An Experimental Assessment of Semantic Web-based Integration Support

observancecookieΑσφάλεια

5 Νοε 2013 (πριν από 3 χρόνια και 5 μήνες)

77 εμφανίσεις

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


Expected Contributions


Issues


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

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


OAG

XML Schema

STAR

XML Schema

AIAG

XML Schema

translation

translation

STAR

XML data

AIAG

XML data

STAR

XML data

AIAG

XML data

AIAG

OWL DL

STAR

OWL DL

OAG

OWL DL

DL Reasoner

XSLT Mapping

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


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?

Translation Tools

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

Schema

OWL DL

Conforms to ?

Translation Tools

XML

Instance

OWL DL

STAR

OWL

Instance

XML
-
to
-
OWL Translation Procedure

DL

Reasoner

DIG

interface

OAG XML
-
to
-
OWL Translation tool

XML Schema

XML Schema

instances

Others

interfaces

XSLT

XSLT

TBOX

ABOX

AIAG

STAR

OWL DL

OAG

TBOX

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

Translation Tools

XML

Instance

STAR

XML

Instance

AIAG

OWL DL

STAR

STAR

OWL

Instance

OWL DL

STAR

AIAG

OWL

Instance

?

=

STAR

OWL DL

OAG

AIAG

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

[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)