Advertisement

An Ontological Approach for Translating Messages in E-Negotiation Systems

  • Víctor J. Sosa
  • Maricela Bravo
  • Joaquín Pérez
  • Arturo Díaz
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4082)

Abstract

Traditional negotiation systems have been implemented using agent architectures, where agents communicate through the exchange of messages, based on particular language definitions implicitly encoded, using different implementations and meaning in their messages. Our approach focuses on solving the language heterogeneity problem between agents during a negotiation process, by incorporating an ontology-based translator solution, which is executed only when a misunderstanding occurs. We designed the translator architecture considering that agents involved in a negotiation process may be using similar languages, and not all exchanged messages will cause failures due to misunderstandings. We executed experiments in a Web-based electronic negotiation system, incorporating multiple agents with different language syntax and meaning. The experimental tests show that the proposed solution improves the continuity of the execution of negotiation processes, resulting in more agreements.

Keywords

Negotiation Process Negotiation System Buyer Agent Language Definition Ontological Approach 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Finning, T., Fritzon, R., McEntire, R.: KQML as an agent communication language. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (November 1994)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    FIPA – Foundation for Intelligent Physical Agents. FIPA Specifications (2003), available at: http://www.fipa.org/specifications/index.html
  3. 3.
    Müller, H.J.: Negotiation Principles, Foundations of Distributed Artificial Intelligence. In: O´Hare, G.M.P., Jennings, N.R. (eds.). John Wiley & Sons, New York (1996)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Malucelli, A., Oliveira, E.: Towards to Similarity Identification to help in the Agents’ Negotiation. In: Bazzan, A.L.C., Labidi, S. (eds.) SBIA 2004. LNCS, vol. 3171, pp. 536–545. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Pokraev, S., Reichert, M., Steen, M., Wieringa, R.: Semantic and Pragmatic Interoperability: A Model for Understanding. In: Proceedings of the Open Interoperability Workshop on Enterprise Modelling and Ontologies for Interoperability, Porto, Portugal (2005)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rueda, S.V., García, A.J., Simari, G.R.: Argument-based Negotiation among BDI Agents. Computer Science & Technology 2(7) (2002)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Pokraev, S., Zlatev, Z., Brussee, R., van Eck, P.: Semantic Support for Automated Negotiation with Alliances. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems, Porto, Portugal (2004)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Li, H., Huang, C., Su, S.Y.W.: Design and Implementation of Business Objects for Automated Business Negotiations. Group Decision and Negotiation 11(1), 23–44 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Willmott, S., Constantinescu, I., Calisti, M.: Multilingual Agents: Ontologies, Languages and Abstractions. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Ontologies in Agent Systems, Fifth International Conference on Autonomous Agents, Montreal, Canada (2001)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Uschold, M., King, M.: Towards a Methodology for Building Ontologies. In: Workshop on Basic Ontological Issues in Knowledge Sharing (1995)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gennari, J., Musen, M., Fergerson, R., Grosso, W., Crubézy, M., Eriksson, H., Noy, N., Tu, S.: The evolution of Protégé-2000: An environment for knowledge-based systems development. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 58(1), 89–123 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Knublauch, H.: An AI tool for the real world: Knowledge modeling with Protégé, JavaWorld, June 20 (2003)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Víctor J. Sosa
    • 1
  • Maricela Bravo
    • 2
  • Joaquín Pérez
    • 2
  • Arturo Díaz
    • 1
  1. 1.Centro de Investigación y de Estudios Avanzados (CINVESTAV)TampsMéxico
  2. 2.Centro Nacional de Investigación y Desarrollo Tecnológico (CENIDET)Cuernavaca, Mor.México

Personalised recommendations