Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems

, Volume 23, Issue 3, pp 453–485 | Cite as

A mechanism for discovering semantic relationships among agent communication protocols

  • Idoia Berges
  • Jesús Bermúdez
  • Alfredo Goñi
  • Arantza Illarramendi
Article

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Agents and the Semantic Web Ontologies for agent systems Agent communication protocols Agent communication semantics 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Austin, J. L. (ed.) (1962) How to do things with words. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  2. 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
  3. 3.
    Bermúdez J., Goñi A., Illarramendi A., Bagüés M. I. (2007) Interoperation among agent-based information systems through a communication acts ontology. Information Systems 32(8): 1121–1144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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. 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. 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. 7.
    Chopra, A. K., & Singh, M. P. (2006). Producing compliant interactions: Conformance, coverage, and interoperability. In DALT (pp. 1–15). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Desai N., Mallya A. U., Chopra A. K., Singh M. P. (2005) Interaction protocols as design abstractions for business processes. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 31(12): 1015–1027CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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. 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. 11.
    FIPA. (2005). FIPA communicative act library specification. http://www.fipa.org/specs/fipa00037/SC00037J.html.
  12. 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. 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
  14. 14.
    Giunchiglia F., Shvaiko P. (2003) Semantic matching. The Knowledge Engineering Review Journal 18(3): 265–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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. 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. 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/.
  18. 18.
    Kagal L., Finin T. (2007) Modeling conversation policies using permissions and obligations. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 14(2): 187–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    KQML. (1993). Specification of the KQML agent-communication language. DARPA Knowledge Sharing Initiative. http://www.cs.umbc.edu/kqml/kqmlspec/spec.html.
  20. 20.
    Mallya A. U., Singh M. P. (2007) An algebra for commitment protocols. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 14(2): 143–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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. 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. 23.
    Mueller E. T. (2006) Commonsense reasoning. Morgan Kaufmann, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    OWL. (2008). Web Ontology Language (OWL) Guide Version 1.0. http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/guide-src/Guide.html.
  25. 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. 26.
    Shanahan, M. (1999). The event calculus explained. In Lecture notes in computer science (Vol. 1600, pp. 409–430). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Singh M. P. (1998) Agent communication languages: rethinking the principles. IEEE Computer 31(12): 40–47Google Scholar
  28. 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
  29. 29.
    Sirin E., Parsia B., Cuenca-Grau B., Kalyanpur A., Katz Y. (2007) Pellet: A practical OWL-DL reasoner. Journal of Web Semantics 5(2): 51–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Venkatraman M., Singh M. P. (1999) Verifying compliance with commitment protocols. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 2(3): 217–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Wooldridge M. (2000) Semantic issues in the verification of agent comunication languages. Journal of Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 3(1): 9–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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. 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

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Idoia Berges
    • 1
  • Jesús Bermúdez
    • 1
  • Alfredo Goñi
    • 1
  • Arantza Illarramendi
    • 1
  1. 1.University of the Basque CountryDonostia-San SebastiánSpain

Personalised recommendations