Argumentation for Reconciling Agent Ontologies

  • Cássia Trojahn
  • Jérôme Euzenat
  • Valentina Tamma
  • Terry R. Payne
Part of the Studies in Computational Intelligence book series (SCI, volume 344)


Within open, distributed and dynamic environments, agents frequently encounter and communicate with new agents and services that were previously unknown. However, to overcome the ontological heterogeneitywhich may exist within such environments, agents first need to reach agreement over the vocabulary and underlying conceptualisation of the shared domain, that will be used to support their subsequent communication.Whilst there are many existing mechanisms for matching the agents’ individual ontologies, some are better suited to certain ontologies or tasks than others, and many are unsuited for use in a real-time, autonomous environment. Agents have to agree on which correspondences between their ontologies are mutually acceptable by both agents. As the rationale behind the preferences of each agent may well be private, one cannot always expect agents to disclose their strategy or rationale for communicating. This prevents the use of a centralised mediator or facilitator which could reconcile the ontological differences. The use of argumentation allows two agents to iteratively explore candidate correspondences within a matching process, through a series of proposals and counter proposals, i.e., arguments. Thus, two agents can reason over the acceptability of these correspondences without explicitly disclosing the rationale for preferring one type of correspondences over another. In this chapter we present an overview of the approaches for alignment agreement based on argumentation.


Multiagent System Argumentation Framework Conjunctive Query Successful Attack External Structural 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Amgoud, L., Besnard, P.: Bridging the gap between abstract argumentation systems and logic. In: Godo, L., Pugliese, A. (eds.) SUM 2009. LNCS, vol. 5785, pp. 12–27. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Amgoud, L., Cayrol, C.: On the acceptability of arguments in preference-based argumentation. In: Cooper, G., Moral, S. (eds.) Proceedings of the 4th Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (1998)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Amgoud, L., Cayrol, C.: A reasoning model based on the production of acceptable arguments. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 34(1-3), 197–215 (2002)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Atencia, M.: Semantic alignment in the context of agent interaction. Ph.D. thesis, Universita Autonoma de Catalunya, Barcelona (SP) (2010)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bailin, S.C., Truszkowski, W.: Ontology negotiation between intelligent information agents. Knowledge Engineering Review 17(1), 7–19 (2002), DOI Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bench-Capon, T.: Persuasion in practical argument using value-based argumentation frameworks. Journal of Logic and Computation 13(3), 429–448 (2003)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Besana, P., Robertson, D.: How service choreography statistics reduce the ontology mapping problem. In: Aberer, K., Choi, K.-S., Noy, N., Allemang, D., Lee, K.-I., Nixon, L.J.B., Golbeck, J., Mika, P., Maynard, D., Mizoguchi, R., Schreiber, G., Cudré-Mauroux, P. (eds.) ASWC 2007 and ISWC 2007. LNCS, vol. 4825, pp. 44–57. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    van Diggelen, J., Beun, R.J., Dignum, F., van Eijk, R.M., Meyer, J.J.: ANEMONE: An effective minimal ontology negotiation environment. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, pp. 899–906. ACM, New York (2006), DOI CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Doran, P., Payne, T.R., Tamma, V., Palmisano, I.: Deciding agent orientation on ontology mappings. In: Patel-Schneider, P.F., Pan, Y., Hitzler, P., Mika, P., Zhang, L., Pan, J.Z., Horrocks, I., Glimm, B. (eds.) ISWC 2010, Part I. LNCS, vol. 6496, pp. 161–176. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Doran, P., Tamma, V., Palmisano, I., Payne, T.R.: Efficient argumentation over ontology correspondences. In: Proceedings of The 8th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, pp. 1241–1242. International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, Richland, SC (2009)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Doran, P., Tamma, V., Payne, T., Palmisano, I.: Dynamic selection of ontological alignments: A space reduction mechanism. In: International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (2009),
  12. 12.
    Dung, P.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n–person games. Artificial Intelligence 77(2), 321–357 (1995)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Euzenat, J.: An API for ontology alignment. In: McIlraith, S.A., Plexousakis, D., van Harmelen, F. (eds.) ISWC 2004. LNCS, vol. 3298, pp. 698–712. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Euzenat, J., Mochol, M., Shvaiko, P., Stuckenschmidt, H., Svab, O., Svatek, V., van Hage, W.R., Yatskevich, M.: Results of the ontology alignment evaluation initiative 2006. In: First International Workshop on Ontology Matching, Athens, GA, US (2006)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Euzenat, J., Shvaiko, P.: Ontology matching. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    FIPA: Contract net interaction protocol specification. Tech. Rep. SC00029H, Foundation for Intelligent Physical Agents (2002)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    FIPA: Modeling: Interaction diagrams. Tech. rep., Foundation for Intelligent Physical Agents (2003)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Haase, P., Motik, B.: A mapping system for the integration of OWL-DL ontologies. In: Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Interoperability of Heterogeneous Information Systems, pp. 9–16. ACM, New York (2005), DOI CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Isaac, A., dos Santos, C.T., Wang, S., Quaresma, P.: Using quantitative aspects of alignment generation for argumentation on mappings. In: Shvaiko, P., Euzenat, J., Giunchiglia, F., Stuckenschmidt, H. (eds.) OM, CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 431. (2008)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Jennings, N., Faratin, P., Lomuscio, A., Parsons, S., Wooldridge, M., Sierra, C.: Automated negotiation: Prospects methods and challenges. Group Decision and Negotiation 10(2), 199–215 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Laera, L., Blacoe, I., Tamma, V., Payne, T., Euzenat, J., Bench-Capon, T.: Argumentation over ontology correspondences in MAS. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, pp. 1–8. ACM, New York (2007), DOI CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Laera, L., Tamma, V., Euzenat, J., Bench-Capon, T., Payne, T.R.: Reaching agreement over ontology alignments. In: Cruz, I., Decker, S., Allemang, D., Preist, C., Schwabe, D., Mika, P., Uschold, M., Aroyo, L.M. (eds.) ISWC 2006. LNCS, vol. 4273, pp. 371–384. Springer, Heidelberg (2006), doi:10.1007/11926078CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Laera, L., Tamma, V.A.M., Euzenat, J., Bench-Capon, T.J.M., Payne, T.R.: Agents arguing over ontology alignments. In: Dunin-Keplicz, B., Omicini, A., Padget, J.A. (eds.) Proceedings of the 4th European Workshop on Multi-Agent Systems, CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 223, (2006)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Maedche, A., Motik, B., Silva, N., Volz, R.: MAFRA – A mApping fRAmework for distributed ontologies. In: Gómez-Pérez, A., Benjamins, V.R. (eds.) EKAW 2002. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2473, pp. 235–250. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Morge, M., Routier, J.C., Secq, Y., Dujardin, T.: A formal framework for inter-agents dialogue to reach an agreement about a representation. In: Ferrario, R., Guarino, N., Prevot, L. (eds.) Proceedings of the Workshop on Formal Ontologies for Communicating Agents (2006)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Noy, N.F., Shah, N.H., Whetzel, P.L., Dai, B., Dorf, M., Griffith, N., Jonquet, C., Rubin, D.L., Storey, M.A.D., Chute, C.G., Musen, M.A.: Bioportal: ontologies and integrated data resources at the click of a mouse. Nucleic Acids Research 37(Web-Server-Issue), 170–173 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Packer, H., Payne, T., Gibbins, N., Jennings, N.: Evolving ontological knowledge bases through agent collaboration. In: Proceedings 6th European Workshop on Multi-Agent Systems, Bath, UK. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Parsons, S., Jennings, N.: Negotiation through argumentation-A preliminary report. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference Multi-Agent Systems, Kyoto, Japan, pp. 267–274 (1996)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Prakken, H., Sartor, G.: Argument-based extended logic programming with defeasible priorities. Journal Applied Non-Classical Logics 7(1), 25–75 (1997)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Shvaiko, P., Giunchiglia, F., da Silva, P.P., McGuinness, D.L.: Web explanations for semantic heterogeneity discovery. In: Gómez-Pérez, A., Euzenat, J. (eds.) ESWC 2005. LNCS, vol. 3532, pp. 303–317. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Silva, N., Maio, P., Rocha, J.: An approach to ontology mapping negotiation. In: Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Knowledge Capture Workshop on Integrating Ontologies, Banff, Canada (2005)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Trojahn, C., Moraes, M., Quaresma, P., Vieira, R.: Using cooperative agent negotiation for ontology mapping. In: Proceedings of the 4th European Workshop on Multi-Agent Systems, CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 223, pp. 1–10. (2006)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Trojahn, C., Quaresma, P., Vieira, R.: Conjunctive queries for ontology based agent communication in MAS. In: Proceedings of the 7th International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, pp. 829–836. International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, Richland, SC (2008)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Trojahn, C., Quaresma, P., Vieira, R., Moraes, M.: A cooperative approach for composite ontology mapping. LNCS Journal on Data Semantic X (JoDS) 4900(1), 237–263 (2008), doi:10.1007/978-3-540-77688-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Cássia Trojahn
    • 1
  • Jérôme Euzenat
    • 1
  • Valentina Tamma
    • 2
  • Terry R. Payne
    • 2
  1. 1.INRIA & LIGFrance
  2. 2.University of LiverpoolUK

Personalised recommendations