Using a Functional Ontology Of Reputation to interoperate different agent reputation models

  • Sara Casare
  • Jaime Simão Sichman
Open Access
Article

Abstract

This paper presents a Functional Ontology of Reputation that could be used as a common shared reputation knowledge by agents. Although there is a huge work on agent reputation, each research defines its own basic concepts. Sometimes different meanings are associated to the same term and in other occasions the same meaning is related to different terms. We claim that the reputation knowledge structured as an ontology could be used to enable the semantic integration level involved in the interoperation of software agents using different reputation models. We have illustrated this idea by showing a semantic mapping for the reputation concepts used in three distinct reputation models. That mapping shows how this ontology could act as a common global ontology that supports the semantic integration among these models.

Keywords

Reputation Ontology Interoperability Multi-Agent Systems 

References

  1. [1]
    T. Berners-Lee; J. Hendler; O. Lassila. The Semantic Web. In:Scientific American, v. 284, n. 5, p. 28–37, 2001.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    O. Boissier ; Y. Demazeau. An architecture for social and individual control and its application to computer vision. In: Y. Demazeau; J.-P. Muller; J. Perram. (Ed.).Proceedings of the 6th European Workshop on Modelling Autonomous Agents in a Multi-Agent World, Odense, Denmark: or][s.n.], p. 107–118, 1994.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    R. H. Bordini, J. F. Hübner.Jason: A Java-based agent speak interpreter used with saci for multi-agent distribution over the net, Available:http:// jason.sourceforge.net/.2004Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    J.A. Breuker; A. Valente; R. Winkels. Legal ontologies: a functional view. In: P.R.S. Visser and R. Winkels, editors,Legal Ontologies, p. 23–36. ACM, New York. 1997.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    J. Breuker. Constructing a legal core ontology: LRICore. In:XVII Brazilian Symposium on Artificial Intelligence (SBIA). Workshop on Ontologies and their applications. São luiz do Maranhão, Brazil, 2004.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    D. B. Bromley.Reputation, Image and Impression Management. John Wiley & Sons Ltd. England, 1993.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    S. Casare; J. S. Sichman. Towards a Functional Ontology of Reputation. In:Proceedings of 4th International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-agent Systems (AAMAS 2005), 2005.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    C. Castelfranchi; R. Conte; M. Paolucci. Normative reputation and the costs of compliance. In:Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation vol. 1, no. 3, 1998.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    C. Castelfranchi; R. Falcone; G. Pezzulo. Trust in Information Sources as a Source for Trust: A Fuzzy Approach. In:Proceedings of 2nd International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-agent Systems (AAMAS’03), July 14–18, Melbourne, Australia, p. 89–96, 2003.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    R. Conte; M. Paolucci.Reputation in Artificial Societies: Social Beliefs for Social Order. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2002.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    M. Dean; G. Schreiber. Editors. OWL Web Ontology Language Reference. W3C Recommendation, 10 February 2004. Available in: http://www.w3.org/TR/ 2004/REC-owl-ref-20040210/Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    G. Ferris; F. Blass; C. Douglas; R. Kolodinsky; D. Treadway. Personal Reputation in Organizations. In: Greenberg, Jerald,Organizational Behavior- The State of the Science. LEA. New Jersey, p. 211–246, 2003.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    FIPA00001. 2000. FIPA Abstract Architecture Specification. Foundation for Intelligent Physical Agents. Available: http://www.fipa.org/specs/ fipa00001/.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    K. Fullam; T. B. Klos; G. Muller; J. Sabater; A. Schlosser; Z. Topol; S. Barber; J. S. Rosenschein; L. Vercouter; M. Voss. A specification of the Agent Reputation and Trust (ART) Testbed: Experimentation and Competition for Trust in Agent Societies. In:Proceedings of the Fourth International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-agent Systems (AAMAS 2005), p. 512–518, 2005.Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    T. R. Gruber. Toward Principles for the Design of Ontologies Used for Knowledge Sharing. In: Nicola Guarino and Roberto Poli, editors,Formal Ontology in Conceptual Analysis and Knowledge Representation. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1994Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    N. Guarino. Formal Ontology, conceptual analysis and knowledge representation. In:International Journal of Human and Computer Studies, 43(5/6), p. 625–640, 1995.Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    V. Haarslev; R. Moller. Racer: A core inference engine for the Semantic Web. In: 2ndInternational Workshop on Evaluation of Ontology-based Tools (EON-2003), Sanibel Island, FL, 2003.Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    K. Knublauch; M. A. Musen; A. L. Rector. Editing Description Logic Ontologies with the Protégé OWL Plugin. In: International Workshop on Description Logics — DL2004,Whistler, BC, Canada, 2004.Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    Y. Labrou; T. Finin; Y. Peng. Agent communication languages: the current landscape.In: IEEE Intelligent Systems, v. 14, n. 2, p. 45–52, March/April, 1999.Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    E. Mena; V. Kashyap; A. P. Sheth; A. Illarramendi. OBSERVER: An Approach for Query Processing in Global Information Systems based on Interoperation across Preexisting Ontologies. In:Proceeding of the Conference on Cooperative Information Systems, p. 14–25,1996.Google Scholar
  21. [21]
    L. Mui; A. Halberstadt; M. Mohtashemi. Notions of Reputation in Multi-Agents Systems: A Review. In:Proceedings of 1st International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-agent Systems (AAMAS 2002), Bologna, Italy, 2002.Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    N. Noy; M. Musen. PROMPT: Algorithm and tool for automated ontology merging and alignment. InSeventeenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-2000), Austin, TX, 2000.Google Scholar
  23. [23]
    N. Noy; M. Musen. Using PROMPT Ontology-Comparison Tools in the EON Ontology Alignment Contest. In: Proceedings of the Third International Workshop on Evaluation of Ontology based Tools (EON 2004), 2003.Google Scholar
  24. [24]
    A. S. Rao; M. P. Georgeff. BDI agents: from theory to practice. In: LESSER, V. (Ed.). International Conference on MultiAgent Systems (ICMAS’95), 1, San Francisco, USA, p. 312–319, 1995.Google Scholar
  25. [25]
    J. Sabater; C. Sierra. Reputation and Social Network Analysis in Multi-Agent Systems. In:Proceedings of the first international joint conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems (AAMAS-02), Bologna, Italy. pp.475–482, 2002.Google Scholar
  26. [26]
    J. Sabater; C. Sierra. Review on Computational Trust and Reputation Models. In:Artificial Intelligence Review, vol 24, n. 1, 2005.Google Scholar
  27. [27]
    J. Sabater. Trust and reputation for agent societies. PhD Thesis. Institut d’Investigacion en Intelligencia Artificial, Spain, 2003.Google Scholar
  28. [28]
    M. Uschold; M. Gruninger. Ontologies: Principles, Methods and Applications. In:Knowledge Engineering Review, v. 11, No. 2, June 1996.Google Scholar
  29. [29]
    A. Valente. Legal Knowledge Engineering — A modeling Approach. IOS Press, Amsterdam, 1995.Google Scholar
  30. [30]
    U. Visser; H. Stuckenschmidt; H. Wache; Thomas Vogele. Enabling technologies for interoperability. In: In U. Visser and H. Pundt, Editors,Workshop on the 14th International Symposium of Computer Science for Environmental Protection, p. 35–46, Bonn, Germany, 2000.Google Scholar
  31. [31]
    B. Yu; M. P. Singh. An Evidential Model of Distributed Reputation Management. In:Proceedings of 1st International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-agent Systems (AAMAS 2002), Bologna, Italy, 2002.Google Scholar
  32. [32]
    G. Zacharia; P. Maes. Trust Management Through Reputation Mechanisms. In:Applied Artificial Intelligence, 14((9), Special Issue on Trust, Deception and Fraud in Agent Societies, p. 881–907, 2000.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Brazilian Computer Society 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sara Casare
    • 1
  • Jaime Simão Sichman
    • 1
  1. 1.Intelligent Techniques LaboratoryUniversity of São PauloSão PauloBRAZIL

Personalised recommendations