Advertisement

Symbolic Agent Negotiation for Semantic Web Service Exploitation

  • Peep Küngas
  • Jinghai Rao
  • Mihhail Matskin
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3129)

Abstract

This paper presents an architecture and a methodology for agent-based Web service discovery and composition. We assume that Web services are described with declarative specifications like DAML-S. Based on the declarative information about services, symbolic reasoning can be applied while searching for or composing automatically new services.

We propose that symbolic agent negotiation could be used for dynamic Web service discovery and composition. Symbolic negotiation, as we consider it here, is a mixture of distributed planning and information exchange. Therefore, by using symbolic negotiation for automated service composition, we support information collection and integration during service composition. The latter aspect has been largely neglected in automated service composition until now.

Keywords

Multiagent System Service Composition Linear Logic Atomic Service Partial Deduction 
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.
    Ardissono, L., Goy, A., Petrone, G.: Enabling conversations with web services. In: Proceedings of the Second International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, AAMAS 2003, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, July 14-18, pp. 819–826. ACM Press, New York (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gibbins, N., Harris, S., Shadbolt, N.: Agent-based semantic web services. In: Proceedings of the Twelfth International World Wide Web Conference, WWW2003, Budapest, Hungary, May 20-24, pp. 710–717. ACM Press, New York (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Girard, J.-Y.: Linear logic. Theoretical Computer Science 50, 1–102 (1987)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Küngas, P., Matskin, M.: Linear logic, partial deduction and cooperative problem solving. In: Leite, J., Omicini, A., Sterling, L., Torroni, P. (eds.) DALT 2003. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2990, Springer, Heidelberg (2004) (to appear)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Küngas, P., Matskin, M.: Symbolic negotiation with linear logic. In: Dix, J., Leite, J. (eds.) CLIMA 2004. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3259, pp. 71–88. Springer, Heidelberg (2004) (to appear)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Levesque, H.J., Reiter, R., Lespérance, Y., Lin, F., Scherl, R.B.: Golog: A logic programming language for dynamic domains. Journal of Logic Programming 31(1-3), 59–83 (1997)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Manna, Z., Waldinger, R.J.: A deductive approach to program synthesis. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems 2(1), 90–121 (1980)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Matskin, M., Kirkeluten, O.J., Krossnes, S.B., Sæle, Ø.: Agora: An infrastructure for cooperative work support in multi-agent systems. In: Wagner, T.A., Rana, O.F. (eds.) AA-WS 2000. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1887, pp. 28–40. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    McDermott, D.: Estimated-regression planning for interaction with web services. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on AI Planning and Scheduling, Toulouse, France, April 23–27, AAAI Press, Menlo Park (2002)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    McIlraith, S., Son, T.C.: Adapting Golog for composition of semantic web services. In: Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR 2002), Toulouse, France, April 22-25, pp. 482–493. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (2002)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Papazoglou, M.P., Krämer, B.J., Yang, J.: Leveraging web-services and peer-to-peer networks. In: Eder, J., Missikoff, M. (eds.) CAiSE 2003. LNCS, vol. 2681, pp. 485–501. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rao, J., Küngas, P., Matskin, M.: Application of linear logic to web service composition. In: Proceedings of the First International Conference on Web Services (ICWS 2003), Las Vegas, USA, June 23-26, pp. 3–9. CSREA Press (2003)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sheshagiri, M., desJardins, M., Finin, T.: A planner for composing services described in DAML-S. In: Proceedings of the AAMAS Workshop on Web Services and Agent-based Engineering (2003)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Thakkar, S., Knoblock, C.A., Ambite, J.L., Shahabi, C.: Dynamically composing web services from on-line sources. In: Proceeding of 2002 AAAI Workshop on Intelligent Service Integration, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada (2002)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Waldinger, R.: Web agents cooperating deductively. In: Rash, J.L., Rouff, C.A., Truszkowski, W., Gordon, D.F., Hinchey, M.G. (eds.) FAABS 2000. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1871, pp. 250–262. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wu, D., Parsia, B., Sirin, E., Hendler, J., Nau, D.: Automating DAML-S web services composition using SHOP2. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Semantic Web Conference, ISWC 2003, Sanibel Island, Florida, USA, October 20-23 (2003)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peep Küngas
    • 1
  • Jinghai Rao
    • 1
  • Mihhail Matskin
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Computer and Information ScienceNorwegian University of Science and TechnologyTrondheimNorway
  2. 2.Department of Microelectronics and Information TechnologyRoyal Institute of TechnologyKistaSweden

Personalised recommendations