Advertisement

Ontology-Services to Facilitate Agents’ Interoperability

  • Andreia Malucelli
  • Eugénio da Costa Oliveira
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2891)

Abstract

Ontology has an important role in Multi-Agent Systems communication once it provides a vocabulary to be used in the communication between agents. It is hard to find out two agents using precisely the same vocabulary. They usually have a heterogeneous private vocabulary defined in their own private ontology. In order to provide help in the conversation among different agents, we are proposing what we call ontology-services to facilitate agents’ interoperability. More specifically, in the context of the work we are doing, we intend to include these ontology-services in the framework of an Electronic Institution. Our ontology-based services will be provided through such an Electronic Institution and will be responsible for providing structural and semantic relationships between different vocabularies, useful advices on how to negotiate specific items, leading to appropriate conversations and making agreements possible.

Keywords

Multiagent System Semantic Similarity Negotiation Process Ontology Language Ontology Service 
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.
    Corcho, O., Gómes-Pérez, A.: Solving integration problems of e-commerce standards and initiatives through ontological mappings. In: Proceedings of the 17th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 2001), Workshop: Ontologies and Information Sharing, Seattle, USA (2001)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fensel, D., Horrocks, I., van Harmelen, F., Decker, S., Erdmann, M., Klein, M.: OIL in a nutshell. In: Dieng, R., Corby, O. (eds.) EKAW 2000. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1937, pp. 1–16. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dimitrov, M., Kiryakov, A., Simov, K.I.: OntoMap: upper-Ontology Service Agent. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Ontologies in Agent Systems. 5th International Conference on Autonomous Agents, Montreal, Canada (2001)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Duineveld, A.J., Stoter, R., Weiden, M.R., Kenepa, B., Benjamins, V.R.: WonderTools? A comparative study of ontological engineering tools. In: Proceedings of the 12th Banff Knowledge Acquisition for Knowledge-Based Systems Workshop (1999)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gruber, T.R.: A Translation Approach to Portable Ontology Specifications. Technical Report KSL 92–71. Knowledge Systems Laboratory (1993)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Huhns, M.N., Singh, M.P.: Readings in Agents. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, INC., San Francisco (1997)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jiang, J.J., Conrath, D.W.: Semantic Similarity Based on Corpus Statistics and Lexical Taxonomy. In: Proceedings of International Conference Research on Computational Linguistics, Taiwan (1997)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Karp, P.D., Chaudhri, V.K., Thomere, J.: XOL: An XML-based ontology exchange language. Version 0.4 (1999), http://www.ai.sri.com/pkarp/xol/xol.html
  9. 9.
    Klein, M., Kiryakov, A., Ognyanoff, D., Fensel, D.: Finding and specifying relations between ontology versions. In: Proceedings of the ECAI 2002. Workshop on Ontologies and Semantic Interoperability, Lyon (2002)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Macedo, A.P.: Metodologias de Negociação em Sistemas Multi-Agentes para Empresas Virtuais. Tese de Doutoramento, Faculdade de Engenharia, Universidade do Porto (2000) Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Maedche, A., Staab, S.: Ontology Learning for the Semantic Web. IEEE Intelligent Systems 16(2) (2001)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mitra, P., Wiederhold, G.: Resolving Terminological Heterogeneity in Ontologies. In: Proceedings of the ECAI 2002. Workshop on Ontologies and Semantic Interoperability, Lyon (2002)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Noy, N.F., McGuinness, D.L.: Ontology Development 101: A Guide to Creating your First Ontology, Stanford Knowledge Systems Laboratory Technical Report KSL-01-05 and Stanford Medical Informatics Technical Report SMI-2001-0880 (2001)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Noy, N.F., Musen, M.A.: Evaluationg Ontology-Mapping tools: requirements and Experience. In: Workshop on Evaluation of Ontology Tools at EKAW 2002 (2002)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pinto, H.S., Martins, J.P.: Ontology Integration: How to perform the Process. In: Proceedings of the IJCAI 2001 – Workshop on Ontologies and Information Sharing, Seattle, USA (2001)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rocha, A.P., Oliveira, E.: Electronic Institutions as a framework for Agents’ Negotiation and mutual Commitment. In: Brazdil, P.B., Jorge, A.M. (eds.) EPIA 2001. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2258, p. 232. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rodríguez, M.A., Egenhofer, M.J.: Determining Semantic Similarity Among Entity Classes from Different Ontologies. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 15(2), 442–456 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Suguri, H., Kodama, E., Miyazaki, M., Nunokawa, H., Noguchi, S.: Implementation of FIPA Ontology Service. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Ontologies in Agent Systems. 5th International Conference on Autonomous Agents, Montreal. Canada (2001)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Tamma, V., Bench-Capon, T.: A conceptual model to facilitate knowledge sharing in multi-agent system. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Ontologies in Agent Systems. 5th International Conference on Autonomous Agents, Montreal, Canada (2001)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Uschold, M.: Barriers to Effective Agent Communication. Position Statement. In: Workshop on Ontologies in Agent Systems, Montreal, Canada (2001)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    van Aart, C., Pels, R., Caire, G., Bergenti, F.: Creating and Using Ontologies in Agent Communication. In: Proceedings of 1st International Conference on Autonomous Agents & Multiagents (AAMAS 2002), Second International Workshop on Ontologies in Agent Systems (OAS2002), Bologna, Italy (July 2002)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    van Eijk, R.M., Boer, F.S., van der Hoek, W., Meyer, J.-J.C.: On Dynamically Generated Ontology Translators in Agent Communication. International Journal of Intelligent Systems 16, 587–607 (2001)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    van Harmelen, F., Hendler, J., Horrocks, I., McGuinness, D., Patel-Schneider, P.F., Stein, L.A.: OWL Web Ontology Language Reference: W3C Working Draft 31 (March 2003), http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WS-owl-ref-20030331 (2003)
  24. 24.
    Wache, H., Vögele, T., Visser, U., Stuckenschmidt, H., Schuster, G., Neumann, H., Hübner, S.: Ontology-Based Integration of Information-A Survey of Existing Approaches. In: Proceedings of the 17th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 2001), Workshop: Ontologies and Information Sharing, Seattle, USA (2001)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Weiss, G.: Multiagent Systems. A Modern Approach to Distributed Artificial Intelligence. The MIT Press, Cambridge (1999)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Welty, C., Guarino, N.: Supporting ontological analysis of taxonomic relationships. Data & Knowledge Engineering 39, 51–74 (2001)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Willmott, S., Constantinescu, I, Calisti, M.: Multilingual Agents: Ontologies, Languages and Abstractions. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Ontologies in Agent Systems, 5th International Conference on Autonomous Agents, Montreal, Canada (2001)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andreia Malucelli
    • 1
    • 2
  • Eugénio da Costa Oliveira
    • 1
  1. 1.LIACC-NIAD&R, Faculty of EngineeringUniversity of PortoPortoPortugal
  2. 2.PUCPR – Pontifical Catholic University of ParanáCuritibaBrasil

Personalised recommendations