关于OWL-S的服务描述- –

关于OWL-S的服务描述- –

    服务发现是否假设请求者和提供者使用同一本体?肯定不是。否则 OWL-S 的使用会大大受限,甚至失去意义了,因为其目的本来就是为了寻找合适的本体,其前提假设就有问题。(但是是否假设使用同一本体编码语言呢?也不应该是,但是不一定)

      会对本体中介进行一些规范吗?就像 WSMO 对面向对象的中间件一样?虽然可以这样做,但是至今还没有这方面的研究计划和进展。 OWL-S 是采用 OWL 语言的一种服务描述语言,并不规定是否一定有中间件或者服务实现某些功能。

        是否仅包含输入描述和输出描述?答案也是否定的。 OWL-S 纲要是用于”广告”语义 Web 服务的,描述的内容包括服务描述、产品描述、输入、输出、前提条件、效果、存取条件、服务质量、安全参数等等,凡是与服务有关的参数均可以用 OWL-S 进行描述。

        来自于Katia Sycara” < katia+@cs.cmu.edu >的一帖关于owl-s服务描述问题的澄清,感到有必要存档一下。

        There were a number of issues raised in this discussion:

        1. Does OWL-S discovery assumes that requesters and provides use a unique ontology?

        The answer is NO. OWL-S does not assume the use of a single onrology. It is difficult, however, to see what you mean by “one single ontology”. If you mean “one single OWL file”, then of course trivially OWL-S does not assume a single ontology since you can import as many OWL files as you desire in an OWL-S description, and use any of the concepts defined in those files to describe the OWL-S profile or any other OWL-S component. During the discovery process the Profile of the requested service may refer to a concept, say a:A (the concept A defined in “file” a), and an advertisement may refer to concept b:B that belong to a different ontology (different owl files), and yet b:B may be defined as a subclass of a:A. In this case, matching engines would still be able to match exploiting the logical relation between A and B. At CMU, we have shown different kinds of matches (e.g. exact, plug-in etc) in our matching algorithm (see e.g. [3]).

        Another way in which the use of different ontologies can be handled in OWL-S is through mapping rules that could be expressed in SWRL. In this way, to the extent that the similarity between A and B can be made explicit, then the mapping can be exploited. Of course there are issues of where these mappings live, how it is discovered where they live, since of course in the process of service discovery one does not know a priori what the ontological needs of one request would be vis a vis the current advertisement knowledge base. Even if one assumes a unique knowledge base containing such mappings, another set of issues is of course, how this knowledge base gets searched efficiently. 我的论文的一部分就是要解决这个问题:采用登记服务自动完成映射工作,但是基于怎样的请求?机制仍然成问题。

        The issue of ontological mapping is an old and well known one that has predated Semantic Web Services. Work on how to express mappings to achieve semantic interoperability efficiently (even assuming the mapping rules are known) has been going on since the late 80&apos;s (perhaps even earlier).

        The general problem of arbitrary ontology mapping is an open research problem. The real scientific work is in trying to attack the technical issues that I outlined (and others that are there but I did not refer to). After we solve these scientific problems (ie. How to derive the mappings, and how to use them), we can worry about what to call the algorithms.

        Since ONTOLOGY MEDIATION is an open research issue, OWL-S is agnostic about the actual ontology mediation process used.( 这方面应该有研究论文,也可以参考一下,属于论文中创新性的内容 ) To the extent that the mediation process is a service, rather than a set of rules, it can be represented in OWL-S and discovered.

        2. Should OWL-S do something about ontological mediation like WSMO is doing with the OO mediators?

        Up to now, there is no clear operational definition of what a WSMO mediator is, neither is there a clear specification of an ontology or language for describing mediators, or an algorithm for ontological mediation.

        To the extent that WSMO mediators are services, rather than sets of rules, they can be represented in OWL-S by specifying what is their profile, process model and grounding (for a detailed discussion on this point see [2]). Furthermore, the discovery mechanism may then become similar to a composition procedure where you combine discovery of the appropriate mediator with the discovery of the appropriate service.

        Note that if you take this viewpoint, the sentence “OWL-S has no mediators” is non-sensical: it is analogous to sentences like “Java has no Operating System” or other such sentences. OWL-S is a language (it uses OWL semantics) that allows you to describe Web services, it does not tell you what infrastructure Web services need, nor does it stipulate the existence of mediators or of a discovery registry or any other component. If you think you need a mediator, the role of OWL-S is to provide you the tools to describe a mediator if you decide to implement it as a Web service. If you look at [2] there is a discussion on how to do that.

一些有关知识/信息组织的图书、论述- –

See follows:

知识 / 信息组织相关经典外文书籍和论述

Anderson, J. D. (2003). Organization of knowledge. IN: International Encyclopedia of Information and Library Science. 2nd . ed. Ed. by John Feather & Paul Sturges. London: Routledge (pp. 471-490).

Bade, D. (2002). The Creation and Persistence of Misinformation in Shared Library Catalogs: Language and Subject Knowledge in a Technological Era . David Bade, Urbana, IL: Graduate School of Library and Information Science, University of Illinois; (ISBN: 0-87845-120-X.)

Bliss, H. E. (1929). The organization of knowledge and the system of the sciences . By Henry Evelyn Bliss ; with an introduction by John Dewey. New York: Henry Holt and Company.

Bliss, H. E. (1934). The Organization of Knowledge in Libraries and the subject-approach to books . New York: The H. W. Wilson Company.

Bliss, H. E. (1935). A system of bibliographical classification . New York: The H. W. Wilson Company.

Capurro, R & Hjørland, B. (2003). The Concept of Information. Annual Review of Information Science & Technology, Vol. 37 , Chapter 8, pp. 343-411.

Dewey, J. (1929). Introduction. IN: H. E. Bliss: The organization of knowledge and the system of the sciences . New York, Holt (pp. vii-ix).

Feger, H. (2001). Classification: Conceptions in the Social Sciences. International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 3, pp. 1966-1973 . Amsterdam: Elsevier Science, Ltd. (Online version with abstract published 2002)

Frohmann, Bernd. (1990). Rules of Indexing: A Critique of Mentalism in Information Retrieval Theory. Journal of Documentation , 46: 81-101.

Frohmann, B. (2003). Grounding a theory of documentation. Paper presented at DOCAM &apos;03 The first annual meeting of the Document Academy. August 13-15, 2003 at The School of Information Management and Systems (SIMS) at The University of California, Berkeley. http://thedocumentacademy.hum.uit.no/events/docam03.abstract s/bernd.frohman.html

Frohmann, B. (2004). Deflating Information. From Science Studies to Documentation . University of Toronto Press.

Furner, J. (2004). Information studies without information . LIBRARY TRENDS , V52, N3 (WIN), P427-446.

Hjørland, B. (2002). Domain analysis in information science. Eleven approaches – traditional as well as innovative. Journal of Documentation, 58 (4), 422-462.

Hjørland, B. (2002). Principia Informatica. Foundational Theory of Information and Principles of Information Services. IN: Emerging Frameworks and Methods. Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Conceptions of Library and Information Science (CoLIS4) . Ed. By Harry Bruce, Raya Fidel, Peter Ingwersen, and Pertti Vakkari. Greenwood Village, Colorado, USA: Libraries Unlimited. (Pp. 109-121).

HULME, E. WYNDAM. 1911a. Principles of Book Classification: Introduction. In: Hulme, E. Wyndam. Library Association Record, 1911; 13: 354-358.

HULME, E. WYNDAM. 1911b. Principles of Book Classification: Chapter II – Principles of Division in Book Classification. In: Hulme, E. Wyndam. Library Association Record, 1911; 13: 389-394.

HULME, E. WYNDAM. 1911c. Principles of Book Classification: Chapter III – On the Definition of Class Headings, and the Natural Limit to the Extension of Book Classification. In: Hulme, E. Wyndam. Library Association Record, 1911; 13: 444-449

ISO 5127: 2001 Information and Documentation – Vocabulary. International Standards Organization.

Miksa, F. (1998). The DDC, the Universe of Knowledge, and the Post-Modern Library­. Albany, NY: Forrest Press.

Richardson, E. C. (1930/1964). Classification: Theoretical and practical . New York: The H. W. Wilson Co., 1930. (Reprinted unaltered 1964)

Sayers, W. C. (1915). Canons of classification applied to “the subject” “the expansive”, “the decimal” and “the Library of Congress” classifications : a study in bibliographical classification method. London: Grafton & Co.

Smiraglia, R. P. (2001). The nature of “a work”: implications for the organization of knowledge. Lanham, Md.: Scarecrow Press.

Sowa, J. F. (2000). Knowledge representation : logical, philosophical, and computational foundations . Pacific Grove, California: Brooks/Cole.

Spang-Hanssen, H. (2001): How to teach about information as related to documentation. Human IT. 2001, (1), pp. 125-143. http://www.hb.se/bhs/ith/1-01/hsh.htm (Visited April 13, 2004).

Steen Larsen, P. (2003). Terms and definitions related to the information process, drawn from ISO 5127: 2001 Information and Documentation – Vocabulary. Unpublished paper.

Svenonius, E. (2000). The Intellectual Foundation of Information Organization . Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.

Taylor, A. G. (1999). The Organization of information. Englewood, Colorado: Libraries Unlimited.

Thellefsen, T.L. (2002). Semiotic knowledge organization: Theory and method development. Semiotica, 142 (1-4), 71-90.

Webber, S. (2003). Information science in 2003: a critique. Journal of Information Science , 29(4), 311-330.


Technorati : , , ,

关于OWL-S应用的一些问题- –

关于 OWL-S 应用的一些问题(摘自 W3C 语义万维网讨论组 public-sws-ig@w3.org Evan K. Wallace 的一个贴子):

Eric Miller 在最近的一次会议上提到,许多软件公司对 OWL-S 的应用似乎比当初 RDF-S 和 OWL 来得迟缓,究其原因,大概是因为 OWL-S 目前还是一个 W3C submission 而不是推荐标准,正在讨论之中,变动还会比较大。另一方面好的工具比较少,参考文档和参考案例不多,也影响了应用。

实际上与 OWL-S 处于同一水平层次上的同类技术规范很多,例如 XPDL, BPML, BPE4WS, ebBPSS, BPRI, WMF, 以及 UML2 Action Semantics 等等。 其它更为形式化的如 PSL 和 SWSL 。 OWL-S 似乎并没有像 OWL 一样在同类语言中鹤立鸡群(特别作为概念建模语言方面)。 OWL-S 似乎没有吸收足够的同类语言的成果。


Technorati :

Ontology大牛Tom Gruber访谈- –

Dr. Tom Gruber&apos; s (Co-founder and Chief Technical Officer of Intraspect Software) Interview
For the Official Quarterly Bulletin of AIS Special Interest Group on Semantic Web and Information Systems, Volume 1, Issue 3, 2004

Tom Gruber (tomgruber.org) ,就是那个在 Ontology 最牛的牛,给 Ontology 下定义而被无数人引用的那个大牛,最近又说了一些很牛的话:

他说:”每个本体都是一个条约–一项社会要约–存在于想共享某些事物的人之间”( “Every ontology is a treaty – a social agreement – among people with some common motive in sharing.” )

他把 Ontology 分为形式化的、半形式化的和非形式化的,他认为形式化的本体会很难达成,会有很多限制,而半形式化的本体更有用,办形式化的本体:形式化的一半由机器来处理,半形式化部分给人读的。有意思。

The term “Semiformal Ontology” refers to a ontology which has a few bits of formality but is largely informal. It is the analog of what Tom Malone calls semistructured data, such as email or office forms. A semiformal ontology could support technology to processing of its formal parts but leaves it to the reader make sense of the informal parts.

Tom 认为 Ontology 工具(他的 Intraspec 公司正在干这个明堂)将对其应用带来很大便利,特别是对那些不懂技术的用户。

Tom 还认为半形式化本体由于能够结合上下文,会工作得很好。


Technorati :

再次讨论(2004年11月26日)- –

继续讨论:

> 1、项目要求我们提出资源集合元数据标准规范登记注册系统的需求,我们还是要提的;
> 2、由于不涉及服务注册,而且目前的注册系统主要是人工查阅、使用的,因此我们现在对于资源集合元数据标准规范的登记注册需求,与专门组的各个方案基本相同;
> 3、对于资源集合元数据标准规范的登记注册,希望能够包括我上一封邮件提到的一些内容,即能够提供元素、元素修饰词、编码体系、编码模式、整套方案等内容的检索、管理、更新等等。