepts’ (i.e., the entities, usually classes
hierarchically structured in a special subsumption relation), ‘relations’,
‘properties’, ‘values’, ‘constraints’, ‘rules’, ‘instances’ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Conscious choice of defining the ebXML Core
Components (CCs) and the UBL Business Information Entities (BIEs) at the
semantic level |
|
UBL defined naming and design rules |
|
employment of a “context” methodology |
|
User (industrial specific) extensibility |
|
Externally maintained repository of BIEs and
Documents |
|
All code lists are external (both for creation
and maintenance) which UBL will just point to |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Both are trying to develop shared International
Standards |
|
Both are attempts to logically model our real
world |
|
UBL is addressing a key ontology domain – that
of “business” |
|
Both are trying to enable semantic
interoperability |
|
|
|
|
|
BIE (Entity); type; object class; property
(qualifier); representation; occurrence/cardinality; instances; context
driver |
|
Confined to a “single” or “restricted set” of
relationships & rules |
|
CC tripartite Naming Rule: |
|
Object Class; |
|
Property Term (w/ Qualifier); |
|
Representation Term |
|
Single inheritance only |
|
Entity; relationships; properties; instances;
cardinality; functions/processes; constraints/rules; context |
|
Almost any relationship and rules can be
modeled |
|
RDF tripartite Data Model: |
|
Subject |
|
Predicate |
|
Object |
|
Multiple inheritance is possible |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logical rigor, generality, reuse, modularity,
refinement |
|
Useful for domain ontologies (UBL) to inherit
middle, upper ontologies |
|
Don’t reinvent wheel 10 million times |
|
Ontology engineering: formal conceptual modeling
& ontological analysis using principled semantic guidelines |
|
Ontology: shared vocabulary & meaning (&
structure) |
|
|
|
|
|
Theory of formal distinctions & connections
about entities, relations, categories |
|
Properties: identity, rigidity, unity; what
changes, what remains same? |
|
Part-whole relations: mereotopology,
aggregation, mass/count (plurality) |
|
Levels: physical, functional, biological,
intentional, social |
|
Taxonomic constraints |
|
Property analysis: legal agent, group, social
entity, organization |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
XTM |
|
Provides rich semantic layer above information
resources [TM] |
|
Evolving Standards: ISO 13250 and XTM [TO] |
|
OASIS XTM TC’s |
|
Topic Maps Vocabulary for XML Standards and
Technologies |
|
Topic Maps Published Subjects |
|
Topic Maps Published Subjects for Geography and
Languages (GeoLang) |
|
WOW-G / OWL
[WOW-G] |
|
Building on DAML+OIL, using RDF/S & XML |
|
IEEE Standard Upper Ontology: SUMO, IFF,
OpenCyc? |
|
European Union’s OntoWeb consortium [OntoWeb] |
|
Content Standards, Ontology Language Standards,
Ontology Environment, Industrial Applications, Language Technology SIGs |
|
|
|
|
|
|
UBL is “now” (should have been yesterday) –
addressing a real need so that business can effectively be served |
|
The Semantic Web is somewhere in the “future” –
representing how the Internet could have served humanity better |
|
However, if done right, UBL can help provide a
bridge for us to transition from “here” (the Web as we know it now) to
“there” -- the Web where we can have true semantic interoperability |
|
|
|
|
Continue this current dialog -- between UBL
designers and Semantic Web (especially WOL) designers |
|
Begin to develop Reference Implementations with
each other in mind |
|
Recruit ontologists into the UBL team |
|
… suggestions please … |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Schedule another session for Q&A ? |
|
Invite Leo and/or Jack to our next UBL
face-to-face meeting? |
|
Establish liaison relationship between UBL and
WOW-G? |
|
Make UBL a use case for the W3C-WebOnt work? |
|
Assess within the UBL TC how our work can better
align with that of other web ontology work groups |
|
… other suggestions please … |
|
|
|
|
|
For the Business, Management or Strategist -- |
|
"The Next Web" -- Business Week, Mar.
4, 2002 issue
[BW subscribers only] at http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/02_09/b3772108.htm
or [temporary]
http://ubl.cim3.org/~lcsc/tempMeetingResources/for_2002-04-02_a/temp/TimBernersLees_Next_Web--BW_020304.html |
|
"The Semantic Web" -- Scientific
American, May 2001 issue - [SA2001]
at http://www.sciam.com/2001/0501issue/0501berners-lee.html |
|
“The Semantic Web: A Primer” – Edd Dumbill, Nov.
2000
at http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2000/11/01/semanticweb/index.html |
|
For the Developers or Technologist -- |
|
"The Semantic Web: An Introduction"
at http://infomesh.net/2001/swintro/ |
|
"Requirements for a Web Ontology
Language" - W3C Working Draft 07 Mar02
at http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-webont-req-20020307/ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
XML, RDF, DAML+OIL Language Comparisons -- |
|
DAML: http://www.daml.org/language/features.html |
|
see Yolanda's Gil's comparison at http://trellis.semanticweb.org/expect/web/semanticweb/comparison.html |
|
More Semantic Web & Web Ontology Resources
-- |
|
[SW] The
Semantic Web Portal: http://www.semanticweb.org |
|
[TM] XML
Topic Maps, Jack Park, Editor, Addison-Wesley, July 2002 |
|
[TO] http://www.topicmaps.org |
|
[WOW-G]
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/ |
|
[IEEE-SUO] (http://suo.ieee.org/ |
|
[OntoWeb] http://www.ontoweb.org/index.htm). |
|
“On Standardization of the Web Ontology
Language” at http://www.cim3.net/research/semanticweb/Standardization_of_WebOntologyLanguage_IEEEintelligentSystem_Mar-2002.html |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Questions ? |
|
Comments … |
|
Suggestions … |
|
Notes
