A mechanism for discovering semantic relationships among agent communication protocols
- First Online:
- 122 Downloads
One relevant aspect in the development of the Semantic Web framework is the achievement of a real inter-agent communication capability at the semantic level. Agents should be able to communicate with each other freely using different communication protocols, constituted by communication acts. For that scenario, we introduce in this paper an efficient mechanism that presents the following main features: (i) It promotes the description of the communication acts of protocols as classes that belong to a communication acts ontology, and associates to those acts a social commitment semantics formalized through predicates in the Event Calculus. (ii) It is sustained on the idea that different protocols can be compared semantically by looking to the set of fluents associated to each branch of the protocols. Those sets are generated using Semantic Web technology rules. (iii) It discovers the following types of protocol relationships: equivalence, specialization, restriction, prefix, suffix, infix and complement_to_infix.
KeywordsAgents and the Semantic Web Ontologies for agent systems Agent communication protocols Agent communication semantics
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Austin, J. L. (ed.) (1962) How to do things with words. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
- 2.Baldoni, M., Baroglio, C., Martelli, A., & Patti, V. (2006). A priori conformance verification for guaranteeing interoperability in open environments. In ICSOC (pp 339–351). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
- 4.Boley, H. (2006). The ruleml family of web rule languages. In Principles and practice of semantic web reasoning, 4th international workshop, PPSWR 2006, lecture notes in computer science (Vol. 4187, pp. 1–17). Budva, Montenegro: Springer.Google Scholar
- 5.Bordeaux, L., Salaün, G., Berardi, D., & Mecella, M. (2004). When are two web services compatible? In TES (pp. 15–28). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
- 6.de Bruijn J., Ehrig M., Feier C., Martin-Recuerda F., Scharffe F., Weiten M. (2006) Ontology mediation, merging and aligning. In: Davies J., Studer R. (eds) Semantic web technologies. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- 7.Chopra, A. K., & Singh, M. P. (2006). Producing compliant interactions: Conformance, coverage, and interoperability. In DALT (pp. 1–15). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
- 9.d’Inverno, M., Kinny, D., & Luck, M. (1998). Interaction protocols in agentis. In Proceedings of the third international conference on multi-agent systems (ICMAS98) (pp. 261–268).Google Scholar
- 10.Endriss, U., Maudet, N., Sadri, F., & Toni, F. (2003). Logic-based agent communication protocols. In Workshop on agent communication languages (pp. 91–107).Google Scholar
- 11.FIPA. (2005). FIPA communicative act library specification. http://www.fipa.org/specs/fipa00037/SC00037J.html.
- 12.Fornara, N., Colombetti, M. (2002). Operational specification of a commitment-based agent communication language. In AAMAS ’02: Proceedings of the first international joint conference on Autonomous agents and multiagent systems (pp. 536–542). New York, NY: ACM Press.Google Scholar
- 13.Fornara, N., & Colombetti, M. (2003). Defining interaction protocols using a commitment-based agent communication language. In AAMAS ’03: Proceedings of the second international joint conference on Autonomous agents and multiagent systems (pp. 520–527). New York, NY: ACM Press.Google Scholar
- 15.Greenwood, D., Lyell, M., Mallya, A., & Suguri, H. (2007). The IEEE FIPA approach to integrating software agents and web services. In International conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems AAMAS, Hawaii USA (pp. 14–18). Hawaii: AAMAS.Google Scholar
- 16.Horridge, M., Bechhofer, S., & Noppens, O. (2007). Igniting the owl 1.1 touch paper: The owl-api. In 3rd OWL experienced and directions workshop, OWLED 2007, Innsbruck, Austria.Google Scholar
- 17.Horrocks, I., Patel-Schneider, P. F., Boley, H., Tabet, S., Grosof, B., & Dean, M. (2004). SWRL: A semantic web rule language—combining OWL and ruleml. W3C Member Submission. http://www.w3.org/Submission/SWRL/.
- 19.KQML. (1993). Specification of the KQML agent-communication language. DARPA Knowledge Sharing Initiative. http://www.cs.umbc.edu/kqml/kqmlspec/spec.html.
- 21.Mazouzi, H., Seghrouchni, A. E. F., & Haddad, S. (2002). Open protocol design for complex interactions in multi-agent systems. In AAMAS ’02: Proceedings of the first international joint conference on Autonomous agents and multiagent systems (pp. 517–526). New York, NY: ACM Press.Google Scholar
- 22.Montes-Rendón, A., Bravo, M., & Velázquez-Hernández, J. C. (2006). An ontology-based methodology for communicating negotiation agents over internet. In Proceedings of the 2006 joint conference on information sciences, JCIS 2006, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.Google Scholar
- 23.Mueller E. T. (2006) Commonsense reasoning. Morgan Kaufmann, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
- 24.OWL. (2008). Web Ontology Language (OWL) Guide Version 1.0. http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/guide-src/Guide.html.
- 25.Ryu, S. H., Saint-Paul, R., Benatallah, B., & Casati, F. (2007). A framework for managing the evolution of business protocols in web services. In Conceptual modelling 2007, proceedings of the fourth Asia-Pacific conference on conceptual modelling (APCCM2007), Ballarat, Victoria, Australia.Google Scholar
- 26.Shanahan, M. (1999). The event calculus explained. In Lecture notes in computer science (Vol. 1600, pp. 409–430). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
- 27.Singh M. P. (1998) Agent communication languages: rethinking the principles. IEEE Computer 31(12): 40–47Google Scholar
- 28.Singh, M. P. (2000). A social semantics for agent communication languages. In Issues in agent communication (pp. 31–45). New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
- 32.Yolum, P., & Singh, M. (2007). Enacting protocols by commitment concession. In International conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems AAMAS, Hawaii USA (pp. 116–123).Google Scholar
- 33.Yolum, P., & Singh, M. P. (2002). Flexible protocol specification and execution: Applying event calculus planning using commitments. In Proceedings of the 1st international joint conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems (AAMAS) (pp. 527–534). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar