forschungszentrum informatik, karlsruhe fzi research center for information science at the...
TRANSCRIPT
Forschungszentrum Informatik, Karlsruhe
FZI FZI Research Center for Information ScienceResearch Center for Information Scienceat the University of Karlsruheat the University of Karlsruhe
Variance in e-Business
Service Discovery
Stephan Grimm,
Boris Motik,
Chris Preist (HP Labs, Bristol)
Slide 2
OverviewOverview
• Introduction
• Intuition behind modelling service semantics
• Operationalising discovery using logic
• Matching service descriptions
• Conclusion
Slide 3
Service Discovery in the Semantic WebService Discovery in the Semantic Web
• Service– Web Service vs. high-level eBusiness Service
• Service Discovery– Locating Providers who meet a Requestor´s needs
– Based on Semantic Descriptions of Services
• Semantic Description of a Service– Describing the Capabilities of the Service
– Using ontology languages, such as OWL
– Referring to common domain ontologies
Slide 4
OverviewOverview
• Introduction
• Intuition behind modelling service semantics
• Operationalising discovery using logic
• Matching service descriptions
• Conclusion
Slide 5
Service Description – Service InstanceService Description – Service Instance
shipping1
BremenPlymouth
from to
packageXitem
50 kg
weight
set of accepted Service Instances
. . .
shipping2
HamburgDover
from to
barrelYitem
25 kg
weight
Service Instances
Service Description
Shipping containers from UK to Germany describes
Slide 6
Variance in Service DescriptionsVariance in Service Descriptions
• Two kinds of variance in service descriptions
toshipping2 Hamburg
. . .
toshipping1 Bremen
toshipping3 Boston
– due to incomplete knowledge
. . .
toshipping2 Hamburg
toshipping1 Bremen
Shipping to Germany
– due to intended diversity
differentservice
instances . . . differentpossible worlds
Slide 7
Discovery by Matching Service DescriptionsDiscovery by Matching Service Descriptions
• Matching Service Descriptions of Requestors an Providers
• If there are common instances, requestor and provider can (potentially) do business with each other
(Sr)I ∩ (Spi)I ≠ Ø
Sr
ServiceRequestor
Spi
ServiceProviders
Sp1
Spn
...
– How do their Service Descriptions intersect ?
Slide 8
OverviewOverview
• Introduction
• Intuition behind modelling service semantics
• Operationalising discovery using logic
• Matching service descriptions
• Conclusion
Slide 9
Intuition Intuition ↦↦ DL DL
• Service Description ↦ set of DL axioms D={1, ... , n}
– A service concept S occurring in some i
• Domain Knowledge ↦ DL knowledge base KB
Slide 10
Intuition Intuition ↦↦ DL DL
• Possible World ↦ Model I of KB ∪ D
• Service Instance ↦ relational structure in I
• acceptable Service Instances ↦ Extension SI of S
• Variance due to intended diversity ↦ |SI| ≥ 1
• Variance due to incompl. knowl. ↦ several Models I1, I2, ...
• Matching ↦ boolean function match(KB, Dr, Dp)– way of applying DL inferences
(Sr)I1
(UKCity)I1
(City)I1
item
fromfrom
(Package)I1 (Sr)I2
(UKCity)I2
(City)I2
item
from
(Package)I2
. . .
Slide 11
Towards Intuitive Modelling PrimitivesTowards Intuitive Modelling Primitives
Characterising Property Restrictions
• Multiplicity– single-valued
– multi-valued
• Variety– fixed value
– value range
• Availability– Mandatory
– obligatory
• Range Coverage– Covering
– non-covering
Slide 12
OverviewOverview
• Introduction
• Intuition behind modelling service semantics
• Operationalising discovery using logic
• Matching service descriptions
• Conclusion
Slide 13
Treating Variance in MatchingTreating Variance in Matching
• Resolving Incomplete Knowledge holds in every possible world :
Entailment KB ∪ Dr ∪ Dp ⊨ holds in some possible world :
Satisfiability KB ∪ Dr ∪ Dp ∪ {} sat.
• Resolving Intended Diversity– Request and Capability overlap :
Non-Disjointness = Sr ⊓ Sp ⋢ ⊥
– Request more specific than Capability :Subsumption = Sr ⊑ Sp
– Capability more specific than Request :Subsumption = Sp ⊑ Sr
⊨ sat.
⊑ ⊓
Slide 14
DL Inference for MatchingDL Inference for Matching
• Satisfiability of Concept Conjunction
(Sr ⊓ Sp) is satisfiable w.r.t. KB ∪ Dr ∪ Dp
(Sr)I1
(Sp)I1
. . .(Sr)I2
(Sp)I2
⊨ sat.
⊑ ⊓X
• (Sr)I ∩ (Sp)I ≠ Ø in some possible world
• Intuitiuon:– incomplete knowledge issues can be resolved such that request and
capability overlap
Slide 15
Satisfiability of Concept ConjunctionSatisfiability of Concept Conjunction
• Example:
⊨ sat.
⊑ ⊓X
• match(KB, Dr, DpA) = true
• match(KB, Dr, DpB) = true
– UKCity ⊓ USCity ⊑ ⊥ is not specified in KB
(Sr)I(UKCity)I
(City)I
Plymouth
Dublin from
from
(SpA)I
(USCity)I
(SpB)I
(Sr ⊓ Sp) is satisfiable
w.r.t. KB ∪ Dr ∪ Dp
Slide 16
DL Inference for MatchingDL Inference for Matching
• Entailment of concept subsumption
KB ∪ Dr ∪ Dp ⊨ Sr ⊑ Sp
• (Sr)I (Sp)I in every possible world
• Intuition:– the request is more specific than the capability regardless of how
incomplete knowledge issues are resolved
⊨ sat.
⊑ ⊓X
(Sr)I1
(Sp)I1
. . .
(Sr)I2
(Sp)I2
Slide 17
Entailment of Concept SubsumptionEntailment of Concept Subsumption
• Example:
• match(KB, Dr, DpA) = false
– Dublin outside the UK
⊨ sat.
⊑ ⊓X
(Sr)I
(UKCity)I
(City)I
Plymouth
Dublin from
from
(SpA)I
KB ∪ Dr ∪ Dp
⊨ Sr ⊑ Sp
Slide 18
DL Inference for MatchingDL Inference for Matching
• Entailment of Concept Non-Disjointness
KB ∪ Dr ∪ Dp ⊨ Sr ⊓ Sp ⋢ ⊥
• (Sr)I ∩ (Sp)I ≠ Ø in every possible world
• Intuition:– the request and the capability overlap regardless of how incomplete
knowledge issues are resolved
(Sr)I1
(Sp)I1
. . .
(Sr)I2
(Sp)I2
⊨ sat.
⊑ ⊓X
Slide 19
Entailment of Concept Non-DisjointnessEntailment of Concept Non-Disjointness
• Example:
• match(KB, Dr, DpA) = true
• match(KB, Dr, DpA) = false
– Plymouth outside the US in at least one possible world
⊨ sat.
⊑ ⊓X
(Sr)I(UKCity)I
(City)I
Plymouth
Dublin from
from
(SpA)I
(USCity)I
(SpB)I
KB ∪ Dr ∪ Dp
⊨ Sr ⊓ Sp ⋢ ⊥
Slide 20
Practicability of InferencesPracticability of Inferences
• Satisfiability of Concept Conjunction– very weak : vulnerable to false positive matches
– relies on additional disjointness constraints in domain ontologies
• Entailment of Concept Subsumption– Very strong : misses intuitively correct matches
• Entailment of Concept Non-Disjointness– Tries to overcome deficiencies of the other two inferences
– relies on range-covering property restrictions(problematic to express in DL)
Slide 21
Ranking Service DescriptionsRanking Service Descriptions
• Ranking based on Partial Subsumption
(SpA ⊓ Sr)I
• DL Inference
KB ∪ Dr ∪ DpA ∪ DpB ⊨ (SpA
⊓ Sr) ⊑ (SpB ⊓ Sr)
⇒ DpA ≼ DpB
(SpB ⊓ Sr)I
(SpA)I (SpB
)I
Slide 22
ConclusionConclusion
• Provided an intuitive semantics for formalService Descriptions based on Service Instances
• Emphasized the meaning of variance inService Descriptions
• Mapped intuitive notions to formal elements in DL
• Investigated different DL inferences for matching Service Descriptions
• Showed how variance can be treated during matching
• Proposed a ranking mechanism based on partial subsumption of Service Descriptions