Towards Automated Service Matchmaking and Planning for Multi-Agent Systems with OWL-S – Approach and Challenges

  • Johannes Fähndrich
  • Nils Masuch
  • Hilmi Yildirim
  • Sahin Albayrak
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8377)

Abstract

In the past, the demand for modular, distributed and dynamic computer systems has increased rapidly. In the field of multi-agent systems (MAS) many of the current approaches try to account for these requirements. In this paper we discuss the shortcomings of the semantic service selection component SeMa2, propose improvements and describe an integration concept into a multi-agent framework. Further, we illustrate how this system can be extended by an automated service composition component using methods from the AI planning community.

Keywords

OWL-S Automated Service Selection Automated Service Composition Planning Multi-Agent Systems 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Bener, A.B., Ozadali, V., Ilhan, E.S.: Semantic matchmaker with precondition and effect matching using SWRL. Expert Systems with Applications 36(5), 9371–9377 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Beyerer, J.: Verfahren zur quantitativen statistischen Bewertung von Zusatzwissen in der Messtechnik. VDI Fortschritt-Bericht, vol. 8. VDI/Verl. (1999)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fähndrich, J.: Analyse von Verfahren zur Kombination von Expertenwissen in Form von Wahrscheinlichkeitsverteilungen im Hinblick auf die verteilte lokale Bayes’sche Fusion. Diploma thesis. Karlsruhe Institut of Technology (May 2010)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Falou, M.E., Bouzid, M., Mouaddib, A.-I., Vidal, T.: Automated Web Service Composition: A Decentralised Multi-agent Approach. In: IEEE/WIC/ACM International Joint Conferences on Web Intelligence and Intelligent Agent Technologies, vol. 1, pp. 387–394 (2009)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Genest, C.: Pooling operators with the marginalization property. The Canadian Journal of Statistics/La Revue Canadienne de Statistique 12(2), 153–163 (1984)CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Klusch, M., Gerber, A., Schmidt, M.: Semantic Web Service Composition Planning with OWLS-Xplan. In: Proceedings of the 1st Int. AAAI Fall Symposium on Agents and the Semantic Web, pp. 55–62 (2005)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Klusch, M., Kapahnke, P.: The iSeM matchmaker: A flexible approach for adaptive hybrid semantic service selection. Web Semantics: Science, Services and Agents on the World Wide Web 15, 1–14 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kuzu, M., Cicekli, N.K.: Dynamic planning approach to automated web service composition. Applied Intelligence 36(1), 1–28 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Leuschel, M., Craig, S.-J.: A Reconstruction of the Lloyd-Topor Transformation using Partial Evaluation. In: Pre-Proceedings of LOPSTR, 2005 (2005)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lützenberger, M., Küster, T., Konnerth, T., Thiele, A., Masuch, N., Heßler, A., Burkhardt, M., Tonn, J., Kaiser, S., Keiser, J., Albayrak, S.: JIAC V — A MAS Framework for Industrial Applications (Extended Abstract). In: Proceedings of the AAMAS 2013, Saint Paul, MN, United States of America (2013)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Masuch, N., Brock, P.: Integration of semantic service description techniques into a multi-agent framework. In: Trends in Practical Applications of Agents and Multiagent Systems, pp. 155–162. Springer International Publishing (2013)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Masuch, N., Hirsch, B., Burkhardt, M., Heßler, A., Albayrak, S.: SeMa2: A Hybrid Semantic Service Matching Approach. In: Semantic Web Services, pp. 35–47. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Morris, P.A.: Combining expert judgments: A Bayesian approach. Management Science 23(7), 679–693 (1977)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Okutan, C., Cicekli, N.K.: A monolithic approach to automated composition of semantic web services with the Event Calculus. Knowledge-Based Systems 23(5), 440–454 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Peer, J.: A PDDL Based Tool for Automatic Web Service Composition. In: Ohlbach, H.J., Schaffert, S. (eds.) PPSWR 2004. LNCS, vol. 3208, pp. 149–163. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Shafer, G.: A mathematical theory of evidence, vol. 1. Princeton University Press (1976)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sirin, E., Parsia, B., Wu, D., Hendler, J., Nau, D.: HTN planning for Web Service composition using SHOP2. Web Semantics: Science, Services and Agents on the World Wide Web 1(4), 377 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Stone, M.: The opinion pool. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics 32(4), 1339–1342 (1961)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wu, J., Wu, Z.: Similarity-based web service matchmaking. Services Computing (2005)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Johannes Fähndrich
    • 1
  • Nils Masuch
    • 1
  • Hilmi Yildirim
    • 1
  • Sahin Albayrak
    • 1
  1. 1.DAI-LaborTU BerlinBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations