Business Process Interoperation Using OWL-P Response to the Semantic Web Services Challenge - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

shiela
business process interoperation using owl p response to the semantic web services challenge n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Business Process Interoperation Using OWL-P Response to the Semantic Web Services Challenge PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Business Process Interoperation Using OWL-P Response to the Semantic Web Services Challenge

play fullscreen
1 / 12
Download Presentation
Business Process Interoperation Using OWL-P Response to the Semantic Web Services Challenge
72 Views
Download Presentation

Business Process Interoperation Using OWL-P Response to the Semantic Web Services Challenge

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. Business Process Interoperation Using OWL-PResponse to the Semantic Web Services Challenge Amit Chopra, Nirmit Desai, Munindar P. Singh Department of Computer Science North Carolina State University 9 March 2006

  2. Highlights • OWL-P • Protocols, policies, and protocol composition • OWL-P for phase 1 and phase 2 • Mediation using protocols • Protocol adaptations for managing change • Discovery based on interaction compatibility • Not just on simple service attributes • Proposed directions • Commitments as a basis for semantics • Flexible interaction compatibility as criterion for selection

  3. Business Process 1 Abstract entity Concrete entity 1 aggregation of 2+ consults Implementation of Local Process 1 1 1 1 Business Logic enacts Implementation of 1 1 1 Agent 1 Composite Skeleton stipulates 1 1+ 1+ adopts 1+ involves defines Role 2+ 1 composition of 1 1 2+ couples Business Protocol Role Skeleton 1+ 1+ 1 2+ 1 1+ 1 1 Protocol Logic derives specified by 1 1 Composite Protocol derives composedOf OWL-P Basics • Protocols: abstract, modular, publishable specifications of business interactions • Policies: private business logic of the agents adopting roles • Commitments provide semantics of the interactions

  4. OWL-P Protocol Composition • Specify dependencies among the component protocols in terms of • Role definitions: Role r1 in protocol P1 is adopted by the same agent that adopts role r2 in P2 • Event ordering: Event e1 in protocol P1 precedes event e2 in protocol P2 • Data flows: Parameter p in protocol P1 is bound to parameter q in protocol P2 • Implications: Concept A in protocol P1 implies concept B in protocol P2 (used to tie operations on commitments: what counts as what)

  5. OWL-P Contributions for Phase 1 Using • Protocols as engineering abstractions for mediation and choreography • Protocol subsumption as a means of comparing protocols

  6. Mediation via OWL-P: 1 • PIP3A4 as a protocol between Buyer and Seller roles • PurchaseOrder as a protocol between LegacyBuyer and LegacySeller roles • Composite protocol Purchase composed of PIP3A4 and PurchaseOrder • Blue adopts Buyer, Mediator adopts Seller and LegacyBuyer, and Moon adopts LegacySeller • Mappings are the set of composition axioms used to compose PIP3A4 and PurchaseOrder

  7. Mediation via OWL-P: 2 Composition axioms not shown

  8. OWL-P as a Basis for Discovery • Match interactions, not just simple business attributes • Exact matches are impractical in open environments • Protocol subsumption supports flexible matching • General protocols subsume specific protocols • For example, a payment (in general) subsumes payment by credit card or payment with cash • The payment mechanism is not a simple attribute: parties interact in different ways depending on the mechanism

  9. OWL-P for Phase 2 • Change in the Moon interface or PIP: • Model the change as a transformation and applied to the original protocol; or • Recompose the protocols with a new set of composition axioms • Discovering a new business partner • The number of matching suppliers change according to the similarity function

  10. OWL-P Prototype for Moon and Blue Software Designer Blue 3 Composer Blue Skeleton (Jess) Local Policy Axioms specify + 2 PO OWL-P 7 PIP3A4 OWL-P Legacy OWL-P Blue Local Process 6 4 register 1 Protocol Repository 5 Moon (Not shown Here) OWLP2Jess 8 Lookup PO register Mediator Local Policy Mediator Skeleton (Jess) 9 + JMS JNDI Naming 10 register 11 Mediator Local Process

  11. Proposed Directions • Emphasize contractual semantics for business interactions • Contracts are bases of metrics of preference, risk assessment, opportunity, and so on • Basis for verification and compliance • Treat matching rigorously to support automated discovery • Base matching on the subsumption hierarchy of protocols, analogous to class hierarchies in object-oriented modeling

  12. References • Ashok U. Mallya. Modeling and Enacting Business Processes via Commitment Protocols Among Agents. PhD, NCSU, 2005 • Nirmit Desai, Ashok U. Mallya, Amit K. Chopra, Munindar P. Singh. Interaction Protocols as Design Abstractions for business Processes. IEEE transactions on software engineering, 31(12):1015-1027, 2005 • Amit K. Chopra, Munindar P. Singh. Contextualizing Commitment Protocols. AAMAS 2006, to appear • Nirmit Desai, Amit K. Chopra, Munindar P. Singh. Business Process Adaptations via Protocol Composition. (Unpublished) • OWL-P examples: http://research.csc.ncsu.edu/mas/OWL-P/