D16.1v0.2 The Web Service Modeling Language WSML

We introduce the Web Service Modeling Language WSML which provides a formal syntax and semantics for the Web Service Modeling Ontology WSMO. WSML is based on different logical formalisms, namely, Description Logics, First−Order Logic and Logic Programming, which are useful for the modeling of Semantic Web services. WSML consists of a number of variants based on these different logical formalisms, namely WSML−Core, WSML−DL, WSML−Flight, WSML−Rule and WSML−Full. WSML−Core corresponds with the intersection of Description Logic and Horn Logic (without function symbols and without equality), extended with datatype support in order to be useful in practical applications. WSML−Core is fully compliant with a subset of OWL. WSML−Core is extended, both in the direction of Description Logics and in the direction of Logic Programming, to WSML−DL and WSML−Flight. WSML−DL extends WSML−Core to an expressive Description Logic, namely, SHIQ, thereby covering that part of OWL which is efficiently implementable. WSML−Flight extends WSML−Core in the direction of Logic Programming. WSML−Flight has a rich set of modeling primitives for modeling different aspects of attributes, such as value constraints and integrity constraints. Furthermore, WSML−Flight incorporates a fully−fledged rule language, while still allowing efficient decidable reasoning. To be more precise, WSML−Flight allows to write down any Datalog rule, extended with inequality and (locally) stratified negation. WSML−Rule extends WSML−Flight to a fully−fledged Logic Programming language, including function symbols. WSML−Rule no longer restricts the use of variables in logical expressions. The final WSML variant unifies the Description Logic and Logic Programming paradigms. WSML−Full unifies all WSML variants under a common First−Order umbrella with non−monotonic extensions which allow to capture nonmonotonic negation of WSML−Rule. All WSML variants are described in terms of a normative human−readable syntax. Besides the human−readable syntax we provide an XML and an RDF syntax for exchange between machines. Furthermore, we provide a mapping between WSML ontologies and OWL for basic inter−operation with OWL ontologies through a common semantic subset of OWL and WSML. This deliverable supersedes a number of now obsolete WSML deliverables. References to these now obsolete deliverables can be found at:

[1]  Herbert B. Enderton,et al.  A mathematical introduction to logic , 1972 .

[2]  Raymond Reiter,et al.  A Logic for Default Reasoning , 1987, Artif. Intell..

[3]  J. Lloyd Foundations of Logic Programming , 1984, Symbolic Computation.

[4]  John W. Lloyd,et al.  Foundations of Logic Programming, 1st Edition , 1984 .

[5]  J. W. LLOYD,et al.  Making Prolog more Expressive , 1984, J. Log. Program..

[6]  Editors , 1986, Brain Research Bulletin.

[7]  V. Lifschitz,et al.  The Stable Model Semantics for Logic Programming , 1988, ICLP/SLP.

[8]  Kenneth A. Ross,et al.  The well-founded semantics for general logic programs , 1991, JACM.

[9]  Victor W. Marek,et al.  Nonmonotonic logic - context-dependent reasoning , 1997, Artificial intelligence.

[10]  Michael Kifer,et al.  HILOG: A Foundation for Higher-Order Logic Programming , 1993, J. Log. Program..

[11]  Michael Kifer,et al.  Logical foundations of object-oriented and frame-based languages , 1995, JACM.

[12]  Roy T. Fielding,et al.  Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI): Generic Syntax , 1998, RFC.

[13]  S. Weibel,et al.  RFC 2413: Dublin core metadata for resource discovery , 1998 .

[14]  Michael Kifer,et al.  A Logic for Programming Database Transactions , 1998, Logics for Databases and Information Systems.

[15]  Alon Y. Halevy,et al.  Combining Horn Rules and Description Logics in CARIN , 1998, Artif. Intell..

[16]  Martin L. Kersten,et al.  A Graph-Oriented Model for Articulation of Ontology Interdependencies , 1999, EDBT.

[17]  Kevin Barraclough,et al.  I and i , 2001, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[18]  Ian Horrocks,et al.  OIL: An Ontology Infrastructure for the Semantic Web , 2001, IEEE Intell. Syst..

[19]  Michael Kifer,et al.  Reasoning about Anonymous Resources and Meta Statements on the Semantic Web , 2003, J. Data Semant..

[20]  Michael Kifer,et al.  Flora-2: A Rule-Based Knowledge Representation and Inference Infrastructure for the Semantic Web , 2003, OTM.

[21]  Ian Horrocks,et al.  Description logic programs: combining logic programs with description logic , 2003, WWW '03.

[22]  H. Lan,et al.  SWRL : A semantic Web rule language combining OWL and ruleML , 2004 .

[23]  Ian Horrocks,et al.  OWL-E: Extending OWL with Expressive Datatype Expressions , 2004 .

[24]  Ian Horrocks,et al.  OWL Web Ontology Language Reference-W3C Recommen-dation , 2004 .

[25]  Arvind Malhotra,et al.  XML Schema Part 2: Datatypes Second Edition , 2004 .

[26]  Teodor C. Przymusinski On the declarative and procedural semantics of logic programs , 1989, Journal of Automated Reasoning.

[27]  Jos de Bruijn,et al.  OWL DL vs. OWL flight: conceptual modeling and reasoning for the semantic Web , 2005, WWW '05.

[28]  Martin J. Dürst,et al.  Internationalized Resource Identifiers (IRIs) , 2005, RFC.

[29]  Dieter Fensel,et al.  Ontology-based Choreography and Orchestration of WSMO Services , 2005 .

[30]  Michael Stollberg,et al.  D3.2 v0.2 WSMO Use Case Modeling and Testing , 2005 .

[31]  Dan Suciu,et al.  Journal of the ACM , 2006 .

[32]  Diego Calvanese,et al.  The Description Logic Handbook , 2007 .