Advertisement

Extending a Multi-agent Reasoning Interoperability Framework with Services for the Semantic Web Logic and Proof Layers

  • Kalliopi Kravari
  • Konstantinos Papatheodorou
  • Grigoris Antoniou
  • Nick Bassiliades
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6826)

Abstract

The ultimate vision of the Semantic Web (SW) is to offer an interoperable and information-rich web environment that will allow users to safely delegate complex actions to intelligent agents. Much work has been done for agents’ interoperability; a plethora of proposals and standards for ontology-based metadata and rule-based reasoning are already widely used. Nevertheless, the SW proof layer has been neglected so far, although it is vital for SW agents and human users to understand how a result came about, in order to increase the trust in the interchanged information. This paper focuses on the implementation of third party SW reasoning and proofing services wrapped as agents in a multi-agent framework. This way, agents can exchange and justify their arguments without the need to conform to a common rule paradigm. Via external reasoning and proofing services, the receiving agent can grasp the semantics of the received rule set and check the validity of the inferred results.

Keywords

semantic web logic layer proof layer rules defeasible reasoning DR-Prolog intelligent multi-agent systems EMERALD 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Hendler, J.: Agents and the Semantic Web. IEEE Intelligent Systems 16(2), 30–37 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kravari, K., Kontopoulos, E., Bassiliades, N.: EMERALD: A Multi-Agent System for Knowledge-based Reasoning Interoperability in the Semantic Web. In: Konstantopoulos, S., Perantonis, S., Karkaletsis, V., Spyropoulos, C.D., Vouros, G. (eds.) SETN 2010. LNCS, vol. 6040, pp. 173–182. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    JESS, the Rule Engine for the Java Platform, http://www.jessrules.com/
  4. 4.
    Kravari, K., Kontopoulos, E., Bassiliades, N.: Trusted Reasoning Services for Semantic Web Agents. Informatica: Int. J. of Computing and Informatics 34(4), 429–440 (2010)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bassiliades, N., Antoniou, G., Vlahavas, I.: A Defeasible Logic Reasoner for the Semantic Web. IJSWIS 2(1), 1–41 (2006)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Boley, H., Tabet, S.: RuleML: The RuleML Standardization Initiative (2000), http://www.ruleml.org/
  7. 7.
    Berners-Lee, T., Hendler, J., Lassila, O.: The Semantic Web. Scientific American Magazine 284(5), 34–43 (2001) (revised 2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
  9. 9.
    Resource Description Framework (RDF) Model and Syntax Specification, http://www.w3.org/TR/PR-rdf-syntax/
  10. 10.
  11. 11.
    Ball, M., Boley, H., Hirtle, D., Mei, J., Spencer, B.: The OO jDREW reference implementation of ruleML. In: Adi, A., Stoutenburg, S., Tabet, S. (eds.) RuleML 2005. LNCS, vol. 3791, pp. 218–223. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wang, M., Purvis, M., Nowostawski, M.: An Internal Agent Architecture Incorporating Standard Reasoning Components and Standards-based Agent Communication. In: IEEE/WIC/ACM International Conference on Intelligent Agent Technology (IAT 2005), pp. 58–64. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Purvis, M., Cranefield, S., Nowostawski, M., Carter, D.: Opal: A Multi-Level Infrastructure for Agent-Oriented Software Development. In: Information Science Discussion Paper Series, number 2002/01. University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand (2002) ISSN 1172-602 Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dastani, M., van Riemsdijk, M.B., Meyer, J.-J.C.: Programming multi-agent systems in 3APL. In: Bordini, R.H., Dastani, M., Dix, J., El Fallah Seghrouchni, A. (eds.) Multi-Agent Programming: Languages, Platforms and Applications. Springer, Berlin (2005)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Nowostawski, M.: Kea Enterprise Agents Documentation (2001)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Boley, H., Kifer, M.: A Guide to the Basic Logic Dialect for Rule Interchange on the Web. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 1593–1608 (2010)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Nute, D.: Defeasible Reasoning. In: 20th Int. C. on Systems Science, pp. 470–477. IEEE, Los Alamitos (1987)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Maher, M.J.: Propositional defeasible logic has linear complexity. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 1(6), 691–711 (2001)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bassiliades, N., Vlahavas, I.: R-DEVICE: An Object-Oriented Knowledge Base System for RDF Metadata. Int. Journal on Semantic Web and Information Systems 2(2), 24–90 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kozlenkov, A., Penaloza, R., Nigam, V., Royer, L., Dawelbait, G., Schröder, M.: Prova: Rule-based Java Scripting for Distributed Web Applications: A Case Study in Bioinformatics. In: Grust, T., Höpfner, H., Illarramendi, A., Jablonski, S., Fischer, F., Müller, S., Patranjan, P.-L., Sattler, K.-U., Spiliopoulou, M., Wijsen, J. (eds.) EDBT 2006. LNCS, vol. 4254, pp. 899–908. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lam, H., Governatori, G.: The Making of SPINdle. In: Governatori, G., Hall, J., Paschke, A. (eds.) RuleML 2009. LNCS, vol. 5858, pp. 315–322. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Antoniou, G., Bikakis, A.: DR-Prolog: A System for Defeasible Reasoning with Rules and Ontologies on the SW. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 19, 2 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Semantic Web Knowledge Middleware, http://139.91.183.30:9090/SWKM/
  24. 24.
    Paschke, A., Boley, H., Kozlenkov, A., Craig, B.: Rule responder: RuleML-based Agents for Distributed Collaboration on the Pragmatic Web. In: 2nd International Conference on Pragmatic Web, vol. 280, pp. 17–28. ACM, New York (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Antoniou, G., Bikakis, A., Dimaresis, N., Governatori, G.: Proof Explanation for a Non-monotonic Semantic Web Rules Language. Data and Knowledge Engineering 64(3), 662–687 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
  27. 27.
    Antoniou, G., Billington, D., Governatori, G., Maher, M.J.: Representation results for defeasible logic. ACM Trans. Comput. Logic 2(2), 255–287 (2001)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kalliopi Kravari
    • 1
  • Konstantinos Papatheodorou
    • 2
    • 3
  • Grigoris Antoniou
    • 2
    • 3
  • Nick Bassiliades
    • 1
  1. 1.Dept. of InformaticsAristotle University of ThessalonikiThessalonikiGreece
  2. 2.Institute of Computer ScienceFORTHGreece
  3. 3.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of CreteGreece

Personalised recommendations