slide1
Download
Skip this Video
Download Presentation
Nenad Anicic, Nenad Ivezic, Serm Kulvatunyou National Institute of Standards and Technology

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 12

Nenad Anicic, Nenad Ivezic, Serm Kulvatunyou National Institute of Standards and Technology - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 100 Views
  • Uploaded on

An Experimental Assessment of Semantic Web-based Integration Support - Industrial Interoperability Focus -. Nenad Anicic, Nenad Ivezic, Serm Kulvatunyou National Institute of Standards and Technology. Outline. Motivation Objectives XML Schema-based integration OWL DL-based integration

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Nenad Anicic, Nenad Ivezic, Serm Kulvatunyou National Institute of Standards and Technology' - suki


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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
slide1

An Experimental Assessment of Semantic Web-based Integration Support - Industrial Interoperability Focus -

Nenad Anicic, Nenad Ivezic, Serm Kulvatunyou

National Institute of Standards and Technology

outline
Outline
  • Motivation
  • Objectives
  • XML Schema-based integration
  • OWL DL-based integration
  • Expected Contributions
  • Issues
motivation
Motivation
  • Content standards are hard to implement for application-level interoperability because of :
    • the lack of explicit application-level semantics in these standards
    • the very flexible, syntax-level specifications used in the standards
  • The consequences are :
    • Costly and effort-intensive translation process among the independently implemented content standards
    • Hard to test vendor products for application-level interoperability.
objectives
Objectives
  • Assess usability of OWL to support industry interoperability efforts
    • Develop an experimental toolset that will enable formalization of current content standards
    • Demonstrate potential positive effects of this formalization on a series of interoperability problems from on-going industrial efforts.
  • Help design, re-use, and distribution of XML Schema business document
the general application integration situation and target integration capability
The general application integration situation and target integration capability

OAG

XML Schema

OAG

OWL DL

STAR

OWL DL

STAR

XML Schema

AIAG

XML Schema

AIAG

OWL DL

XSLT Mapping

DL Reasoner

STAR

XML data

AIAG

XML data

translation

STAR

XML data

AIAG

XML data

translation

owl based integration approach expected contributions
OWL-based integration approach – expected contributions
  • Procedure and Tools for
    • Model-based Equivalence Test of Schema Documents
    • Validating XML data using OWL-DL reasoner
    • Semantic equivalence tests between source and target XML instances
model based equivalence of schema documents
Translation ToolsModel-based Equivalence of Schema Documents
  • Create a merged ontology from independently developed STAR and AIAG ontologies
  • Check for any inconsistencies in the merged ontologies
  • Identify similarity between two schemas based on the comparison of their respective semantic views

We assume that a high degree of equivalence may be obtained assuming common usage of core components as is the case of OAG standard

XML Schema

STAR

XML Schema

AIAG

OWL DL

STAR

OWL DL

AIAG

Equivalent to ?

Close to?

validating xml data using owl dl reasoner
Translation Tools

OWL DL

STAR

OWL

Instance

Validating XML data using OWL-DL reasoner
  • Validate the XML data with respect to the XML Schema
  • Translate XML data to OWL instance
  • Validate the OWL individual with respect to the ontology

XML

Instance

XML

Schema

OWL DL

Conforms to ?

xml to owl translation procedure
XML-to-OWL Translation Procedure

TBOX

DL

Reasoner

XML Schema

XSLT

OWL DL

OAG

TBOX

DIG

interface

STAR

AIAG

XSLT

XML Schemainstances

ABOX

Others

interfaces

OAG XML-to-OWL Translation tool

semantic equivalence test between two xml instances
OWL DL

STAR

OWL DL

STAR

STAR

OWL

Instance

AIAG

OWL

Instance

Semantic Equivalence test between two XML instances
  • Validate the XML data with respect to the OWL
  • Add set of assertion to check equivalence

XML Schema

STAR

XML Schema

AIAG

XML

Instance

STAR

XML

Instance

AIAG

Translation Tools

?

=

OWL DL

OAG

STAR

AIAG

mapping definitions issues
Mapping Definitions Issues
  • KEY ISSUE: choose optimal OWL constructs that will be suitable for future reasoning about the original XML schema and in support of interoperability.
    • What are the necessary and sufficient conditions for identifying an XML BOD component in an OWL model? Can we extract that information from XML Schema?
    • OAG Resources (i.e., fundamental data elements) define semantically different / similar concepts.
    • How does one uniquely identify every OAG OWL concept?
    • How to define constraints which are defined as simpleType definition
relevant publications
Relevant publications

[1] D.Trastour, C.Preist , and D.Coleman, “Using Semantic Web Technology to Enhance Current Business-to-Business Integration Approaches”. 7th IEEE International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference, EDOC 2003, Brisbane, Australia, Sept 16-19th , 2003

[2] P.Lehti and P.Fankhauser: XML data integration with OWL: experiences and challenges. Applications and the Internet, 2004. Proceedings. 2004 International Symposium, 26-30 Jan. 2004 Pages:160 – 167

[3] V. Haarslev and R. M¨oller. Description of the RACER system and its applications. In Proceedings InternationalWorkshop on Description Logics (DL-2001), 2001.

[4] Web Ontology Language (OWL) Reference Version 1.0,- http://www.daml.org/2002/06/webont/owl-ref-proposed

[5] Jena2 Semantic Web Toolkit: http://www.hpl.hp.com/semweb/jena2.htm.

[6] A. Boukottaya, C. Vanoirbeek, F. Paganelli, O. Abou Khaled “Automating XML document Transformations: A conceptual modelling based approach” The First Asia-Pacific Conference on Conceptual Modelling, Dunedin, New Zealand, January 18 -- 22, 2004

[7] M.Klein1, D.Fensel1, F.Harmelen, and I.Horrocks “The relation between ontologies and XML schemas” Linkoping Electronic Articles in Computer and Information Science Vol. 6(2001)

ad