Business Process Interoperation Using

OWL-PResponse to the Semantic Web

Services ChallengeAmit Chopra, Nirmit Desai, Munindar P. SinghDepartment of Computer Science

North Carolina State University

9 March 2006

Chopra, Desai, Singh 2

Highlights OWL-P

Protocols, policies, and protocol composition OWL-P for phase 1 and phase 2

Mediation using protocols Protocol adaptations for managing change Discovery based on interaction compatibility

Not just on simple service attributes

Proposed directions Commitments as a basis for semantics Flexible interaction compatibility as criterion for

selection

Chopra, Desai, Singh 3

OWL-P Basics

ProtocolLogic

12+

11

specified by

involves

12+

derives

11

defines

Agent

adopts1+

1+

LocalProcess

1

1enacts

BusinessProcess

aggregationof

1

2+

1

1+

com

po

sition

of

1

1

Implementation of

1

1+Im

ple

me

nta

tion

of

BusinessProtocol

Role

Role Skeleton

Abstract entity

Concrete entity

CompositeSkeleton

cou

ple

s

1

2+

BusinessLogic

11

consults

11

stipulates

CompositeProtocol

1

1+

composedOf1

1+

derives

Protocols: abstract, modular, publishable specifications of business interactions

Policies: private business logic of the agents adopting roles

Commitments provide semantics of the interactions

Chopra, Desai, Singh 4

OWL-P Protocol Composition

Specify dependencies among the component protocols in terms of Role definitions: Role r1 in protocol P1 is adopted

by the same agent that adopts role r2 in P2

Event ordering: Event e1 in protocol P1 precedes event e2 in protocol P2

Data flows: Parameter p in protocol P1 is bound to parameter q in protocol P2

Implications: Concept A in protocol P1 implies concept B in protocol P2 (used to tie operations on commitments: what counts as what)

Chopra, Desai, Singh 5

OWL-P Contributions for Phase 1Using Protocols as engineering abstractions for mediation

and choreography Protocol subsumption as a means of comparing

protocols

Chopra, Desai, Singh 6

Mediation via OWL-P: 1

PIP3A4 as a protocol between Buyer and Seller roles

PurchaseOrder as a protocol between LegacyBuyer and LegacySeller roles

Composite protocol Purchase composed of PIP3A4 and PurchaseOrder Blue adopts Buyer, Mediator adopts Seller and

LegacyBuyer, and Moon adopts LegacySeller Mappings are the set of composition axioms used

to compose PIP3A4 and PurchaseOrder

Chopra, Desai, Singh 7

Mediation via OWL-P: 2

Blue Agent

Legacy System

Mediator Agent

LegacyBuyer LegacySeller

PurchaseOrder

resCusID(cusID)

reqNewOrder(cusID, s1, s2, ..., sn)

BuyerSeller

PO(p1, p2, ..., pn)

AckPO

PO_Confirm(q1, q2, ..., qn)

reqCusID(r1, r2, ..., rn)

PIP3A4

AckPO_Confirm resNewOrder(orderID, t1, t2, ..., tn)

addItem(itemID, u1, u2, ..., un)

closeOrder(orderID, v1, v2, ..., vn)

confirmOrder(orderID, w1, w2, ..., wn)

Composition axioms not shown

Chopra, Desai, Singh 8

OWL-P as a Basis for Discovery Match interactions, not just simple business

attributes Exact matches are impractical in open environments Protocol subsumption supports flexible matching

General protocols subsume specific protocols For example, a payment (in general) subsumes payment by

credit card or payment with cash The payment mechanism is not a simple attribute: parties

interact in different ways depending on the mechanism

Chopra, Desai, Singh 9

OWL-P for Phase 2

Change in the Moon interface or PIP: Model the change as a transformation and applied

to the original protocol; or Recompose the protocols with a new set of

composition axioms Discovering a new business partner

The number of matching suppliers change according to the similarity function

Chopra, Desai, Singh 10

OWL-P Prototype for Moon and Blue

PIP3A4OWL-P

LegacyOWL-P

Axioms

Software Designer

Composer

POOWL-P

LocalPolicy

ProtocolRepository

specify

register

BlueBlue

Skeleton(Jess)

BlueLocal

Process

+

JMS JNDINaming

Mediator

1

2

3

4

5

Lookup PO

7

8

MediatorSkeleton

(Jess)

LocalPolicy +

Mediator LocalProcess

register

10

OWLP2Jess

6

9

register11

Moon(Not shownHere)

Chopra, Desai, Singh 11

Proposed Directions

Emphasize contractual semantics for business interactions Contracts are bases of metrics of preference, risk

assessment, opportunity, and so on Basis for verification and compliance

Treat matching rigorously to support automated discovery Base matching on the subsumption hierarchy of

protocols, analogous to class hierarchies in object-oriented modeling

Chopra, Desai, Singh 12

References

1. Ashok U. Mallya. Modeling and Enacting Business Processes via Commitment Protocols Among Agents. PhD, NCSU, 2005

2. Nirmit Desai, Ashok U. Mallya, Amit K. Chopra, Munindar P. Singh. Interaction Protocols as Design Abstractions for business Processes. IEEE transactions on software engineering, 31(12):1015-1027, 2005

3. Amit K. Chopra, Munindar P. Singh. Contextualizing Commitment Protocols. AAMAS 2006, to appear

4. Nirmit Desai, Amit K. Chopra, Munindar P. Singh. Business Process Adaptations via Protocol Composition. (Unpublished)

5. OWL-P examples: http://research.csc.ncsu.edu/mas/OWL-P/