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 machinereadable knowledge to web pages
– Extend RDF with Description Logic
– Use a frame-based language design
– Create the first fully distributed web-scale
knowledge base out of networks of
hyperlinked facts and data
Computers require explicit
knowledge to reason with web pages
Approach:
Design a family of new web languages
– Basic knowledge representation (OWL)
– Reasoning (SWRL, OWL/P, OWL/T)
– Process representation (OWL/S)
Links via URLs
Build definition and markup tools
Link new knowledge to existing web
page elements
Test design approach in the Intelligence
Community
Standardize the new web languages in
the W3C
3
People use implicit knowledge to
reason with web pages
Program Elements
• Web Ontology Language (OWL)
– Enables knowledge representation and
tractable inference across the web
– Based on Description Logics and RDF
• OWL Reasoning Languages
– SWRL Rules Language: Supports business
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
confidence that OWL and SWRL inferences
are valid
– Based on Description Logic Programming
• Semantic Web Services (OWL/S)
– Allows discovery, matching, and execution of
web services based on action descriptions
– Unifies semantic data models (OWL) with
process models (Agent) and shows how to
dynamically compose web services
– Based on process algebra and NIST PSL
• OWL Tools
4
DAML Program Technical Flow
Web Ontology
Language (OWL)
OWL/S:
Semantic Web
Services
SWRL: Rules
OWL/P: Proof
OWL/T:
Trust
Completed standards process
Started standards process
Under development
Each DAML Program Element includes
specifications, software tools,
coordination teams, and use cases
2004 Technical Progress
• Web Ontology Language (OWL)
– W3C accepted OWL; formed Semantic
Web Best Practices Working Group to
maintain the standard
– W3C agreed to host Ontaria, a permanent
public OWL ontology registry/download
site
– OWL gained traction (250K RDF/OWL
pages, 20M+ triples, 10K classes
available on-line)
– W3C Workshop on OWL in life science
• OWL Reasoning Languages
– SWRL 0.6 released 24 May 2004 by the
US/EU Joint Committee; being tested at
JWAC, IMO, NSA
– SWRL-FOL submitted to the W3C
– SweetRules complete
– W3 Rules Workshop April 27-28
5
• Semantic Web Services
– OWL/S Web Services Specification
submitted to W3C
– Semantic Web Services Interest Group
chartered by W3C
– Semantic Web Services Initiative (~45
organizations) coordinates commercial,
DAML, and EU Framework 6 output
– SWSL and SWSL-FOL submitted
– W3C SWS Workshop June 9-10
• OWL Tools
– DAML sponsored a new open source
website www.semwebcentral.org
– Over 70 OWL tools released by DAML
contractors
– New OWL plugins for Eclipse
– Currently 84 hosted projects, 3M hits and
>100GB of downloads since Dec 2003
Transition
Intelligence Community
[6 funded pilots at different IC agencies]
DoD
AF AMC Foreign Clearance Guide
AF AMC NOTAMs
DISA Discovery Metadata Repository
FCS SOSCOE OWL/S use in the TIN
Joint Explosive Ordinance Detection ACTD
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
Web Ontology Language
Rules Specification
FY02
FY01
Work
FY03
Revisions (DAML+OIL), OWL Lite,
OWL DL, OWL Full
Logic Mappings, Descriptive Logic
Programming, Tool Development
Ontaria,
OWL Versioning
Create
v 0.6
Create
v 0.7
Semantic Web
Services Initiative
Process Representation, Brokering,
Profile, Grounding Ontologies
Trust Specification
External
Conf
SWRL
Reasoners
OWL/S
Editors
Trust Algorithms
Horus
IC Transitions
Saturn
NOTAMS
Meetings and Reviews
FY05
Proof Language and Query
Engines
Proof Specification
Semantic Web Services
FY04
SWMU
PI Meeting
SWMU
JWAC
Combine
Saturn II
NGA
JWAC ALV
SWMU
PI Meeting PI Meeting PI Meeting
SWANS Mtg
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
W3C
Delivery
Program
Milestone
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
Tech
Offices
…
Systems Technology
Systems Technology
Systems
Offices
Systems Technology
Program
Offices
6.4
Prototype
DARPA
“The Particle Accelerator”
Technology Base
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
6.1
Tech Idea
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
Use situation theory to quantify the information content
of a UI
Decompose user’s info tasks into UI task specifications
Leverage OWL to create a tractable logic language that can express
analytic tasks and data semantics
Apply constraint-based solvers, CBRs, and other planning
technologies to yield task-specific UI specs
Map UI tasks onto available graphical elements
EXPECTED IMPACT
Faster and higher-quality analytic output
Embrace individual styles and competencies
Tune core UI planners to allow rapid confirmation or
disconfirmation of different uncommon hypotheses
Increase user satisfaction
Increased agility in response to new missions
Restructure planners and interfaces on the fly to handle new
information requirements and data sources
Build a semantically characterized set of UI graphical elements by
using OWL/S and SWRL
Interaction with the DBs structured around user task requirements,
not data structures
Use a planner/shape grammar and machine learning to derive the UI
layout for an user’s individual profile
Late binding the UIs relative to the individual user, task, and
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