1 / 40

An ontology, intelligent agent-based framework for the provision of semantic web services

An ontology, intelligent agent-based framework for the provision of semantic web services. Francisco Garcia-Sanchez, Rafael Valencia-Garcia, Rodrigo Martinez- Bejar , Jesualdo T. Fernandez- Breis. Soft Computing Lab. Yongjun Kim. 19 th May., 2009. Outline. Introduction Motivation

totie
Download Presentation

An ontology, intelligent agent-based framework for the provision of semantic web services

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. An ontology, intelligent agent-based framework for the provision of semantic web services Francisco Garcia-Sanchez, Rafael Valencia-Garcia, Rodrigo Martinez-Bejar, Jesualdo T. Fernandez-Breis Soft Computing Lab. Yongjun Kim 19thMay., 2009

  2. Outline • Introduction • Motivation • The Proposed Framework • A Proof-of-Concept Implementation • Use Case Scenario • Conclusion • Future Work • Discussion

  3. Introduction • The Intelligent Agents topic has been broadly studied and is currently being revisited due to its relation to the semantic web. • The semantically annotated information can be automatically processed by agents. • Before the semantic web, agents had to face the problems derived from the lack of structure characterizing much of the information published on the web. • The Semantic Web Services are studied in order to automate aspects of web services such as discovery, execution, selection, composition and interoperation. • Several research studies have shown that the cooperative interaction between them can lead to the development of new, more powerful applications.

  4. Introduction • The purpose of this paper: • Highlights the problems that hamper the application of agents and web services separately. • Analyzes some of the projects that have attempted to combine these technologies and point out the shortcomings of these solutions. • Presents the SEMantic web services and Multi-Agent System framework (SEMMAS), which provides a seamless integration of the technologies by making use of ontologies. • The contribution of this paper: • An overall solution based on a fully-fledged architecture • Proof-of-Concept implementation • An eCommerce scenario for providing access to various computer hardware vendors

  5. Motivation • Agent Technology • Intelligent Agents • An ‘agent’ is a computer system situated in some environment and capable of autonomous action in this environment in order to meet its design objectives (Wooldridge). • Should have reactivity, pro-activeness, social ability (Wooldridge et al.). • Could also have temporal continuity, reasoning, rationality, veracity, mobility (Elamy). • Multi-agent Systems • Can be seen as a system consisting of a group of agents that can potentially interact with each other. • Presents several advantages, such as reliability, robustness, modularity, scalability, adaptivity, concurrency, parallelism, and dynamism (Elamy). • Can cooperate or compete. • Can be distributed problem solving systems or open systems (Wooldridge).

  6. Motivation • Agent Technology • Multi-agent Systems • Agent Communication Languages (ACL) • KQML (Knowledge Query and Manipulation Language) and FIPA-ACL (Foundations for Intelligent Physical Agents-Agents Communication Language) • Agent-Oriented Software Engineering (AOSE) • Purpose : create methodologies and tools that enable inexpensive development and maintenance of agent-based software. • Design Methodologies • MAS-CommonKADS, ZEUS, GAIA, MaSE and INGENIAS • Standardization Organizations of agent technologies • FIPA • Produces standards for the interoperation of heterogeneous software agents. • Becomes an IEEE Computer Society standards organization. • Identifies some necessary roles. • AMS (Agent Management System), DF (Directory Facilitator), MTS (Message Transport System). • Has different FIPA compliant agent platform implementation. • FIPA-OS (FIPA-Open Source), JADE (Java Agent Development Environment) and ZEUS. • OMG Agent PSIG

  7. Motivation • Agent Technology • Advantages • Appropriate for the development of complex and distributed applications. • Can contribute features such as autonomy, proactiveness and goal-oriented behavior to this kind of applications to automate some stages of the process. • Drawbacks • The use of communication protocols such as IIOP (Internet Inter-Orb Protocol) or RMI that cannot get across companies firewalls. • Solution may create gateways between every pair of companies aimed at interacting. • However, no new dynamic links can be established (limited dynamism). • The ineffective exploitation of semantics in communication mechanism. • None of the FIPA-compliant platforms (e.g. JADE, FIPA-OS, ZEUS) provides the proper support to handle the semantic dimension of the FIPA-ACL language.

  8. Motivation • Semantic Web Services • The Semantic Web • Aims at adding semantics to the data published on the Web. • Ontologies are the back bone technology. • Web Services • Can be defined as services located at some point in the Internet that can be accessed through a standard protocol. • Based on a set of standard protocols such as UDDI (Universal Description, Discovery, and Integration), SOAP (Simple Object Access Protocol), and WSDL (Web Services Description Language). • Advantages • Enable dynamic service composition using independent, reusable software components. • Drawbacks • Current technology around UDDI, WSDL, and SOAP provide limited support for all that. UDDI SOAP search register WSDL WSDL Client Service Fig. 0. Web Service Architecture

  9. Motivation • Semantic Web Services • Semantic Web Services (SWS) • The joint application of semantic web and web services in order to create intelligent web services. • Standardization Activity • OWL-S (OWL for Services) • Makes it possible for agents to discover, compose, invoke, and monitor services with a high degree of automation. • Composed of three main parts: • The service profile for advertising and discovering services • The process model which gives a detailed description of a service operation • The grounding which provides details on how to interoperate with a service via messages • WSMO (Web Service Modeling Language) • Provides a conceptual framework for semantically describing all relevant aspects of web services in order to facilitate the automation of discovering, combining and invoking electronic services over the Web. • Comprised of three different elements: • Web Service Modeling Ontology (WSMO) • Web Service Modeling Language (WSML) • Web Service Execution Environment (WSMX).

  10. Motivation • Semantic Web Services • Semantic Web Services (SWS) • Standardization Activity • SWSF (SWS Framework) • Composed of the SWS Language (SWSL) and the SWS Ontology (SWSO). • Two formal characterization of the model have been identified: • FLOWS (First-Order Logic Ontology for Web Services) • SWSL-FOL • ROWS (Rules Ontology for Web Services) • WSDL-S (WSDL Semantics) • Defines a mechanism to associate semantic annotations with Web Services that are described using WSDL. • The semantic information includes definitions of precondition, input, output, and effects on web service operations. • SAWSDL (Semantic Annotations for WSDL) • Identifies some WSDL and XML Schema extension attributes that support the semantic description of WSDL components. • Necessary to link WSDL elements with semantic models, such as ontologies.

  11. Motivation • Semantic Web Services • Semantic Web Services (SWS) • SWS-related Tools • WSMX (Web Services Execution Environment)\ • An execution environment to perform dynamic discovery, selection, mediation, invocation and interoperation of SWS. • IRS (Internet Reasoning Service) • Allows applications to semantically describe and execute web services. • Supports the provision of semantic reasoning services within the context of the semantic web. • SWS Limitations • SWS technologies depend on higher-level software entities with cognitive capabilities able to access the semantic content of service descriptions, process it and understand it.

  12. Motivation • Intelligent Agents and SWS: related work • Numerous research projects have been carried out due to: • The shortcomings of intelligent agent technologies. • The inherent need for autonomous software entities in SWS environments. • The promising benefits of having two technologies working cooperatively. • Three main scenarios are possible: • Agents over Web Services • Agents in Web Service Wrappers • Communication in web services and agents becomes equivalent, so the distinction between them disappears. • Agents and Web Services • Both types remain separate interoperating through gateways and translation processes.

  13. Motivation • Intelligent Agents and SWS: related work • [Hendler, 2001] • Description • Describes at first how the ontology languages of the semantic web could lead to more powerful agent-based approaches to using services offered on the Web. • Proposes a method for describing the way the invocation of services should be done by agents by means of an ontology language such as DAML+OIL. • The Semantic Web FRED project (SWF) [Stollberg et al., 2005] • Description • Combines agent technology, ontologies, and SWS in order to develop a system for automated cooperation. • Is a complete solution for the interaction agent-service and provides the means for performing tasks such as service discovery, composition and execution. • The authors distinguish three types of services: plans (Java programs), processes (complex and nested services), and external web services (through WSDL). • Drawbacks • It appears to be tightly bound to WSMO (a kind of WSMO implementation). • Lacking a common accepted standard for SWS, the attachment of SWF to a particular approach seems too risky.

  14. Motivation • Intelligent Agents and SWS: related work • GODO (Goal-Oriented Discovery for SWS) [Gomez et al., 2006] • Description • Uses the ontology to generate the goals to be executed and sends them to the appropriate execution environment. • Incorporates a language analyzer that determines the concepts, attributes, attribute values, and relationships within a sentence. • Drawbacks • Interacts with SWS infrastructures instead of the SWS themselves. It can’t benefit from most of the advantages agent technology provides in these environments • Agent-based negotiation can’t take place. • Agent techniques have to be implemented ad hoc within the infrastructure. • [Bhuler and Vidal, 2005] • Description • Uses an intelligent agent acting on behalf of a web service within a workflow. • When a web service is intended to be executed, its representative agent gets the control flow and attempts to improve the workflow process. • Envisions workflow-based MAS where service providers are agents themselves, thus acquiring the full proactive, autonomous, and selfish characteristics. • Drawbacks • Semantically described web services are not considered at all.

  15. Motivation • Intelligent Agents and SWS: related work • Agents and Web Services Interoperability Working Group (AWSI WG) • Description • Part of the IEEE FIPA Standards Committee. • Creates a middleware able to handle the fundamental differences between agent technology and web services. • The use of different communication protocols (ACL vs. SOAP) • Service description languages (DF-Agent-Description vs. WSDL) • Service registration mechanisms (DF vs. UDDI) • AgentWeb Gateway Middleware [Shafiq et al., 2006] • Description • Facilitates the required integration without changing existing specifications and implementations of both technologies. • Agents and web services remain at the same abstraction level creating a heterogeneous service space and interoperating through the gateway, thus complying with the third category of Blacoe and Protabella’s classification. • Focuses on the overlapping features of the technologies. • Drawbacks • Each of these technologies must be situated at a different abstraction level since most of the functionalities provided by Intelligent Agents and Web Services is complementary.

  16. The Proposed Framework • Previous approaches suffer from shortcomings mainly due to their inability to overcome the problems associated to each of the technologies under question. • Attempts to solve some of these problems by means of the framework, which is based on a loosely coupled infrastructure and makes use of ontologies to facilitate agents and services interoperation. • The conceptual differences between agent technology and (semantic) web services technologies lead to the need to have both technologies working in an integrated environment. • Agent technologies aim to act as autonomous entities. • Web services aim to provide worldwide-accessible functionality.

  17. The Proposed Framework • Foundations • Ontologies operate as the ‘glue’ that binds other components. • Function as universal vocabularies so that web services and agents share the same interpretation of the terms contained in the messages. • Useful to describe web service capabilities and processes. • Extract or build the local domain-related knowledge of agents. • Work as negotiation protocols and strategies between agents.

  18. The Proposed Framework • Foundations • Based on a multi-tier architecture that is composed of four different layers. • Business logic layer, semantic web services layer, intelligent agents layer and application layer. New services can emerge, A service may change their functionalities or can even disappear at run-time.

  19. The Proposed Framework • The SEMMAS (SEMantic web services and MAS) Framework • Becomes independent from both the domain and the actual application since it comprises only the intelligent agents layer and the semantic web services layer. • The architecture is composed of three components: • A set of intelligent agents, four ontology repositories, and three interfaces

  20. The Proposed Framework • The SEMMAS (SEMantic web services and MAS) Framework • Agents • Seven types of agents are grouped in three main categories: • Agents that act on behalf of service owners • Provider agent and service agent • Manage the access to services and ensure that the contracts are fulfilled. • Agents that act on behalf of service consumers • Customer agent, discovery agent, and selection agent • Locate services, agree on contracts, and receive and present results. • Agents that perform management tasks • Framework agent and broker agent • Avoid system resources becoming overloaded. • Monitor the status of all the interactions. • Roles • Are encapsulations of dynamic behaviors and properties that can be played by agents. • Are dynamic and flexible, responsibility-driven, and context-sensitive. • Two categories of roles are identified. • Roles dealing with service-related issues • Roles related to the framework management

  21. The Proposed Framework • The SEMMAS (SEMantic web services and MAS) Framework

  22. The Proposed Framework • The SEMMAS (SEMantic web services and MAS) Framework

  23. The Proposed Framework • The SEMMAS (SEMantic web services and MAS) Framework

  24. The Proposed Framework • The SEMMAS (SEMantic web services and MAS) Framework • Ontology Repositories • Four kinds of ontologies have been included within the platform. • Application and Domain Ontology • Supports the communication among the components in the framework. • Application ontology contains the knowledge entities (i.e. concepts, attributes, relationships, and axioms) that model the application. • Domain ontology represents conceptualization of the specific domain. • Agent Local Knowledge Ontology • Contains the knowledge about the environment an agent possesses. • Includes knowledge about the assigned tasks, as well as mechanisms and resources available to achieve those tasks. • E.g., Broker Agent’s one may contain the mapping rules it has to apply to resolve the interoperability mismatches. • Negotiation Ontology • Comprises both negotiation protocols and strategies that constitute the negotiation mechanisms agents must use to coordinate their interactions. • Semantic Web Services Ontologies • Contain the semantic description of Web Services.

  25. The Proposed Framework • The SEMMAS (SEMantic web services and MAS) Framework • User Interfaces • Is a key component of the infrastructure. • Three different interfaces are included: • Customization Interface (for software developers) • Add/delete ontology repositories (need URLs), add/delete ontologies, roles implementation, agent instantiation • Service Providers Interface • Add/delete services, set general preferences (conditions), set service particular preferences • Service Consumers Interface • Set general preferences (e.g. expected cost, warranty, desired delivery time), query, execute services

  26. A Proof-of-Concept Implementation • A MAS was implemented on top of the JADE platform. • Methodology • INGENIAS was applied to design the multi-agent infrastructure. • Proposes the MAS analysis and design from five points of view: • Organization : • Defines how the agents are grouped, the system functionality, and what restrictions should be imposed over the agent behavior. • Agent • Describes the agents themselves and the mental states they have along their life cycle. • Tasks and Objectives • Supports to analyze and define the system objectives, their decomposition, and their relation with tasks. • Interactions • Shows the details about how the agents coordinate and communicate. • Environment • Defines what is around the system and how each agent perceives it.

  27. A Proof-of-Concept Implementation • INGENIAS Methodology • Composed of three phases. • Inception, elaboration, and constructions • Supports the INGENIAS Development Kit (IDK). • It provides the means to create most of the diagrams and models required by the methodology. • It incorporates a function to automatically generate JADE files from the developed diagrams. • Advantages of JADE • Complies with the FIPA specification, open-source, implemented in Java, and at a mature state (version 3.4).

  28. A Proof-of-Concept Implementation • INGENIAS Methodology

  29. A Proof-of-Concept Implementation • INGENIAS Methodology

  30. Use Case Scenario • eCommerce domain is used to evaluate the prototype. • Provides support for B2B and B2C transactions in an environment where various computer hardware vendors are present. • Needs to select the best proposal according to the user’s preferences. • Negotiation is a key issue in these environments. • eCommerce Scenario • Comprises of three computer hardware providers whose products catalogues are accessible through three different Web Services. • Provider A-C, Catalog A-C, Web Service A-C • Service providers have established a set of preferences. • Preferences A-C • Each provider makes use of a different ontology. • Ontology A-C • The prototype uses an ontology. • Ontology S

  31. Use Case Scenario • eCommerce Scenario

  32. Use Case Scenario • Prototype Customization • Four main tasks for customizing the framework to a particular application domain • Designs a domain ontology for PC-components in OWL containing the concepts and relationships. • Develops a web service for each provider. • Annotates the services semantically by using the providers ontologies. • Instantiates the agents that are necessary to provide access to computer hardware catalogues through the available services. • Domain Ontology • Has been written in OWL-DL by using Protégé. • Consists of 45 concepts, 8 attributes, and 55 relationships (43 taxonomical and 12 meteorological). • Taxonomical : ‘classes’, ‘datatype properties’, ‘hierarchical sub-classes’ • Meteorological : ‘part of’

  33. Use Case Scenario • Prototype Customization • Domain Ontology

  34. Use Case Scenario • Prototype Customization • Semantic Web Services • Simulate the internal business processes of the companies meeting the needs around B2B and B2C transactions. • Java and the Apache Axis2 library have been used to implement services. • OWL-S approach is used to describe the service. • Utilize OWL-S Editor, a Protégé plugin. • Semantic web service C • ‘Provider C’ owns the ‘web service C’, which is composed of a method ‘buyProduct_C’. • buyProduct_C(Product att, int no) → Product • WSDL description is needed to allow the service be accessed. • However, it supports a mere syntactic description of the operations. • A formal semantic description is needed to allow the service be automatically exploited. • OWL-S is applied here. • The annotation of the services allows the software agents to interact with providers on behalf of human users.

  35. Use Case Scenario • Prototype Customization • Semantic Web Services

  36. Use Case Scenario • Prototype Customization • A user wants to acquire a 4GB USB flash drive. • Providers and services identification • Processes and interprets the user request. • Obtains an internal, formal representation of the user goal. • Customer Agent sends it to Discovery Agent. • Discovery Agent returns the list to Customer Agent, which forwards it to Selection Agent. • Negotiation and contract preparation • Selection Agent gets in contact with Service Agent. • Service Agent requests the corresponding Provider Agent for the high-level, strategic preferences, and sends back to Selection Agent. • Payment types, delivery time and warranty period • Selection Agent compares each service preferences with the user preferences and calculates their expected utility. • Negotiation and contract preparation • Selection Agent sorts the list of matched services and sends it back to Customer Agent.

  37. Use Case Scenario • Prototype Customization • A user wants to acquire a 4GB USB flash drive. • Transaction fulfillment • The system provides the means to successfully perform the transaction, that is, execute the chosen service. • Customer Agent receives the selection, and starts interacting with the corresponding Service Agent. • Service Agent receives and analyzes the service semantic description. • The service is invoked and the outcome is sent back to Customer Agent. • Product/service evaluation and contract fulfillment • Framework Agent carries out a high-level monitoring process, while Customer and Service Agents ensure their counterparts fulfill their sides of the agreement.

  38. Conclusion • The advantages and drawbacks of agent technology and web services were discussed. • Joining together intelligent agents and semantic web service technologies seemed to be able to lead to the development of new, more powerful applications. • SEMMAS, an ontology-based framework for intelligent agents and semantic web service integration was introduced. • Ontologies constitute the facilitating technology that enables a seamless communication between agents and services. • The purpose of this work was far however from procuring new innovative solutions for semantic web services related tasks. • Matchmaking, composition, mediation, and so on. • Bioinfomatics, eCommerce, eGovernment (focus of our research)

  39. Future Work • Evaluate the framework in terms of its performance and usability in several domains. • A number of algorithms for web service discovery, composition and invocation will be tested and integrated into the implementation. • The performance and accuracy of various ontology reasoners and inference engines will be examined and the most effective ones included into the platform. • Perform the eventual integration of grid services within the framework.

  40. Discussion • Can Web Services solve the problem related to the company firewalls? • Even UDDI may have problems in accessing services behind firewalls. • Does it make sense to prefer the adoption of Web Services to the modification of any FIPA-compliant platform for handling the semantic dimensions of FIPA-ACL language?

More Related