Describing OGC WMS and WFS with the OWL-S Web Service Ontology Dr Kristin Stock Allworlds Geothinking, UK Centre for Geospatial Science, University of.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
May 23, 2004OWL-S straw proposal for SWSL1 OWL-S Straw Proposal Presentation to SWSL Committee May 23, 2004 David Martin Mark Burstein Drew McDermott Deb.
Advertisements

/13SNAP data model Simulation data model.
The Next Generation Network Enabled Weather (NNEW) SWIM Application Asia/Pacific AMHS/SWIM Workshop Chaing Mai, Thailand March 5-7, 2012 Tom McParland,
Semantically-Assisted Geospatial Workflow Design Gobe Hobona, David Fairbairn, Philip James ACM GIS – 8 th November Seattle.
1 University of Namur, Belgium PReCISE Research Center Using context to improve data semantic mediation in web services composition Michaël Mrissa (spokesman)
CH-4 Ontologies, Querying and Data Integration. Introduction to RDF(S) RDF stands for Resource Description Framework. RDF is a standard for describing.
16/11/ IRS-II: A Framework and Infrastructure for Semantic Web Services Motta, Domingue, Cabral, Gaspari Presenter: Emilia Cimpian.
NHibernate Object/Relational Persistence for.NET.
1 UIM with DAML-S Service Description Team Members: Jean-Yves Ouellet Kevin Lam Yun Xu.
So What Does it All Mean? Geospatial Semantics and Ontologies Dr Kristin Stock.
Introduction to Web services MSc on Bioinformatics for Health Sciences May 2006 Arnaud Kerhornou Iván Párraga García INB.
Surfing the Service Web Sudhir Agarwal, Siegfried Handschuh, and Steffen Staab Presenter: Yihong Ding.
Europe’s Information Society eContentplus OrléansWP6 1st Coordination and progress meeting Technical information OGC WMS – WFS – CSW.
Descriptions Robert Grimm New York University. The Final Assignment…  Your own application  Discussion board  Think: Paper summaries  Web cam proxy.
Web Ontology Language for Service (OWL-S). Introduction OWL-S –OWL-based Web service ontology –a core set of markup language constructs for describing.
The Semantic Web Week 18: Part 4 Introduction to Web Services and Intelligent Web Agents Module Website: Practical.
An Intelligent Broker Approach to Semantics-based Service Composition Yufeng Zhang National Lab. for Parallel and Distributed Processing Department of.
ReQuest (Validating Semantic Searches) Norman Piedade de Noronha 16 th July, 2004.
OWL-S: Semantic Markup for Web Services
Kmi.open.ac.uk Semantic Execution Environments Service Engineering and Execution Barry Norton and Mick Kerrigan.
Incorporation of an ISO Feature Catalogue in CSW ebRIM Dr Kristin Stock Social Change Online, UK and Centre for Geospatial Science University of.
Semantic Mediation & OWS 8 Glenn Guempel
1 Adapting BPEL4WS for the Semantic Web The Bottom-Up Approach to Web Service Interoperation Daniel J. Mandell and Sheila McIlraith Presented by Axel Polleres.
CYBERINFRASTRUCTURE FOR THE GEOSCIENCES WMS Map Integration - Improved Ghulam Memon Ashraf Memon.
Špindlerův Mlýn, Czech Republic, SOFSEM Semantically-aided Data-aware Service Workflow Composition Ondrej Habala, Marek Paralič,
Status of upgrading CDI service (user interface, harvesting via GeoNetwork, CDI interoperability options following SeaDataNet D8.7) By Dick M.A. Schaap.
Filtering & Selecting Semantic Web Services with Interactive Composition Techniques By Evren Sirin, Bijan Parsia, and James Hendler Presenting By : Mirza.
Ontologies for the Integration of Geospatial Data Michael Lutz Workshop: Semantics and Ontologies for GI Services, 2006 Paper: Lutz et al., Overcoming.
Development of Front End Tools for Semantic Grid Services Dr.S.Thamarai Selvi, Professor & Head, Dept. of Information Technology, Madras Institute of Technology,
Agent Model for Interaction with Semantic Web Services Ivo Mihailovic.
* * 0 OWL-S: Ontology Web Language For Services Reyhan AYDOĞAN Emre YILMAZ 21/12/2005OWL-S: Ontology Web Language for Services.
Grid-enabling OGC Web Services Andrew Woolf, Arif Shaon STFC e-Science Centre Rutherford Appleton Lab.
OWL-S. Web Services: OWL-S2 BPEL and WSDL : Messages.
Using Semantic Web Services for Ad Hoc Collaboration in Virtual Teams Kay-Uwe Schmidt Matthias Fluegge
Linked-data and the Internet of Things Payam Barnaghi Centre for Communication Systems Research University of Surrey March 2012.
DELIVERING ENVIRONMENTAL WEB SERVICES (DEWS) Partners: UK Met Office (Lead Partner), British Atmospheric Data Centre (BADC), British Maritime Technology.
10/18/20151 Business Process Management and Semantic Technologies B. Ramamurthy.
UT DALLAS Erik Jonsson School of Engineering & Computer Science FEARLESS engineering Semantic Web Services CS - 6V81 University of Texas at Dallas November.
© DATAMAT S.p.A. – Giuseppe Avellino, Stefano Beco, Barbara Cantalupo, Andrea Cavallini A Semantic Workflow Authoring Tool for Programming Grids.
An Ontological Framework for Web Service Processes By Claus Pahl and Ronan Barrett.
1 Developing Service Ontologies Peter Fox (NCAR) ESIP Winter Meeting (TIWG) January 9, 2008, Washington, D.C.
Dr. Leo Obrst MITRE Information Semantics Information Discovery & Understanding Command & Control Center SOA, Ontologies, and the Pragmatic.
1 Artificial Intelligence Applications Institute Centre for Intelligent Systems and their Applications Stuart Aitken Artificial Intelligence Applications.
Introduction to Semantic Web Service Architecture ► The vision of the Semantic Web ► Ontologies as the basic building block ► Semantic Web Service Architecture.
OWL Representing Information Using the Web Ontology Language.
User Profiling using Semantic Web Group members: Ashwin Somaiah Asha Stephen Charlie Sudharshan Reddy.
INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR GEO-INFORMATION SCIENCE AND EARTH OBSERVATION Introduction to the OGC Web Processing Service (WPS) GIP – Meeting 20 April 2006.
WSDL – Web Service Definition Language  WSDL is used to describe, locate and define Web services.  A web service is described by: message format simple.
Using DAML+OIL Ontologies for Service Discovery in myGrid Chris Wroe, Robert Stevens, Carole Goble, Angus Roberts, Mark Greenwood
Service discovery with semantic alignment Alberto Fernández AT COST WG1 meeting, Cyprus, Dec, 2009.
1 Proposal on MFI-5: Process model registration based on ontology (MFI4Process) He Keqing Wang Chong 2006/08/29.
Personalized Recommendation of Related Content Based on Automatic Metadata Extraction Andreas Nauerz 1, Fedor Bakalov 2, Birgitta.
Semantics in Web Service Composition for Risk Management Michael Lutz European Commission – DG Joint Research Centre Ispra, Italy EcoTerm IV, Vienna,
Semantic Interoperability in GIS N. L. Sarda Suman Somavarapu.
Yoon kyoung-a A Semantic Match Algorithm for Web Services Based on Improved Semantic Distance Gongzhen Wang, Donghong Xu, Yong Qi, Di Hou School.
Smart Maps and Dumb Questions: A Geospatial Semantic Web Interoperability Experiment Joshua Lieberman Traverse Technologies, Inc. & Northrop Grumman Information.
The Role of Semantics and Terminologies in a Service-Oriented Architecture Paul Smits, Michael Lutz European Commission – DG Joint Research Centre Ispra,
Semantic metadata in the Catalogue Frédéric Houbie.
Linking Ontologies to Spatial Databases
Semantic testing in oneM2M
Web Ontology Language for Service (OWL-S)
Multi-agent system for web services
Business Process Modelling & Semantic Web Services
Ontology.
Session 2: Metadata and Catalogues
COMPASS: A Geospatial Knowledge Infrastructure Managed with Ontologies
Semantic Markup for Semantic Web Tools:
Dr Kristin Stock Allworlds Geothinking
A Semantic Peer-to-Peer Overlay for Web Services Discovery
OWL-S Editor 사용법 충남대학교 컴퓨터전공 김태균.
Presentation transcript:

Describing OGC WMS and WFS with the OWL-S Web Service Ontology Dr Kristin Stock Allworlds Geothinking, UK Centre for Geospatial Science, University of Nottingham, UK EDINA, UK

Introduction COMPASS Project ( COMPASS Project ( OGC Standards focus on syntactic descriptions of web services. OGC Standards focus on syntactic descriptions of web services. Some recent work incorporates object semantics. Some recent work incorporates object semantics. Nothing so far done on semantics of functionality. Nothing so far done on semantics of functionality. We tried to fill this gap with OWL-S. We tried to fill this gap with OWL-S.

Why do this? Web service ontologies are intended to assist with: Web service ontologies are intended to assist with: –Discovery –Dynamic execution –Chaining Automating the publish-find-bind model. Automating the publish-find-bind model.

OWL-S One of the dominant web service ontologies (cf WSMO). One of the dominant web service ontologies (cf WSMO). The basic model: The basic model: –Profile – advertises what the service does; –Process Model – describes the process that it executes; –Grounding – describes how it can be executed. Inputs, Outputs, Preconditions, Results Inputs, Outputs, Preconditions, Results

Service ServiceGrounding ServiceProfile ServiceModel presents (what it does) supports (how to access it) describedBy (how it works) Domain Ontology (Feature Types) Inputs, Outputs, Preconditions and Results Inputs, Outputs, Preconditions and Results

GetCapabilities Content of GetCapabilities mapped to OWL-S. Content of GetCapabilities mapped to OWL-S. This process could be automated for WFS and WMS. This process could be automated for WFS and WMS. Augment with semantic links. Augment with semantic links.

The OWL-S OGC Ontology (1) Created an OWL-S OGC Ontology to describe the specifications. Created an OWL-S OGC Ontology to describe the specifications. Each implementation of a WFS or WMS imports the OWL-S OGC Ontology and creates instances. Each implementation of a WFS or WMS imports the OWL-S OGC Ontology and creates instances.

The OWL-S OGC Ontology (2) For WFS and WMS, the OWL-S OGC Ontology is quite comprehensive, because specs are specific – wouldn’t be so for WPS. For WFS and WMS, the OWL-S OGC Ontology is quite comprehensive, because specs are specific – wouldn’t be so for WPS.

OWL-S OGC Ontology: What’s in it? Classes for: Classes for: –WFS and WMS specialised service; –The processes that a WMS or WFS may offer and inputs and outputs; –An OGCHttp Grounding and operations; –Connections between processes and the operations that implement them.

The Grounding OWL-S has a WSDL grounding. OWL-S has a WSDL grounding. We didn’t use it because it’s XML, not OWL – doesn’t fit our architecture. We didn’t use it because it’s XML, not OWL – doesn’t fit our architecture. Could have applied the WSDL – RDF mapping but time limited. Could have applied the WSDL – RDF mapping but time limited. Created a new grounding. Created a new grounding.

OGCHttpGroundin g OGCHttpOperation OGCHttpParameter DomainQueryModel OGCHttpConstraint hasOGCHttpOperation hasOGCHttpParameter hasOGCHttpConstraint hasDomain hasQueryModelhasDomain CheckBox InputBoxOptionList RadioButto n isA Process:Parameter groundsAbstractParameter Children of Process:AtomicProcess (for each WFS and WMS operation) groundsAtomicProcess has Input has Output Meaning PossibleValue s DefaultValue DataType DomainMetadat a ValuesUnit hasComponent

How exactly does this describe the semantics? IOPR describe semantics of functionality; IOPR describe semantics of functionality; Process describes steps/branches/loops etc. (not implemented) Process describes steps/branches/loops etc. (not implemented) IOPR can be connected to concepts in a domain ontology; IOPR can be connected to concepts in a domain ontology; OWL-S OGC ontology includes hasTopic to link service, feature type or layer. OWL-S OGC ontology includes hasTopic to link service, feature type or layer.

Dynamic service execution Grounding includes binding between operation parameters and ‘query model’. Grounding includes binding between operation parameters and ‘query model’. This is information that can be used to dynamically generate form to ask user for input. This is information that can be used to dynamically generate form to ask user for input. e.g. Which feature type they would like to query in WFS, layer in WMS. e.g. Which feature type they would like to query in WFS, layer in WMS.

What’s in the ontology for each web service? Details from GetCapabilities, including: Details from GetCapabilities, including: –Which operations are implemented; –Actual grounding (URLs) and query model; –etc. Semantic hasTopic links; Semantic hasTopic links; You don’t have to repeat IOPR. You don’t have to repeat IOPR.

What did we find? It’s very cumbersome. It’s very cumbersome. Full implementation of OWL-S includes IOPR more than once (different purposes); Full implementation of OWL-S includes IOPR more than once (different purposes); Difficulties with cardinality constraints. Difficulties with cardinality constraints.

How did we modify OWL-S? Did not describe IOPR multiple times, but once with references, same for parameters. Did not describe IOPR multiple times, but once with references, same for parameters. New grounding. New grounding. Did not define IOPR in each instance ontology, just referenced. Did not define IOPR in each instance ontology, just referenced.

It’s a limited implementation Didn’t fully describe preconditions and results. Didn’t fully describe preconditions and results. Didn’t fully model the complexity of some parameters. Didn’t fully model the complexity of some parameters. Process model limited. Process model limited.

Conclusions Full OWL-S implementation impractical. Full OWL-S implementation impractical. OGC specifications make it easier to use OWL-S. OGC specifications make it easier to use OWL-S. OWL-S can be used to support discovery and execution. OWL-S can be used to support discovery and execution. Didn’t test orchestration. Didn’t test orchestration.

Questions or Comments? or contact me: