ConferenceCall 2005 10 20/Prep

= Ontolog Forum Panel Discussion Preparation Page =

Thursday 20 October 2005
(previously scheduled for 2005.10.27, this event has since been rescheduled to 2005.10.20)


 * Topic: "Semantic Web Service Ontology Standard"


 * Moderator: NicolasRouquette
 * Organizing Team: NicolasRouquette, JohnDomingue, EMichaelMaximilien


 * Panelists:
 * JohnDomingue (WSMO), MichaelGruninger (SWSF / FLOWS), AmitSheth of U of Georgia (WSDL-S), and DavidMartin of SRI (OWL-S)

Proposed discussion agenda

 * Welcome & introduction: different perspectives on WebServices (10 minutes)


 * (1) Modeling web services (tool support for modeling, editing, describing, visualizing)
 * (2) Doing stuff w/ web services (tool support for composition, coordination, orchestration - ignoring issues of distribution for now)
 * (3) Web services in the semantic web (tool support for handling distribution issues: coordination/orchestration vs. transaction, service registration/discovery)
 * (4) Web services as a business infrastructure (tool support for trust, security, authentification, price/resource/service negotiation)
 * (5) Web services as a formal model of workflow computation (process semantics, AI-style planning, schedulability analysis)
 * (5) Web services as a formal model of workflow computation (process semantics, AI-style planning, schedulability analysis)


 * An ontology of Web Services technologies (5 minutes)

A brief overview of languages/tools/techniques in terms of how they relate to the above pespectives/concerns. Details on specifics deferred to short presentations.

TODO: use DavidMartin's slide #4 from SWANS presentation.

TODO: Provide URLs.


 * WSDL => (1), (2), (3)
 * WSDL-S => WSDL + (5)
 * WSIF => WSDL + SOAP + => (1)
 * BPEL4WS => (1), (2), (3)
 * FLOWS => (1), (5)
 * FLOWS => (1), (5)


 * 4 x Short presentations (10 minutes overview + 10 minutes Q/A)

each approach using a common example w/ optional variation points.
 * To provide continuity and allow comparisons across presentations, illustrate
 * To provide continuity and allow comparisons across presentations, illustrate
 * Points of variation: # of services/participants, location/distribution transparency
 * Complex issues: service mismatch (e.g., side effects that may induce coordination/orchestration problems)

(Ask: David Martin, Grit Denker, Everin Siri, someone at U.Southampton)
 * TBD: OWL-S
 * TBD: OWL-S

Focus on (1), (2), (5)


 * JohnDomingue: WSMO
 * JohnDomingue: WSMO

Focus on (1), (2), (3)


 * RamaAkkiraju, AmitSheth: WSDL-S / METEOR-S
 * RamaAkkiraju, AmitSheth: WSDL-S / METEOR-S

Focus on (1), (2)


 * MikeGrunninger: SWSF
 * MikeGrunninger: SWSF

Focus on (5), (2), (5)


 * (a 5 minute note on): BPEL4WS
 * (a 5 minute note on): BPEL4WS

Legacy,plans,etc... relevant for (1), (3) & (4)


 * Total: 1 hour 40 minutes

Pertinent Discussions so far
From a practical point of view however, there are big differences in the way OWL-S, SWSF and WSMO are described in various documents, presentations, etc... These differences mean that it is difficult for a practioner to understand how these 3 models relate to one another. In practice, we need to scale back this mapping down to the core concepts that are important across models of web services. So, I propose to focus on 2 groups of concepts: and as noted in SWSO and WSMO, these two approaches seem to be conflicting views but can be in fact interpreted as complimentary to one another. a discussion where we use both WSMO and FLOWS/ROWS to emphasize how we could improve that example w.r.t. two criteria: whereas they are defined in FLOW's process model [8]. & SWSF's approach with FLOWS and ROWS as translated into SWSL-Rules [10] SWSF's edge over WSMO is in the semantic continuity that FLOWS & ROWS bring across service specifications, descriptions and executions compared to WSMO's multiple languages. helpful to understand how these two approaches can complement each other.
 * 2005.06.23 Discussion leading to this program
 * WSMO (Web Service Modeling Ontology), and possibly also, SWSF (Semantic Web Services Framework) - as proposed by DuaneNickull / NicolasRouquette / PeterBrown - ref. thread that started with http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum//ontolog-forum/2005-06/msg00017.html
 * candidate panelists:
 * John Domingue of the Knowledge Media Institute at the Open University in the UK, who presented in Innsbruck - suggested by PeterBrown - http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum//ontolog-forum/2005-06/msg00039.html
 * reference: John Domingue's slides from the presentation at the recent W3C workshop on frameworks for semantics in web services, available at: http://www.w3.org/2005/04/FSWS/Submissions/1/wsmo_v10.pdf
 * WSMO WG website - http://www.wsmo.org
 * SDK cluster - 3 fairly large EU-based project
 * currently lots of funding in Europe for semantic web work (and funding in US has just ended), therefore expecting new work to come from Europe
 * three different viewpoints now - OWL/S, SWSI - FLOWS, and WSMO viewpoints - probably a bit early to talk about standardization
 * let's work with John Domingue toward a Oct 2005 panel discussion, with the 3 above viewpoints represented
 * 2005.06.30 Discussion Session: ref. our 2005.06.30 discussion session, MichaelGruninger (who has been working on FLOWS and SWSF) indicated that this will be a session he will like to participate in too.
 * 2005.07.21 suggest NicolasRouquette to be our moderator for this session
 * 2005.08.04 call - Date and Moderator confirmed:
 * Oct. 27 2005 - Discussion on OWL/S, SWSI - FLOWS, and WSMO ... (need proper title) - Moderator: NicolasRouquette
 * Peter and Nicolas will work offline to setup a new page for preparing this session
 * Michael: note also WSDL-S, try Amit Sheth (of Univ. of Georgia) or someone from IBM (contact Michael)
 * candidate panelists: JohnDomingue, MichaelGruninger, ..., NicolasRouquette (moderator)
 * 2005.09.01 call - http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/2005-09/msg00002.html#nid05
 * date of this event re-scheduled to Thursday, Oct. 20, 2005
 * EMichaelMaximilien agreed to join NicolasRouquette in helping organize this event
 * 2005.09.05 post from EMichaelMaximilien: ¨hoping to get folks from the OWL-S side of things to join us, e.g., Katia Sycara (CMU) and David Martin (SRI).¨
 * 2005.09.09 / NicolasRouquette's input:
 * I have looked at John Domingue's presentation. It is certainly helpful to understand what WSMO is conceptually.
 * Ideally, it would be great to have a metamodel mapping similar to the ODM that Elisa presented yesterday for OWL-S, SWSF and WSMO.
 * Group1: describing how a web service actually works in terms of a computational model for executing it
 * In SWSF, that would be FLOWS (ontology for web services) and its rule-based execution model, ROWS
 * In OWL-S, that would be the process model
 * In WSMO, that would be the service interfaces specified as Abstract State Machines (ASM)
 * Group2: describing what a web service does for the purpose advertisement, matching, etc...
 * In SWSF, that would still be FLOWS & ROWS
 * In OWL-S, that would be the profile model
 * In WSMO, that would be the capabilities, goals, non-functional properties
 * For WSMO, we could easily get the relevant materials from [1] and [2].
 * [1] http://www.wsmo.org/TR/d17/v0.2/#s312
 * [2] http://www.wsmo.org/TR/d17/v0.2/#s313
 * For SWSF, I only know of [3] and [4]
 * [3] http://www.daml.org/services/swsf/1.1/swsl/
 * [4] http://www.daml.org/services/swsf/1.1/swso/
 * In many respects, both SWSO and WSMO subsume OWL-S
 * Using a common example from, e.g., [5] ([5] http://www.mindswap.org/2004/owl-s/services.shtml), I would like to have
 * Criteria 1) Clarifying the semantics of service specification
 * WSMO's capabilities[6,7] (incl. precon, postcond, ...) & FLOWS' activities & ordering constraints [8]
 * [6] http://www.wsmo.org/TR/d2/v1.2/#capability
 * [7] http://www.wsmo.org/TR/d16/d16.1/v0.2/#sec:wsml-capability-interface
 * [8] http://www.daml.org/services/swsf/1.1/swso/#process-model
 * Note that [6,7] don't really specify the semantics of capabilities, preconditions, etc..
 * Criteria 2) Clarifying the semantics of service execution
 * b) WSMO's approach for process representation & execution w/ abstract state machines [9]
 * [9] http://www.wsmo.org/TR/d13/d13.7/v0.2/#L502
 * [10] http://www.daml.org/services/swsf/1.1/swso/appendices/swso-rules.html
 * WSMO's edge over SWSF is, currently, in the extent of tool support available.
 * So, to better understand the practical relevance of both approaches, it would be
 * 2005.09.10 / EMichaelMaximilien's Input: (ref: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/2005-09/msg00017.html)
 * As I suggested in my previous post, we should also include the WSDL-S effort.  This has potential for significant traction in the SWS space since it takes a very pragmatic and lightweight approach to adding semantics to Web services.  There are various communities already using the specification and it was submitted to the W3C.  Here are some references:
 * [A] Web Services Semantics - WSDL-S: http://www.w3.org/2005/04/FSWS/Submissions/17/WSDL-S.htm
 * [B] http://www.alphaworks.ibm.com/tech/wssem
 * There are also tools available for the Eclipse platform and others:
 * [a] METEOR-S tool from the University of Georgia: http://lsdis.cs.uga.edu/projects/meteor-s/
 * [b] Semantic tools for Web services from IBM's alphaWorks: http://www.alphaworks.ibm.com/tech/wssem
 * Others are on the works. I have lined up the two point researchers from both University of Georgia and IBM Research (and teams) to participate in the call.
 * Secondly, who are we inviting for the OWL-S side of the world?
 * 2005.09.29 Ontolog Conference call discussion - Panelists situation:
 * John has also appraoched DieterFensel, Dieter cannot be with us this time; but we definitely look forward to having him talk to the Ontolog Forum at some other time. Thanks, John.
 * EMichaelMaximilien: Amit Sheth (University of Georgia and Semagix) will also be joining us
 * EMichaelMaximilien: ...(other sugestions ... please add here) ...
 * Nicolas will write to SRI to try to get a candidate to represent the OWL-S view
 * MonicaMartin: in view of the focus of this discussion, maybe we should leave BPEL4WS out, because it calls for a slightly different discussion (more application oriented, and not anchored on ontological standards)
 * Both EMichaelMaximilien & Brand recommends David Martin from SRI
 * JohnDomingue: project SUPER, Director Frank Leymann, at Univ of Stuggart (IBM architecture team), got 12 million Euro funding. John could write and invite him to participate. Maybe Frank can talk a bit about their vision from the floor.
 * Brand also suggested looking over: http://www.brainstorm-group.com
 * 2005.10.13: Official Announcement of the Session relased - http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum//ontolog-forum/2005-10/msg00018.html
 * 2005.10.14: change in one of the panelists (as advised by EMichaelMaximilien) - AmitSheth will be presenting on the WSDL-S perspective, instead of RamaAkkiraju
 * 2005.10.14: change in one of the panelists (as advised by EMichaelMaximilien) - AmitSheth will be presenting on the WSDL-S perspective, instead of RamaAkkiraju

Outstanding Issues 2005.09.29

 * is JohnDomingue arranging for some more participants / panelists from Europe (as previously discussed)? - see above 2005.09.29 discussion
 * EMichaelMaximilien: who are we inviting for the OWL-S side of the world? - see above 2005.09.29 discussion
 * tie down the list of panelists - see above 2005.09.29 discussion
 * what are we expecting from each panelist (5/10 minute openning? ... etc.) - see above "Proposed Discussion Agenda" (by Nicolas/2005.09.28)
 * format/plan for the entire session - see above "Proposed Discussion Agenda" (by Nicolas/2005.09.28)
 * put together an abstract for the wiki session page - Nicolas will handle
 * drawn up a list of questions as "issues to be explored" - Nicolas will handle (use Nicolas' framework as a basis and compile from there.)
 * we need the Bio's from RamaAkkiraju, AmitSheth, probably also DavidMartin - EMichaelMaximilien & NicolasRouquette, please request from your respective invitee(s)

Key items for transfer to the main session page:
along with Date, Title, Moderator and List of Panelists

Abstract
(please draft)

Pertinent Questions for Discussion
(please draft and list)