A Semantic Web Blackboard System

  • Craig McKenzie
  • Alun Preece
  • Peter Gray

Abstract

In this paper, we propose a Blackboard Architecture as a means for coordinating hybrid reasoning over the Semantic Web. We describe the components of traditional blackboard systems (Knowledge Sources, Blackboard, Controller) and then explain how we have enhanced these by incorporating some of the principles of the Semantic Web to pro- duce our Semantic Web Blackboard. Much of the framework is already in place to facilitate our research: the communication protocol (HTTP); the data representation medium (RDF); a rich expressive description language (OWL); and a method of writing rules (SWRL). We further enhance this by adding our own constraint based formalism (CIF/SWRL) into the mix. We provide an example walk-though of our test-bed system, the AKTive Workgroup Builder and Blackboard(AWB+B), illustrating the interaction and cooperation of the Knowledge Sources and providing some context as to how the solution is achieved. We conclude with the strengths and weaknesses of the architecture.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    R. Brachman, V. Gilbert, and H. Levesque. An Essential Hybrid Reasoning System: Knowledge and Symbol Level Accounts of KRYPTON. In The Ninth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-85), pages 532–539, Los Angeles, California, USA, 1985.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    N. Carver and V. Lesser. The Evolution of Blackboard Control Architectures. CMPSCI Technical Report 92-71, Computer Science Department, Southern Illinois University, 1992.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    C. Chweh. Generations ahead: Michael Huhns on cooperative information systems. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 12(5):82–84, September/October 1997.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    D. D. Corkill. Collaborating Software: Blackboard and Multi-Agent Systems & the Future. In Proceedings of the International Lisp Conference, New York, New York, October 2003.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    D. D. Corkill. Representation and Contribution-Integration Challenges in Collaborative Situation Assessment. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Information Fusion (Fusion 2005), Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, July 2005.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    R. S. Engelmore and A. J. Morgan, editors. Blackboard Systems. Addison-Wesley, 1988.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    G. D. Giacomo and M. Lenzerini. Tbox and Abox Reasoning in Expressive De-scription Logics. In KR-96, pages 316–327, Los Altos, 1996. M. Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    S. Harris and N. Gibbins. 3store: Efficient Bulk RDF Storage. In 1st International Workshop on Practical and Scalable Semantic Systems (PSSS’03), pages 1–20, 2003.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    V. Jagannathan, R. Dodhiawala, and L. Baum, editors. Blackboard Architectures and Applications. Academic Press, 1989.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    V. R. Lesser and L. Erman. A Retrospective View of the HEARSAY-II Architecture, In Fifth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAV11), pages 790–800, Cambridge, Massachusetts, August 1977.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    C. McKenzie, A. Preece, and P. Gray. Extending SWRL to Express Fully-Quantified Constraints. In G. Antoniou and H. Boley, editors, Rules and Rule Markup Languages for the Semantic Web (RuleML 2004), LNCS 3323, pages 139–154, Hiroshima, Japan, November 2004. Springer.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    J. Myplopoulos and M. Papazoglu. Cooperative Information Systems, Guest Editors’ Introduction. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 12(5):28–31, September/October 1997.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    H. P. Nii. Blackboard Systems: The Blackboard Model of Problem Solving and the Evolution of Blackboard Architectures. AI Magazine, 7(2):38–53, 1986.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    A. Preece, S. Chalmers, C. McKenzie, J. Pan, and P. Gray. Handling Soft Constraints in the Semantic Web Architecture. In Reasoning on the Web Workshop (RoW2006), in the World Wide Web Conference (WWW2006), Edinburgh, UK, 2006.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    N. Shadbolt, N. Gibbins, H. Glaser, S. Harris, and m. schraefel. CS AKTive Space, or How We Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Semantic Web. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 19(3):41–47, 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    D. Tsarkov and I. Horrocks. DL Reasoner vs. First-Order Prover. In 2003 Description Logic Workshop (DL 2003), volume 81, pages 152–159. CEUR (http://ceurws.org/), 2003.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    M. Wooldridge. An Introduction To MultiAgent Systems. Wiley, 2002.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Craig McKenzie
    • 1
  • Alun Preece
    • 1
  • Peter Gray
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computing ScienceUniversity of AberdeenAberdeenUK

Personalised recommendations