Transcript OntoKnowledge - INTEROP

Terregov: eGovernment interoperability
on a semantically driven world
Interop-ESA/eGov Interop conference
Geneva, February 2005
Santos Vicente, María Pérez, Xavier García, Ana Gimeno, María Pérez
[email protected]
Overview
• Government Administrations need:
– procedures integration,
– distributed responsibilities,
– agencies interaction.
• Semantic Interoperability Technologies solutions:
– standardisation of business concepts,
– automatic search on concepts,
– automatic service discovery.
• Developments:
– semantically enabled web services,
– practical experiences: research and enterprise world.
eGovernment
•
•
•
•
Interconnections in remote public services.
Access to procedures in a transparent manner.
Need of more distributed and inter-linked processes.
Difficult to establish standards and heterogeneous
procedures.
• Common knowledge is a key feature.
• Interoperability:
– sharing information and exchanging data.
– organisational issues.
– security issues: authentication and certification procedures.
eGovernment Solutions
• Web Services as a way of access and discover
interoperable information in agencies.
• Web Services benefits:
–
–
–
–
Interoperability: expose functionality to other applications.
any platform, any programming language.
e-business process efficiency.
Implementation of automated systems, service discovery
and systems interaction.
• Lack of semantic definitions in traditional web
services:
Addition of semantics allow a better integration between agencies
and dynamic service discovery.
Semantic Technologies
• Innovative implementation for eGovernment
solutions.
• Semantic web benefits:
–Efficient exchange and interoperation among agencies.
–Standardise information as concepts.
–Enable automatic service discovery.
Semantic web: knowledge
representation
• Ontology:
describe and represent interrelationships of the
information in a domain.
• RDF: Resource Definition Framework.
• OWL: Web Ontology Language:
– XML markup language to describe concepts, attributes and
relationships among them.
• OWL-S: Web Ontology Language for Web Services:
– Standard to describe web services specifications unambiguously.
– Facilitates automation of web services discovery, interoperation,
invocation and monitoring.
– Definition of the profile, the process model and the grounding of the
service.
OWL example
<?xml version="1.0" ?>
<rdf:RDF
xmlns="http://osm.cs.byu.edu/CS652s04/ontologies/OWL/carads.owl#"
xmlns:carads="http://osm.cs.byu.edu/CS652s04/ontologies/OWL/carads.owl#" xml:base="http://osm.cs.byu.edu/CS652s04/ontologies/OWL/carads.owl#“
xmlns:example="http://osm.cs.byu.edu/CS652s04/ontologies/annotatedPages/carSrch1_semweb.html#"
xmlns:owl="http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
xmlns:rdfs="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#" xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#">
<owl:Ontology rdf:about="">
<rdfs:comment>OWL ontology example </rdfs:comment> <rdfs:label>Car Advistisement Ontology</rdfs:label>
</owl:Ontology>
<owl:Class rdf:ID="CarAds">
<rdfs:label xml:lang="en">CarAds</rdfs:label>
<rdfs:subClassOf>
<owl:Restriction>
<owl:onProperty rdf:resource="#hasMake" />
<owl:minCardinality rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#nonNegativeInteger">0</owl:minCardinality>
</owl:Restriction>
</rdfs:subClassOf>
</owl:Class>
…
<owl:DatatypeProperty rdf:ID="featureValue">
<rdfs:domain rdf:resource="#Feature" />
<rdfs:range rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string" />
</owl:DatatypeProperty>
<owl:ObjectProperty rdf:ID="hasMake">
<rdf:type rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#FunctionalProperty" />
<rdfs:domain rdf:resource="#CarAds" />
<rdfs:range rdf:resource="#Make" />
</owl:ObjectProperty>
<owl:ObjectProperty rdf:ID="featureFor">
<owl:inverseOf rdf:resource="#hasFeature" />
</owl:ObjectProperty>
<owl:DatatypeProperty rdf:ID="carAdsValue">
<rdfs:domain rdf:resource="#CarAds" />
<rdfs:range rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string" />
</owl:DatatypeProperty>
…
<CarAds rdf:ID="CarAdsIns1">
<carAdsValue rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string">001</carAdsValue>
</CarAds>
</rdf:RDF>
Semantic Applications
• eGovernment:
–
–
–
–
SWAD: Semantic Web Advances Development in Europe.
Ontogov: platform for eGovernment services.
Emayor: municipal eGovernment applications.
Terregov: eGovernment on Territorial Government Services.
• Commercial Products:
– Kalido: data warehousing software.
– Semagix: enterprise content management
Terregov
• European Union funded project to enable local
governments to deliver online services in a
transparent manner within european countries.
• Semantic enrichment of web services and information
using ontologies:
–
–
–
–
–
language-independent mechanism,
structured knowledge,
automatic discovery of a request,
web services standards,
addition of semantic descriptions.
• European pilots: administrations in the social care
context.
Terregov: Environment Diagram
Civil
Servants
Collaboration environment
Experts
eProcedures
Semantic,
Ontology,
NLP
Basic Services
Services by
Administrations
Terregov: Functional Architecture
Terregov Clearing House
Terregov
Pilot Applications
CivilServants
Citizens?
Providers?
Community of
Practice
Maintenance
Tools
App Logic / XML / WebServices
Business components
Dynamic WorkFlow
Semantic
Query Server
Dynamic Service
discovery agent
Semantic Enhanced
Data and services
Content and Knowledge
adquisition modules
Meta Data
Free Text
Social Ontology
Terregov
Repositories
Administration Services / Information
Users
Front-End
Back-Office
Conclusions
• eGovernment interoperability achieved by
standardising public administrations.
• Security and legislative constraints.
• Semantic technologies:
– add efficiency in the exchange of information and services
among agencies.
– interoperability among systems in a transparent manner.
– dynamic web service discovery.
• Semantic solutions in eGovernment evolve in parallel
with semantic technologies, which are in an ongoing
research stage.