Advertisement

An Ontology-Based Approach for Discovering Semantic Relations between Agent Communication Protocols

  • Maricela Bravo
  • José Velázquez
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5332)

Abstract

Traditionally autonomous agents communicate each other using a predefined set of communication primitives implicitly encoded inside the agent protocol. Nowadays, there are various research efforts for automating the deployment of agents in open environments such as Internet. Considering the existence of multiple heterogeneous agents, independently developed and deployed on the Web, the challenge is to achieve interoperability at the communication level, reducing the number of communication errors caused by differences in syntax and semantics of their particular languages implementations. Currently, to support communication interoperability, agent owners must redesign communication syntax and deploy manually their agents, which results in a tedious, time consuming and costly task. To solve this problem we propose an Ontology-based approach for discovering semantic relations between agent communication protocols, which considers the description of primitives and their pragmatics. We present a case study to show the applicability of our approach, and implemented a communication environment to evaluate the resulting set of relations in the Ontology. Results show that our approach reduces the level of heterogeneity among participating agents.

Keywords

Agent communication protocols ontologies translator 

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), http://www.fipa.org/specifications/index.html
  3. 3.
    Rahm, E., Bernstein, P.: A Survey of Approaches to Automatic Schema Matching. The VLDB Journal 10, 334–350 (2001)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Batini, C., Lenxerini, M., Navathe, S.: A Comparative Analysis of Methodologies for Database Schema Integration. ACM Computing Surveys 18, 323–364 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    McGuinness, D., Fikes, R., Rice, J., And Wilder, S.: The Chimaera Ontology Environment. In: Proceedings of the 7th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI 2000), Texas (2000)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Noy, F.N., Musen, M.A.: PROMPT, Algorithm and Tool for Automated Ontology Merging and Alignment. In: Proceedings of 17th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI 2000), Texas (2000)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bergamaschi, S., Castano, S., De Capitani di Vimercati, S., Montanari, S., Vincini, M.: A Semantic Approach to Information Integration: the MOMIS Project. In: Sesto Convegno della Associazione Italiana per l’Intelligenza Artificiale, AI*IA 1998, Padova IT (1998)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Doan, A., Madhavan, J., Domingos, P., Halevy, A.: Learning to Map Between Ontologies on the Semantic Web. In: Proceedings of the 11th International World Wide Web Conference (WWW 2002), Hawaii, USA (2002)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Müller, H.J.: Negotiation Principles, Foundations of Distributed Artificial Intelligence. In: O’Hare, G.M.P., Jennings, N.R. (eds.), John Wiley & Sons, New YorkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Maricela Bravo
    • 1
  • José Velázquez
    • 2
  1. 1.Morelos State Polytechnic UniversityMorelosMéxico
  2. 2.Electrical Research InstituteMorelosMéxico

Personalised recommendations