Integrating Abductive Logic Programming and Description Logics in a Dynamic Contracting Architecture

Abstract

In Semantic Web technologies, searching for a service means to identify components that can potentially satisfy the user needs in terms of outputs and effects (discovery), and that, when invoked by the customer, can fruitfully interact with her (contracting). In this paper, we present an application framework that encompasses both the discovery and the contracting steps, in a unified search process. In particular, we accommodate service discovery by ontologybased reasoning, and contracting by automated reasoning about policies published in a formal language. To this purpose, we consider a formal approach grounded on Computational Logic, and Abductive Logic Programming in particular. We propose a framework, called SCIFF Reasoning Engine, able to establish, by ontological and abductive reasoning, if a semantic web service and a requester can fruitfully inter-operate, taking as input the behavioural interfaces of both the participants, and producing as output a sort of a contract.

A Computational Logic Application Framework for Service Discovery and Contracting

“…Both modules can access both local and networked knowledge. This approach has proved better, both for performance and expressiveness, than encoding ontological knowledge as SCIFF rules (Alberti et al, 2009).…”

Learning specifications of interaction protocols and business processes and proving their properties

“…g-SCIFF was able to detect the security flaw of the Needham-Schroeder security protocol and the good atomicity property of the NetBill protocol [3]. It is also the reasoning engine of the A l LoWS framework [2] for the proof of interoperability between Web services, and of the SRE system [1] for automated discovery and contracting in serviceoriented architectures.…”

On Ontology Management in Semantic Web Service Registry

“…This assumption implies that if different ontologies are used, matching cannot be carried out. That is to say it might produce a semantic gap between providers and requesters due to the use of different ontologies (different semantics) to describe services and requests, respectively [11].…”