Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems

, Volume 8, Issue 2, pp 165–193 | Cite as

Learning to Share Meaning in a Multi-Agent System

  • Andrew B. Williams


The development of the semantic Web will require agents to use common domain ontologies to facilitate communication of conceptual knowledge. However, the proliferation of domain ontologies may also result in conflicts between the meanings assigned to the various terms. That is, agents with diverse ontologies may use different terms to refer to the same meaning or the same term to refer to different meanings. Agents will need a method for learning and translating similar semantic concepts between diverse ontologies. Only until recently have researchers diverged from the last decade's “common ontology” paradigm to a paradigm involving agents that can share knowledge using diverse ontologies. This paper describes how we address this agent knowledge sharing problem of how agents deal with diverse ontologies by introducing a methodology and algorithms for multi-agent knowledge sharing and learning in a peer-to-peer setting. We demonstrate how this approach will enable multi-agent systems to assist groups of people in locating, translating, and sharing knowledge using our Distributed Ontology Gathering Group Integration Environment (DOGGIE) and describe our proof-of-concept experiments. DOGGIE synthesizes agent communication, machine learning, and reasoning for information sharing in the Web domain.

ontology learning knowledge sharing semantic interoperability machine learning multi-agent systems 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    R. Bayardo, W. Bohrer, R. Brice, A. Cichocki, J. Fowler, A. Helal, V. Kashyap, T. Ksiezyk, G. Martin, M. Nodine, M. Rashid, M. Rusinkiewicz, R. Shea, C. Unnikrishnan, A. Unruh, and D. Woelk, “InfoSleuth: Agent-based semantic integration of information in open and dynamic environments,” in M. Huhns and M. Singh, (eds.), Readings in Agents, Morgan Kaufmann: San Francisco, pp. 205–216, 1998.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    T. Berners-Lee, J. Hendler, and O. Lassila, “The Semantic Web,” Scientific American, May 2001.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    A. H. Bond and L. Gasser, (eds.), Readings in Distributed Artificial Intelligence, Morgan Kaufmann, 1988.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    M. Craven, D. DiPasquo, D. Freitag, A. McCallum, T. Mitchell, K. Nigam, and S. Slattery, “Learning to extract symbolic knowledge from the World Wide Web,” in Proceedings of the 15th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-98), 1998.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    ''The DARPA agent markup language homepage,”, 2001.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    T. Finin, Y. Labrou, and J. Mayfied, “KQML as an agent communication language,” in J. Bradshaw, (ed.), Software Agents, MIT Press, 1997.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    A. Garland and R. Alterman, “Multiagent learning through collective memory,” in Adaptation, Coevolution, and Learning in Multiagent Systems, Technical Report SS-96-01, AAAI Symposium, Stanford, CA, March 25-27, Menlo Park, CA, AAAI Press, pp. 33–38, 1996.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    J. Giampapa, M. Paolucci, and K. Sycara, “Agent interoperation across multiagent system boundaries,” in Proc. of 4th International Conference on Autonomous Agents, June 3-7, Barcelona, Spain, 2000.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    M. Genesereth and N. Nilsson, Logical Foundations of Artificial Intelligence, Palo Alto, CA, Morgan Kauffman, 1987.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    T. Gruber, “The role of common ontology in achieving sharable, reusable knowledge bases,” in J. A. Allen, R. Fikes, and E. Sandewall, (eds.), Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning: Proceedings of the Second International Conference, Cambridge, MA: Morgan Kauffman, pp. 601–602, 1991.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    M. Huhns and M. Singh, “Agents and multiagent systems: Themes, approaches, and challenges,” in M. Huhns and M. Singh, (eds.), Readings in Agents, Morgan Kaufmann: San Francisco, CA, 1998.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    M. Iwazume, K. Shirakami, K. Hatadani, H. Takeda, and T. Nishida, “IICA: An ontology-based internet navigation system,” AAAI-96 Workshop on Internet-based Information Systems, August 5, Portland, OR, 1996.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    N. Jennings, K. Sycara, and M. Wooldridge, “A roadmap of agent research and development,” Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, vol. 1, pp. 7–38, 1998.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    K. Knight and S. Luk, “Building a large-scale knowledge base for machine translation,” in Proc. of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-94), 1994.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    C. Knoblock, Y. Arens, and C. Hsu, “Cooperating agents for information retrieval,” in Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Cooperative Information Systems, Toronto, Ontario, Canada: University of Toronto Press, 1994.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    D. Kuokka and L. Harada, “Matchmaking for information integration,” Journal of Intelligent Information Systems, 1996.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lycos, “Lycos: Your personal internet guide,”, 1999.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    18. Magellan,, 1999.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    P. Maes, “Agents that reduce work and information overload,” Comm. of ACM, vol. 37, no. 7, pp. 31–40, July 1994.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    E. Mena, A. Illarramendi, V. Kashyap, and A. Sheth, “OBSERVER: An approach for query processing in global information systems based on interoperation across pre-existing ontologies,” International Journal Distributed and Parallel Databases, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 223–271, 2000.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    T. M. Mitchell, Machine Learning, McGraw-Hill, 1997.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    A. Ouksel, “A framework for a scalable agent architecture of cooperating knowledge sources,” in M. Klusch, (ed.), Intelligent Information Agents: Cooperative, Rational and Adaptive Information Gathering in the Internet, Springer Verlag, 1999.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    J. R. Quinlan, C4.5: Programs for Machine Learning, Morgan Kaufmann: San Mateo, CA, 1993.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    J. Rachlin and S. Salzberg, “PEBLS 3.0 User's Guide,” Department of Computer Science, John Hopkins University, 1993.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    S. Russell and P. Norvig, Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1995.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    L. Steels, “The origins of ontologies and communication conventions in multi-agent systems,”Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, vol. 1, no. 2, Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 169–194, October 1998.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    P. Weinstein and W. Birmingham, “Agent communication with differentiated ontologies: Eight new measures of description compatibility,” Technical Report CSE-TR-383-99, Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, University of Michigan, 1999.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    G. Weiss, Multiagent Systems: A Modern Approach to Distributed Artificial Intelligence, MIT Press: Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    A. B. Williams, Learning Ontologies in a Multiagent System, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Kansas, 1999.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    M. Wooldridge, “Intelligent agents,” in G. Weiss, (ed.), Multiagent Systems: A Modern Approach to Distributed Artificial Intelligence, MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, pp. 28–77, 1999.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    X. Zhu, S. Gauch, L. Gerhard, N. Kral, and A. Pretschner, “Ontology-based web site mapping for information exploration,” in Proc. 8th International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, Kansas City, Missouri, pp. 188–194, November 1999.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    A. Doan, J. Madhavan, P. Domingos, and A. Halevy, “Learning to map between ontologies on the semantic web,” WWW 2002, May 7, Honolulu, Hawaii, 2002.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    R. Agrawal, and S. Ramakrishnan, “On integrating catalogs,” WWW 2001, pp. 603–612, 2001.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andrew B. Williams
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Electrical and Computer EngineeringUniversity of IowaIowa City

Personalised recommendations