Re: R: sws matchmaker contest

I know ontology could be described as a formalized, shared specification of a conceptualization for the knowledge domain. However, SW/SWS people most frequently stressed on the "formalization" rather than "shared" agreement. I just wonder how you can enforce people to "share" a conceptualization. By now, it seems different service only "reference" to a super-ontology, then machine will look for "similar" or "relevant" services. However, as we know from McCool's paper "Rethinking the Semantic Web, Part I" that "Logic, which forms the basis of OWL, suffers from an inability to represent exceptions to rules and the contexts in which they’re valid.", such matchmaking effort is limited by the approach itself.

Recently I went to San Diego Super Computer (SDSC) Center for an NSF sponsored training. SDSC developed a kind of matchmaking system that may be helpful to this group for reference. SDSC developed an ontology definition to do semantic query and matchmaking on remote, external databases. Such remote databases provide an API for SDSC to do "select" query. To enforce the "shared" conceptualization, SDSC provides a mechanism so that when remote databases register into SDSC system, they comply with SDSC semantic definitions. Researchers from UC Davis also demonstrated a so-called "kepler" system for a visualized semantic matchmaking and integration. However, "kepler" is a closed system, which means it cannot recognize the "semantics" in the external systems.

Based on such lessons and experience, I suggest that people have to think about how to "enforce" a shared ontology among different groups, as OWL's inability can only tell you a "similar" or "relevant" matchmaking. OWL even does not know 2+3=5 as it just knows 2,3,5 are numbers while +,= are symbols. Given the examples I mentioned in last email, can you tell me your matchmaking can draw a conclusion that serviceA=serviceB=serviceC, or you can just tell me they are "similar"? And at last, such matchmaking will enable dynamic invocation? If not, the result of such kind of action is just another deadlock. We need a reverse engineering approach to develop SWS, start from dynamic invoation, then trace backward to see what kind of semantic definition/matchmaking are required to enable such dynamic process. Otherwise, we have to rebuild the framework in the following days.

If ontology could be described as a formalized, shared specification of a conceptualization, I have to say: -- formalized, shared specification of a conceptualization = agreements/standards -- then we need to find a way to enforce the implementation of such agreements in SWS. SDSC can do "exact" matchmaking and semantic query because all registered remote databases "agree" with its semantic definition. For this SWS-IG, even some people don't "agree" or comply with W3C's specification on "Web services" but keep talking Web sites for years. I just wonder whether a "similar" Web service identified through such a matchmaker is actually a Web site or not.

Regards,

Xuan




>>> "Tommaso Di Noia" <t.dinoia@poliba.it> 08/25/06 6:04 AM >>>
Matchmaking is a widely used term in a variety of frameworks, comprising
several --quite different-- approaches. With my group we defined matchmaking
and semantic matchmaking as follows:

[Matchmaking] Matchmaking is an information retrieval task whereby queries
(in this case WS requests) and resources (in this case WSs) are expressed
using semi-structured text in the form of  advertisements, and task results
are ordered (ranked) lists of those resources BEST FULFILLING the query.   

[Semantic Matchmaking] Semantic matchmaking is a matchmaking task whereby
queries and resources advertisements are expressed with reference to a
shared specification of a conceptualization for the knowledge domain at
hand, i.e. an ontology.

Then, semantic matchmaking is very useful in the discovery (which is
preliminary to invocation) of WSs potentially satisfying the user request
for at least the following two main reasons:

1. In case a matchmaking system doisfying
her request, the user can look for something similar to her original
request. This process is supported by the ranked nature of the returned list
of WSs.

2. Once the ranked list of WSs is returned, a system has a criterion to
automatically choose different WSs to be invoked in case of failure or
unavailability of a WS.

-- Tommaso  

> -----Messaggio originale-----
> Da: public-sws-ig-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-sws-ig-request@w3.org] Per conto di Xuan Shi
> Inviato: venerdì 25 agosto 2006 6.26
> A: dellava@cefriel.it; klusch@dfki.de
> Cc: public-sws-ig@w3.org
> Oggetto: Re: sws matchmaker contest
> 
> 
> According to W3C specification @ 
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/NOTE-ws-gloss-20040211/
> 
> "Web service
> 
> There are many things that might be called "Web services" in 
> the world at large. However, for the purpose of this Working 
> Group and this architecture, and without prejudice toward 
> other definitions, we will use the following definition:
> 
> A Web service is a software system designed to support 
> interoperable machine-to-machine interaction over a network. 
> It has an interface described in a machine-processable format 
> (specifically WSDL). Other systems interact with the Web 
> service in a manner prescribed by its description using 
> SOAP-messages, typically conveyed using HTTP with an XML 
> serialization in conjunction with other Web-related standards." 
> 
> Semantic Web Services Challenge 2006 contest has complied 
> with the above W3C specification, but it seems the proposed 
> sws matchmaker contest may include other kind of "services". 
> I hope the organizors will pay attention to W3C's statement: 
> - There are many things that might be called "Web services" 
> in the world at large - otherwise people will be confused 
> again by such vague terminologies.
> 
> The problem for the Semantic Web Services Challenge 2006 is, 
> the organizors used lots of "fake services". Such fake 
> services, for example, muller.wsdl, racer.wsdl, runner.wsdl, 
> walker.wsdl, etc. only provided a simplified interface like 
> "function F (inputObject): outputObject". However, in real 
> world practice, functional interface can be more complex.
> 
> Given the following "fake services", three Web service 
> developers develop exactly the same kind of service/function 
> with the same service and function name, the same interface 
> structure (three input objects and 1 output object), and the 
> same input/output object name, but with different order of 
> the input objects documented in WSDL or OO diagram:
> 
> service: function F(obj1, obj2, obj3):obj4
> service: function F(obj3, obj2, obj1):obj4
> service: function F(obj1, obj3, obj2):obj4 (...we can have 
> more different combinations of course)
> 
> Can I say that by matchmaking, machine will understand that 
> all these three services and functions can do the same thing? 
> But can you say that such a result from matchmaking or 
> service composition will enable the dynamic invocation of 
> such services, i.e. "without any reprogramming, a software 
> system could have the flexibility to use various services 
> that do the same kind of job but have different APIs" 
> (Burstein 2004) - the last and final goal of SWS ? It seems 
> not because to invoke such services, we have to reprogram 
> something in such process as: obj4 = service.F(obj1, obj2, 
> obj3), or obj4 = service.F(obj3, obj2, obj1), or obj4 = 
> service.F(obj1, obj3, obj2), in case any of them does not 
> work we have to sue the other services.
> 
> If adding semantic annotation into WSDL cannot enable the 
> dynamic invocation of services, the last and final goal of 
> SWS, such service matchmaking and compostion contest should 
> add some more challenges with a focus on the real world 
> practice and existing Web services to see how the result 
> contributes to the last and final goal of SWS.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Xuan
> 
> 
> 
> >>> Matthias Klusch <klusch@dfki.de> 08/24/06 1:17 PM >>>
allenge and in part 
> impressed by the results produced (only WSDL services were 
> provided for the scenarios).
> however, the planned matchmaker contest aims at obtaining the 
> results of a comparative evaluation of the recall/precision, 
> and runtime performance of different owl-s / wsmo matchmaker 
> over a given owl-s / wsmo service retrieval test collection 
> (like TREC in the IR domain). if there is a chance to obtain 
> such results from the recent sws challenge, pls let us know.
> another related event is at this year's ISWC, however, the 
> organisers told us that they want to focus on business sws 
> certification but not sws retrieval.
> 
> cordial regards, matthias
> 
> Emanuele Della Valle schrieb:
> 
> > Dear Matthias,
> > 
> > a similar activities is ongoing within the Semantic Web 
> Services the challenge discovery scenario [2] and the related 
> test cases. 
> > 
> > The solutions to the challenge collected in June are 
> available at [3]
> > 
> > Best regards,
> > 
> > Emanuele
> > 
> > [1] http://sws-challenge.org/wiki/index.php/Main_Page
> > [2] 
> > http://sws-challenge.org/wiki/index.php/Scenario:_Shipment_Discovery
> > [3] http://sws-challenge.org/wiki/index.php/Workshop_Budva
> > 
> > --
> > Emanuele Della Valle
> > CEFRIEL - Politecnico di Milano
> > Via Fucini, 2 * 20133 Milano (Italy)
> > p. +39 0223954324 e. dellavalle@cefriel.it f. +39 0223954524 w. 
> > http://swa.cefriel.it/ http://www.linkedin.com/in/emanueledellavalle
> > 
> > 
> >>-----Original Message-----
> >>From: public-sws-ig-request@w3.org 
> >>[mailto:public-sws-ig-request@w3.org]
> >>On Behalf Of Matthias Klusch
> >>Sent: mercoledì 23 agosto 2006 15.51
> >>To: public-sws-ig@w3.org
> >>Subject: sws matchmaker contest
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>dear all,
> >>
> >>in due course of planning a semantic web service matchmaker 
> contest, i 
> >>am currently looking for
> >>
> >>* all kinds of *implemented* owl-s or wsmo matchmakers
> >>   in particular those which have not been published yet,
> >>   but might be interested in participating in such a contest.
> >>
> >>* partners that would be willing to initiate or further 
> develop service
> >>   retrieval test collections for measuring the retrieval 
> performance of
> >>   these matchmakers such as the owls-tc v2 for owl-s (i do not know
> >>   yet of any wsmo test collection)
> >>
> >>any feedback is highly appreciated!
> >>
> >>cordial regards,
> >>matthias
> >>
> >>__________________________________________________
> >>Dr. Matthias Klusch
> >>German Research Center for Artificial Intelligence 
> Stuhlsatzenhausweg 
> >>3
> >>66123 Saarbruecken, Germany
> >>Phone: +49-681-302-5297, Fax: +49-681-302-2235 
> >>http://www.dfki.de/~klusch/, klusch@dfki.de 
> >>__________________________________________________
> >>
> >>
> > 
> > 
> 
> --
> __________________________________________________
> Dr. Matthias Klusch
> German Research Center for Artificial Intelligence 
> Stuhlsatzenhausweg 3
> 66123 Saarbruecken, Germany
> Phone: +49-681-302-5297, Fax: +49-681-302-2235 
> http://www.dfki.de/~klusch/, klusch@dfki.de 
> __________________________________________________
> 
> 
>

Received on Friday, 25 August 2006 14:10:42 UTC