Documents
Resources
Learning Center
Upload
Plans & pricing Sign in
Sign Out

Future-of-SWtech-at-DARPA--MarkGreaves_20050512

VIEWS: 1 PAGES: 15

									DARPA Agent Markup Language
         (DAML)




                  Dr. Mark Greaves
                      May 2005
Jun 2000   Program start
Feb 2004   OWL accepted by W3C as a Web Standard
Dec 2004   SWRL FOL and OWL/S submitted to W3C
May 2005   Program complete


             Ontologies for the Web
                                                   0
            What is DARPA?

    DARPA = Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency

    Long Range R&D Organization of the US Department of Defense
       Established 1958 as a US response to the Soviet launch of Sputnik
       Pursues high-risk, high-payoff basic and applied research
       Organizationally part of USD(AT&L) and DDR&E
       Operates in coordination with, but independent of, the military research and
         development establishment (ARL, AFRL, ONR)
       Committed to maintaining U.S. military technology superiority

    Chartered to Prevent Technological Surprise
       Funds work that is a counterpoint to traditional thinking and approaches
       Noteworthy programs include VELA HOTEL, M-16, Stealth aircraft, GPS,
         ARPANET, Unmanned aircraft, most early AI, MEMS, ARPANET…

    FY05 research budget is ~3B

    DARPA Description and active solicitations at www.darpa.mil

1
         DARPA, DAML, and Google…




    #2


    #3




                                    Google “darpa”
                                    on 10/21/04
2
                      DAML Program Summary

    Problem:
         Computers cannot process most of the information stored on web pages
    Solution:
         Augment the web to link machine-
         readable knowledge to web pages
          – Extend RDF with Description Logic                   Computers require explicit
          – Use a frame-based language design               knowledge to reason with web pages
          – Create the first fully distributed web-scale
            knowledge base out of networks of
            hyperlinked facts and data

    Approach:
        Design a family of new web languages
          – Basic knowledge representation (OWL)
                                                           Links via URLs
          – Reasoning (SWRL, OWL/P, OWL/T)
          – Process representation (OWL/S)
         Build definition and markup tools
         Link new knowledge to existing web
         page elements
         Test design approach in the Intelligence             People use implicit knowledge to
         Community
                                                                  reason with web pages
         Standardize the new web languages in
         the W3C
3
                 Program Elements

    • Web Ontology Language (OWL)
      – Enables knowledge representation and
        tractable inference across the web                 DAML Program Technical Flow
      – Based on Description Logics and RDF
                                                                                      OWL/S:
    • OWL Reasoning Languages                            Web Ontology
                                                                                   Semantic Web
                                                        Language (OWL)
      – SWRL Rules Language: Supports business                                       Services
        rules, policies, and linking between distinct
        OWL ontologies
      – OWL/P Proof Language: Allows software
        components to exchange chains of reasoning
      – OWL/T Trust Language: Represents                 SWRL: Rules                   OWL/T:
        confidence that OWL and SWRL inferences          OWL/P: Proof                   Trust
        are valid
      – Based on Description Logic Programming
    • Semantic Web Services (OWL/S)                                Completed standards process
      – Allows discovery, matching, and execution of               Started standards process
        web services based on action descriptions
      – Unifies semantic data models (OWL) with                    Under development
        process models (Agent) and shows how to
        dynamically compose web services
                                                           Each DAML Program Element includes
      – Based on process algebra and NIST PSL                  specifications, software tools,
    • OWL Tools                                             coordination teams, and use cases

4
               2004 Technical Progress


    • Web Ontology Language (OWL)                 • Semantic Web Services
      – W3C accepted OWL; formed Semantic           – OWL/S Web Services Specification
        Web Best Practices Working Group to           submitted to W3C
        maintain the standard                       – Semantic Web Services Interest Group
      – W3C agreed to host Ontaria, a permanent       chartered by W3C
        public OWL ontology registry/download       – Semantic Web Services Initiative (~45
        site                                          organizations) coordinates commercial,
      – OWL gained traction (250K RDF/OWL             DAML, and EU Framework 6 output
        pages, 20M+ triples, 10K classes            – SWSL and SWSL-FOL submitted
        available on-line)
                                                    – W3C SWS Workshop June 9-10
      – W3C Workshop on OWL in life science


                                                  • OWL Tools
    • OWL Reasoning Languages
                                                    – DAML sponsored a new open source
      – SWRL 0.6 released 24 May 2004 by the          website www.semwebcentral.org
        US/EU Joint Committee; being tested at
        JWAC, IMO, NSA                              – Over 70 OWL tools released by DAML
                                                      contractors
      – SWRL-FOL submitted to the W3C
                                                    – New OWL plugins for Eclipse
      – SweetRules complete
                                                    – Currently 84 hosted projects, 3M hits and
      – W3 Rules Workshop April 27-28                 >100GB of downloads since Dec 2003



5
               Transition

    Intelligence Community
        [6 funded pilots at different IC agencies]

    DoD
      AF AMC Foreign Clearance Guide                  FCS SOSCOE OWL/S use in the TIN
      AF AMC NOTAMs                                   Joint Explosive Ordinance Detection ACTD
      DISA Discovery Metadata Repository              Center for Army Lessons Learned Prototype

    Federal
       CIO Council Semantic Interoperability Community of Practice formed, 2 conferences
       SWANS conference April 7-8 2004 (300+ attendees, 40 trade show participants)

    Commercial
      43 companies in SWSI working on OWL/S
      19 commercial OWL implementations including IBM and HP

    More evidence of uptake…
      58 “Semantic Web” books on Amazon.com
      NCI Thesaurus is 100% OWL
      NIH and NIST are sponsoring work to define a comprehensive protein chemistry taxonomy
      DARPA XG using OWL for policy language vocabulary




6
             DAML Schedule
    Program Elements                             FY02                    FY03                   FY04                     FY05
                                          FY01           Revisions (DAML+OIL), OWL Lite,                      Ontaria,
    Web Ontology Language                 Work                  OWL DL, OWL Full                            OWL Versioning              External
                                                                                                                                        Conf
                                             Logic Mappings, Descriptive Logic               Create         Create        SWRL
    Rules Specification                      Programming, Tool Development                    v 0.6          v 0.7      Reasoners
                                                                                                                                        W3C
                                                                                                                                        Delivery
    Proof Specification                                                          Proof Language and Query
                                                                                          Engines
                                                                                                                                        Program
                                            Process Representation, Brokering,                Semantic Web                OWL/S
    Semantic Web Services                   Profile, Grounding Ontologies                    Services Initiative          Editors
                                                                                                                                        Milestone


    Trust Specification                                                                             Trust Algorithms

                                                                    Horus              Saturn         Combine             Saturn II
    IC Transitions
                                                                            NOTAMS    JWAC                 NGA            JWAC ALV

                                        SWMU              SWMU                       SWMU                               SWANS Mtg
    Meetings and Reviews
                                            PI Meeting           PI Meeting PI Meeting PI Meeting    PI Meeting   PI Meeting


                                                                                                                                  END
                                        FY05 Remaining Tasks
                 •   Complete OWL versioning tools, Ontaria, OWL/T 1.0
                 •   Deliver OWL/S 1.1 to W3C and complete OWL/S editors
                 •   Complete SWRL 0.6 reasoning environment and submit SWRL FOL
                 •   Tools and Outreach
                      – Semantic Web Applications for National Security (SWANS) and SWIG meetings
                      – Stabilize and transfer semwebcentral.org and daml.org to W3C
                      – Complete SWeDE, IE plugin, and reference application

7
            DAML’s Legacy

    Success = creating the conditions for early adopters to allow the semantic web
       revolution to succeed
    DAML has had incredible success
        We have gone from DARPA-hard challenge to accepted industrial standard in four
          years
        The PM has lost control of the technology

    It is time for OWL to leave the DARPA nest and fly
        There is more work to be done: OWL 2.0, Semantic Web Services, Rules, Query
          Languages, Tools, Documentation, Killer Apps, Proof Exchange, Trust
        Domain-specific ontologies and applications
        More standards, collaboration with Europe, funding organizations
        More nonacademic conferences

    DAML’s intellectual thread will be carried by other programs and organizations

    So… What kind of new DARPA program would compliment DAML?



8
             How Does a New DARPA Program Start?

                                                OLD                                                    NEW
       Program
        Offices




                                                                      Systems Technology
                        Systems Technology

                                             Systems Technology
                                                                                              6.4                 6.1
       Systems                                                    …                                    DARPA   Tech Idea
                                                                                           Prototype
        Offices


         Tech
                                                                                           “The Particle Accelerator”
                                    Technology Base
        Offices


    New Programs
    Must result in or point to a new military capability
    Must be about removing a technological barrier, not a policy barrier
     Problem must be “DARPA-hard”; typically 10x improvement
     Barrier to capability must be primarily technical, not policy
    Must start from a specific new immature technology idea or ideas
     Specific = must be identified at the program approval phase
     New = typically based on work that is < 5 yrs old

9
              The Heilmeyer Catechism

     What are you trying to do? Articulate your objectives using absolutely no jargon
            Example: “take anthrax off the table as a threat to our forces”
            What is the new military capability that your technology could provide?


     How is it done today, and what are the limits of current practice?
            Why is this specifically a technology problem?


     What's new in your approach and why do you think it will be successful?
            All software is Turing-equivalent, so software methodology is usually not relevant
            What is your argument/analysis that a 10x difference in a technology will result in a new
                capability?


     Who cares? If you are successful, what difference will it make?
            Who is the customer for the new idea, and what evidence do you have that any
              transition will be successful?


     What are the risks and the payoffs? How much will it cost? How long will it take?

     What are the midterm and final exams to check for success?
            Metrics and experimentation plans must be defined up front
10
            Other Program Questions

     What is DARPA’s Transition Strategy?
           How does new capability transfer to a Service or Agency?
                Gold: DARPA work leads to a direct acquisition
                Silver: DARPA work leads to a direct maturation effort by a DoD PEO
                Bronze: DARPA work leads to a new capability that a contractor will try to sell back
                     to DoD
                Tin: DARPA work leads to a better state of the world
           Is there an MOU / MOA and funding in the POM?


     Why is this different from other DARPA and DoD programs?

     What are our metrics for measuring our progress?
           Always difficult for software; exceptionally difficult for architectures


     What are the phases of the Program?
           Phase I is typically 12-18 months
           Phase II funding is contingent on meeting specific agreed-upon phase I milestones




11
              Program Creation Basics

     DARPA PM finds new technology idea(s) and links it to capability

     Seedling funding to explore idea and create program brief
            Typically $200K - $300K / 4-6 months / 1-3 contractors
            Solidify program argument, financials, milestones, phases, metrics, experimentation
               strategy, and program deliverable/transition/MOUs
            Seedling output is the newstart brief – not jumpstart technology

     Brief to DARPA Director
            Repeat a few times

     Solicitation construction and publication

     Source Selection (and possible plan revision)
            Multiple contractors, teams, areas of expertise

     Contracts Awarded via an Agent
     Program Phase I with milestones
     DARPA Director Brief for go/no-go
     Program Phase II with milestones
12
                         Sample Program: Dynamic User Interfaces

                                                                                                 MAIN OBJECTIVE
                                                                           Replace current mass-produced general-purpose UIs with
                                                                             task-sensitive, user-specific interfaces
                                                                           Customize each user’s I/O with the data sources
                                                                               User interacts with the web at the problem level
                                                                               User does not have to master all the data sources and algorithms that
                                                                                 are available
                                                                               UI is automatically built for each user’s unique cognitive/perceptual
                                                                                  talents, training, experience, and current problem context
                                                                           Allow UIs to better support independent hypothesis
                                                                              generation and unconventional concept exploration



                   TECHNICAL APPROACH                                                           EXPECTED IMPACT
  Use situation theory to quantify the information content                 Faster and higher-quality analytic output
    of a UI                                                                    Embrace individual styles and competencies
  Decompose user’s info tasks into UI task specifications                      Tune core UI planners to allow rapid confirmation or
                                                                                 disconfirmation of different uncommon hypotheses
      Leverage OWL to create a tractable logic language that can express
        analytic tasks and data semantics                                      Increase user satisfaction
      Apply constraint-based solvers, CBRs, and other planning             Increased agility in response to new missions
        technologies to yield task-specific UI specs
                                                                               Restructure planners and interfaces on the fly to handle new
  Map UI tasks onto available graphical elements                                 information requirements and data sources
      Build a semantically characterized set of UI graphical elements by       Interaction with the DBs structured around user task requirements,
        using OWL/S and SWRL                                                      not data structures
      Use a planner/shape grammar and machine learning to derive the UI        Late binding the UIs relative to the individual user, task, and
        layout for an user’s individual profile                                   problem context allows for rapid learning and evolution of
                                                                                  interface paradigms
13 Dynamically create the new UI on the user’s desk
              How Is DARPA Different?
     Lightweight and nimble organizational model
            “120 PMs with a common travel agent”
            Currently organized into 8 tech offices plus the Director
                  Technology – DSO, MTO, IPTO; Systems – ATO, TTO, IXO, SPO, J-UCAS
                  Offices come and go fairly frequently and the tech/systems boundary is fluid
                  No institutional incentives to collaborate
                  No technical interdependencies
            No dedicated facilities beyond simple office space in Arlington, VA
            http://www.darpa.mil has programs, solicitations, lists, areas of interest

     4-year personnel rotation policy embedded in the culture
            No institutional biases
            No empire building

     Always looking for new Program Managers with great technical ideas
            PMs come from academia, industry, government, military
            Must be a US citizen with the ability to hold a clearance
            Must be willing to work incredibly hard, travel extensively, and have a national-scale
               vision
            You will be changed by the experience, and you might change the world


                                      Come Join Us!
14

								
To top