1 / 9

A Software Framework for Matchmaking based on Semantic Web Technology

A Software Framework for Matchmaking based on Semantic Web Technology. on the paper by Li and Horrocks http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~lil/papers/p815-li.pdf. Eyal Oren DERI 2004/04/14. Overview. Service advertisement and discovery DAML-S based service ontology working prototype

masato
Download Presentation

A Software Framework for Matchmaking based on Semantic Web Technology

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. A Software Framework for Matchmaking based on Semantic Web Technology on the paper by Li and Horrockshttp://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~lil/papers/p815-li.pdf Eyal Oren DERI 2004/04/14

  2. Overview • Service advertisement and discovery • DAML-S based service ontology • working prototype • agent based (JADE) • DL Reasoner (Racer) • quite comparable with D5.1

  3. Current standards • WSDL • XML grammar for describing network services • structured way of describing communication • no support for semantic description • UDDI • registry describing businesses and offered services • no description of service capabilities, only string matching • you could use DAML-S (or WSMO) tModels • DAML-S • describing properties and capabilities of web services • “can adequately represent functionalities of web services”

  4. extension/application of DAML-S • describe specific profiles • service advertisement • service request • perform a matching of requests and advertisements • question is whether DAML-S (or DAML+OIL) is suitable/sufficient for describing web services • in wsmo we don’t (yet) limit the language expressiveness • therefore, everything is possible and nothing is (known to be) computable • we will define a decidable subset: WSML-DL, WSML-HL, WSML-DLP (?)

  5. Example – buying PC’s

  6. Example – advertisement and request profile does not include providedBy and requestedBy(as DAML-S prescribes) note, that for efficiency reasons, these (individual) offers and requests are expressed as special concepts (Tbox reasoning is more efficient than ABox reasoning)

  7. Matching levels Advertisment A and Request R • Exact: A ≡ R • PlugIn: (offering PC, looking for second-hand PC) • Subsume: (offering second-hand, looking for PC) • Intersection: • Disjoint

  8. Prototype - agents • Advertiser: publishes, withdraws, modifies advertisements • Seeker: publishes requests (volatile/persistent) • Host: • manages repository of advertisements • manages persistent queries • uses Racer to compute request-advertisement subsumption • could compute advertisements hierarchy off-line • requests subsumptions easy • inserting new advertisements easy • removing advertisements harder (re-classifying TBox)

  9. Useful for WSMO • this works, so we need to explain: why is DAML-S not sufficient (not expressive) ? • look at levels of matching (exact, plugin, subsume, etc.) • agents infrastructure (FIPA), for WSMX (??)

More Related