Paper 2

Paper Title: Is Semantic Web Technology Taking the Wrong Turn?

Bussler, C.;
Internet Computing, IEEE
Volume 12, Issue 1, Jan.-Feb. 2008 Page(s):75 – 79

Three Critical Questions

Monday

Group 1:

Member Name:Chiranjeevi Ashok Puvvula

1. In the paper, the author provides an example which specifies the major requirements of “Semantic web Technology” and also explains the SWT’s success , the example when considered as a real application is very complex to be build, requires more integration , interoperability between technologies and databases. How can “SWT” be helpful in building such applications with reasoning? The author also didn’t specify what would be the standard approach to measure the success of SWT?
2. When there is a discussion about the web services, the word automation comes into picture. How “Semantic Web Technology” helps in the discovery, integration, interoperation, invocation of the web services automatically? This has not been discussed.
3. What would be the constraints and assumptions of the researchers to solve the problem of heterogeneity? This was not specified in the paper.

Group 2:

Member Name: Srikanth Kodali

• This paper describes about how to add the another component for the existing semantic application. Will the semantic application sustain for the issues like heteregenety when an additional component is added?
• The author says that the processes can be interpreted between the semantic application. But every semantic application have its own interaction with other semantic application.How the semantic application know the way of communication of the other semantic application? Is it really possible?
• The author predicts the developers will not prefer SWT because of the integration problems.We cant guess the developers version.
• According to the author, the layers can be interoperable, but what happens when the semantic application has to interact with other systems? Can the heterogeneity betweeen the applications be eliminated by following the Layer architecture?
• If the developers have to use constant interface definitions between the components, it will be a big constraint for the developers because some components may not need that description. It may increase the complexity of the system. Is it possible to simplify the application complexity ?
• The advantages of having same kind of interfaces between the components in an application is not discussed.

Group 3:

Member Name: Sunil Kumar Garrepally, Yashwanth Kantamaneni

1. It was mentioned in the paper that SWS’s are very useful and are interoperable. Is it possible to develop composite Semantic Web Services by integrating several Semantic Web services?
2. The existing Web services technologies are compatible with business objects and can provide ACID properties that support online transactions. Will the Semantic Web services also support business objects such as to provide ACID properties of transactions?
3. It was mentioned in the paper that the mediations can be reduced by ensuring that all the
data is encoded using single RDF format. Are there any other formats that could best support various semantic web technologies to interoperate better?
4. The only technology that supports SWT presently is Java. Can the SWT be compatible with other technologies so that these can be established with existing systems?
5. It was mentioned in such a way that the SWT are going to provide the search results that exactly matches our requirements based on user queries. In case of finding a hospital within 20 miles that is covered by insurance company, if no hospital is found within 20 miles with insurance coverage, it should show some farther hospitals that are covered under insurance. Can the SWT make those type of automatic decisions?

Group 4:

Member Name:Nikhilesh Katakam

1)The author says that in order to address the data and process heterogeneity the data must be encoded in a single format and exchanged between the layer but the author did not propose any suggestions on how to encode them , and more over did not provide any results which confirm that on doing that efficient results could be obtained?
2) The author proposes that by making use of a semantic programming language which has the ability of directly processing the semantic data. But did not specify how such a language would be efficient than classic programming languages such as JAVA and C# ? what additional features do they provide is not mentioned in the paper?
3)The author says that for the SWT to have a good impact it must be integrated with technologies such as SWS(semantic web services).In what way they are better than the normal web service description language is not mentioned in the paper?

Group 5:

Member Name: Lokesh Reddy Gokul

• What would be the properties of a so-called Semantic Programming Language tool that the author proposes?
• What is the response from the Semantic Web community towards development of such a model proposed by the author?
• What other architectural models are possible / available to compare with the model presented by the author? [Author gave an architectural model according to his expertise in the domain but other models may reveal different results.]
• “Progress of semantic web research is better than classical fields of computer science but the extent by which real life problems should be solved by impressive quantity of research is not good enough.” Author does not give any example to explain this point-of-view. It might also be possible that there are good examples to show its contradiction. What might be the possible sets of examples?

Group 6:

1) The author talks about developing the web service interface through semantic languages Like Owl-s WSML etc how the programming languages like c# or java can interact with these interfaces?
2)Even if the SWT is used as wrap over technology it still does not achieve the goals that is promised to do so .Then what is point of implementing new technology?
3) The Semantic web technology should be extremely open and it must be changed dynamically whenever the need arrives, but by deploying the conventional architecture, how the openness and dynamic adaptability is achieved?

Group 7:

Member Name: Priyanka Koneru

1. The author stated that “ Business to Business(B2B) applications “ use “ a B2B communication layer “ which helps in communicating between “ the process and the data” . But he didn’t mention what are those layers ? Are they similar to the “Graphical User Interface(GUI) layers “ ? Is there any advantage for an application using “B2B rather than GUI “ ? And also if either the acknowledgement or the message is lost in any of those 28 layers, what are the packet recovery methodologies ??
2. Inorder to reduce the number of mediations, the author suggested in using “ heterogeneity of the processes and the data not only among the layers but also among the systems “ But he didn’t mention how do mediation among the systems ?? What mediation techniques are to be used and how to use the mediation technologies etc.?
3. “ Semantic Web technologies(SWT) “ doesnot provide any “User Interface” but as of now it is used only to refer the data. Is there a possibility of proving the user interface by using the “ Graphical User Interface(GUI) “ to the “semantic web “ is not mentioned.
4. Inorder to reduce the number of mediations, “data objects are coded in RDF and are mapped from one layer to the other rather than mapping across the layer”. But how can this be possible with various technologies and also that those technologies must be aware of “SWT”.

Group 8:

Member Name:Muppalla Durga Maheswari

1)It is stated that the SWT is used as a wrapping technology which introduces the additional components which in turn turns the individual layers into the heterogeneous layers. How the problems like the “interoperability” and “heterogeneity” can be addressed during this case.
2)How the data mapping and executing the end users requests between the layers can be solved when there are many layers and too many additional components(mediations) are involved as it complexes the system.
3)It is mentioned that the objects are encoded in a single format and the objects are not mapped between the layers and they are handed between the layers. How this challenge is achieved using different technologies in order to become fully SWT aware.

Wednesday

Group 1:

Member Name:pelluri,lattupalli,voruganti

1. One of the major promises of the SWT is to provide a solution to interoperability and heterogeneous problems. But the author suggested encoding data objects in a single format so that interoperability is not needed between layers. But don’t you think it will be like going away from the problem rather than finding a solution for interoperation?

2.In order to integrate SWT with the conventional architecture the author suggests to refer to data using SWT. But don’t you think it may not purely represent semantic web because just data representation is not the only challenge of semantic web rather there are different challenges such as interoperability, heterogeneous environment and of course user interface? Only by applying SWT to data, data interpretation and the challenges discussed cannot be achieved.
3.“The application’s complexity becomes clear as we consider all possible combinations”, but don’t you think the consideration of so many combinations is such a huge task by itself? It could also give such combinations which could complicate the application’s goal.

Group 2:

Member Name: Addagalla Satyanaga Manoj Kumar

1) The author evaluates the development of the semantic web technology from a software engineering perspective. The question is whether it is a reliable metric to measure advancements in SWT?
2) The author mentions that SWT is a wrapper around conventional technologies, and hence is not currently viable. Could this not be starting hiccups as expected of an immature technology; is it wise to see this as an indication that SWT development process has gone awry?
3) The author mentions that SWT was meant to simplify integration of diverse technologies, but since it has led to the opposite, it could only mean that researchers have taken a wrong turn. the question is whether the author is right in evaluating against each other, two technologies with very different maturities?

Group 3:

Member Name: Swati Thorve

1> SWT is promising field having bright future,statistical analysis in the paper shows lot of work is going on, but real world problems are kind of untouched. What can be done to use SWT for exposing more number of real world problems?
2> Even if we find out solution to deal with heterogeneity, how can we deal heterogeneity with existing semantic web applications?
3> SWT is a field where lot of reuse of existing Ontologies can be done, but the paper shows there is rare reuse of Ontologies and Semantic web service interface definition language. What steps can be taken to move our development focus more towards more reuse of existing material ?

Group 4:

Member Name:Karunapiya Rameshwaram, Shaiv, Anusha Vunnam

CRITICAL QUESTIONS:
1.)Is it possible to develop a new architectural model based on the current web technology model that requires less data mediations among the layers of the model?
2.)The author has proposed the requirements of an SWT by taking the medical patient example as the principal domain. But are these the only 3.)requirements when considering large scale real world example.
Is it possible to develop semantic applications using languages other languages like java, jess and java Server Faces?

Group 5:

Member Name: Gayathri Devi Bojja

1. In example that is stated it is specified that the system which can resolve the problem should be highly feasible, flexible and ready to adapt and compatible with different technologies which is highly complex. The paper says the complexity can be analyzed by considering various combinations. But which factors have to be considered is not specified?

2. Though Finland uses same ontology across the country the same issue arises when they need to communicate outside the country. So how could we state this as a solution for the rising problem of integration?

3. One of the solutions specified states to just hand over information from one layer to another rather than mapping. But this would in turn add some more challenge has each layer has to be tackled individually. So how appropriate is this solution?

Group 6:

Member Name:

Group 7:

Member Name: Goyal, Saurabh, De Morais Andrade,Pablo and Boda,Vamshidhar Reddy

1) It is not easy to provide interoperability among all environments because still there are lot of applications which uses different format and different databases. Some of them uses tight security and provide loose security, so it is very difficult to provide interoperability.
2) Authors says system should be open but how can be all system can be open to everyone. This can affect the security of the system which author didn’t discuss in the paper. If through the internet all application can interact with each other across different countries, it can harm the whole system because of malicious users.
3) How author is confident that by making assumptions and by applying constraints, homogeneous environment can be attained. If semantic web increase the more complexity of the systems in terms of reliability, security, fastness; then what are steps can be taken to handle this situation?

Group 8:

Member Name: BHARGAV SANDEEP RAMAYANAM

1. In the paper the author had mentioned the requirements for the semantic web technology. But in many of the software development projects the requirements implementation does not have the fixed end. Then how the projects can be developed even though it does not have the fixed requirements?
2. The SWT had introduces the Semantic web services and are described by the OWL-S tool rather than basic description language WSDL. The author had mentioned that the projects can use the SWS instead of the regular web services. What is the advantage of the SWS and the invention of the new tool other than the regular web services?
3. By the observations that the author had mentioned in the paper the languages are on the top of the others and by that there is increase in expressiveness rather than the heterogeneity. There is no increase in the heterogeneity, then what is the use of this invention?

Group 9:

Member Name: Satish Bhat, Holly Vo

1) Suppose community starts extending technologies and ontologies from now on, how can we merge all existing ontologies to create
a homogeneous ontology?
2) Suppose SWT is too important and existing technologies are willing to self-integrate it, how long does it takes to do the
transition of SWT awareness?
3) Do we have a completely mature data representation to use as a common standard, a foundation for all other technologies to continue on it? How to prove the completeness of a data representation? (It’ll be another and more seriously wrong turn if an incomplete common standard.)

Group 10:

Member Name: Sunae Shin, Hyungbae Park

1) He mentioned that “one possible direction for semantic technology research and development is to continue developing point solutions for individual areas and technology components.” But, I think this is the temporary solution, he said “possible” though. As we can see from an example in Finland, the whole country should be cooperated to make a permanent solution. Governments have to participate in this. Thus the whole country works on a uniform ontology across industries and companies.

Unless otherwise stated, the content of this page is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License