Semantics in Multi-agent Systems

  • Nicoletta Fornara
  • Gordan Ježić
  • Mario Kušek
  • Ignac Lovrek
  • Vedran Podobnik
  • Krunoslav Tržec
Chapter
Part of the Law, Governance and Technology Series book series (LGTS, volume 8)

Abstract

In this chapter we discuss how semantic technologies in general and specific Semantic Web standards in particular can contribute to the goal of achieving interoperability between independent, loosely coupled, heterogeneous, autonomous software components (i.e. agents) and for the realization of open interaction systems. In particular we will discuss how those technologies have been used for the definition of the semantics of agent communication languages, for the definition of norms and policies used to regulate interactions in open frameworks, and for defining efficient mechanisms for matching demands (i.e., content they need) to supplies (i.e., available content) in telecommunication networks. In particular regarding this last type of application we describe a techno-economic approach for solving the matching problem, by means of a multi-agent system representing an electronic marketplace. Its functionality is realized by applying a semantic-aware content discovery model with two-level filtering in order to finally recommend a ranked set of eligible content to the users in response to their requests. The filtering processes not only consider the semantic information associated with the available content, but also ratings regarding the actual performance of businesses that act as content providers as well as the prices paid by businesses for advertising their content.

Keywords

Description Logic User Agent Content Provider Telecommunication Service Electronic Marketplace 
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.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was partially supported by the Hasler Foundation project n. 11115-KG and by the Swiss State Secretariat for Education and Research project n. C08.0114, as well as projects 036-0362027-1639 “Content Delivery and Mobility of Users and Services in New Generation Networks”, supported by the Ministry of Science, Education and Sports of the Republic of Croatia, and “Agent-based Service & Telecom Operations Management”, supported by Ericsson Nikola Tesla, Croatia.

References

  1. Antoniou, G., T. Skylogiannis, A. Bikakis, M. Doerr, and N. Bassiliades. 2007. DR-BROKERING: A semantic brokering system. Knowledge-Based Systems 20: 61–72. doi:10.1016/j.knosys.2006.07.006. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1224255.1224531.
  2. Bellifemine, F. L., G. Caire, and D. Greenwood. 2007. Developing multi-agent systems with JADE. Wiley Series in Agent Technology. Hoboken: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berners-Lee, T., J. Hendler, and O. Lassila. 2001. The semantic web. Scientific American 284(5): 34–43. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-semantic-web.Google Scholar
  4. Bojic, I., V. Podobnik, M. Kusek, and G. Jezic. 2011. Collaborative urban computing: Serendipitous cooperation between users in an urban environment. Cybernetics and Systems 42(5):287–307. doi:10.1080/01969722.2011.595321. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01969722.2011.595321.
  5. Collins, J., W. Ketter, and M. Gini. 2010. Flexible decision support in dynamic interorganizational networks. European Journal of Information Systems 19(4): 307–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Colombetti, M. 2000. A commitment-based approach to agent speech acts and conversations. In Proceedings of workshop on agent languages and communication policies, 4th international conference on autonomous agents (Agents 2000), Barcelona, Spain, 21–29.Google Scholar
  7. Colucci, S., S. Coppi, T. D. Noia, E. D. Sciascio, F. M. Donini, A. Pinto, and A. Ragone. 2005. Semantic-based resource retrieval using non-standard inference services in description logics. In Proceedings of the thirteenth Italian symposium on advanced database systems, SEBD 2005, Brixen-Bressanone (near Bozen-Bolzano), Italy, June 19–22, 2005, ed. A. Calì, D. Calvanese, E. Franconi, M. Lenzerini, and L. Tanca, 232–239.Google Scholar
  8. Fan, M., Y. Tan, and A. B. Whinston. 2005. Evaluation and design of online cooperative feedback mechanisms for reputation management. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 17: 244–254. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TKDE.2005.26.Google Scholar
  9. Fensel, D. 2003. Ontologies: A silver bullet for knowledge management and electronic commerce, 2nd ed. Secaucus: Springer.Google Scholar
  10. FIPA. 2001. FIPA RDF Content Language Specification. Techincal report, FIPA. http://www.fipa.org/specs/fipa00011/XC00011B.html.
  11. Fornara, N. 2011. Specifying and monitoring obligations in open multiagent systems using semantic web technology. In Semantic agent systems foundations and applications,  chap. 2 . Studies in Computational Intelligence, 25–46. Berlin: Springer.
  12. Fornara, N., and M. Colombetti. 2002. Operational specification of a commitment-based agent communication language. In Proceedings of the first international joint conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems (AAMAS 2002), ed. C. Castelfranchi and W. L. Johnson, 535–542. ACM: New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
  13. Fornara, N., and M. Colombetti. 2009. Specifying artificial institutions in the event calculus. In Information science reference. Handbook of Research on Multi-agent Systems: Semantics and Dynamics of Organizational Models, Chap. XIV, 335–366. IGI Global, Hershey: New York.Google Scholar
  14. Fornara, N., and M. Colombetti. 2010. Representation and monitoring of commitments and norms using OWL. AI Communications 23(4): 341–356.MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. Fornara, N., D. Okouya, and M. Colombetti. 2012. Using OWL 2 DL for expressing ACL content and semantics. In EUMAS 2011 post-proceedings: Selected and revised papers. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 7541, ed. M. Cossentino, M. Kaisers, K. Tuyls, and G. Weiss, 97–113. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  16. Guttman, R. H., A. G. Moukas, and P. Maes. 1998. Agent-mediated electronic commerce: A survey. The Knowledge Engineering Review 13(02): 147–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hendler, J. 2001. Agents and the semantic web. IEEE Intelligent Systems 16: 30–37. doi:http://doi.ieeecomputersociety.org/10.1109/5254.920597.Google Scholar
  18. Klusch, M., and F. Kaufer. 2009. Wsmo-mx: A hybrid semantic web service matchmaker. Web Intelligence and Agent Systems 7(1): 23–42.Google Scholar
  19. Klusch, M., B. Fries, and K. Sycara. 2006. Automated semantic web service discovery with OWLS-MX. In Proceedings of the fifth international joint conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems, AAMAS ’06, 915–922. New York: ACM. doi:http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1160633.1160796.Google Scholar
  20. Lam, J. S. C., F. Guerin, W. W. Vasconcelos, and T. J. Norman. 2008. Representing and reasoning about norm-governed organisations with semantic web languages. In Sixth european workshop on multi-agent systems, Bath, UK, 18th–19th Dec 2008.Google Scholar
  21. Leuf, B. 2006. The semantic web: Crafting infrastructure for agency. Wiley. http://books.google.co.in/books?id=uLmd-219bVsC.
  22. Luan, X. 2004. Adaptive middle agent for service matching in the semantic web: A quantitive approach. Ph.D. thesis, University of Maryland.Google Scholar
  23. Milicic, T., V. Podobnik, A. Petric, and G. Jezic.. The CrocodileAgent: A software agent for SCM procurement gaming. In New frontiers in applied artificial intelligence. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 5027, ed. N. Nguyen, L. Borzemski, A. Grzech, and M. Ali, 865–875. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer (2008). doi:10.1007/978-3-540-69052-8_90. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-69052-8_90.
  24. Noia, T. D., E. D. Sciascio, F. M. Donini, and M. Mongiello. 2004. A system for principled matchmaking in an electronic marketplace. Iternational Journal of Electronic Commerce 8: 9–37. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1278104.1278107.Google Scholar
  25. Padovan, B., S. Sackmann, T. Eymann, and I. Pippow. 2002. A prototype for an agent-based secure electronic marketplace including reputation-tracking mechanisms. Iternational Journal of Electronic Commerce 6: 93–113. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1286994.1287000.Google Scholar
  26. Podobnik, V., K. Trzec, and G. Jezic. 2006. An auction-based semantic service discovery model for e-commerce applications. In On the move to meaningful internet systems 2006: OTM 2006 workshops. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 4277, ed. R. Meersman, Z. Tari, and P. Herrero, 97–106. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer. doi:10.1007/11915034_32. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/11915034_32.
  27. Podobnik, V., G. Jezic, and K. Trzec. 2007a. A multi-agent system for auction-based resource discovery in semantic-aware B2C mobile commerce. International Transactions on Systems Science and Applications 3(2): 169–182.Google Scholar
  28. Podobnik, V., K. Trzec, G. Jezic, and I. Lovrek. 2007b. Agent-based discovery of data resources in next-generation internet: An auction approach. In Proceedings of the 2007 networking and electronic commerce research conference (NAEC’07), ed. B. Gavish, Riva del Garda, Italy: American Telecommunications Systems Management Association (ATSMA), 28–51.Google Scholar
  29. Podobnik, V., A. Petric, and G. Jezic. 2008. An agent-based solution for dynamic supply chain management. Journal of Universal Computer Science 14(7): 1080–1104. http://www.jucs.org/jucs_14_7/an_agent_based_solution.Google Scholar
  30. Podobnik, V., A. Petric, K. Trzec, and G. Jezic. 2009. Software agents in new generation networks: Towards the automation of telecom processes. In Knowledge processing and decision making in agent-based systems. Studies in Computational Intelligence, vol. 170, ed. L. Jain and N. Nguyen, 71–99. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-88049-3_4. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-88049-3_4.
  31. Podobnik, V., I. Bojic, L. Vrdoljak, and M. Kusek. 2010a. Achieving collaborative service provisioning for mobile network users: The colldown example. Infocommunications Journal 65(3): 46–52.Google Scholar
  32. Podobnik, V., K. Trzec, and G. Jezic. 2010b. An agent-Based B2C electronic market in the next-generation internet. In Encyclopedia of E-business development and management in the digital economy, ed. In Lee, 227–238. Hershey: Business Science Reference.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rasmusson, L., and S. Janson. 1999. Agents, self-interest and electronic markets. The Knowledge Engineering Review 14: 143–150. doi:10.1017/S026988899914205X. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=975771.975776.
  34. Sardinha, A., M. Benisch, N. Sadeh, R. Ravichandran, V. Podobnik, and M. Stan. 2009. The 2007 procurement challenge: A competition to evaluate mixed procurement strategies. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications 8: 106–114. doi:10.1016/j.elerap.2008.09.002. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1523524.1523906.
  35. Schiemann, B., and U. Schreiber. 2006. OWL-DL as a FIPA-ACL content language. In Proceedings of the workshop on formal ontology for communicating agents, Malaga, Spain.Google Scholar
  36. Sensoy, M., T. J. Norman, W. W. Vasconcelos, and K. Sycara. 2012. Owl-polar: A framework for semantic policy representation and reasoning. Web Semantics 12–13: 148–160. doi:10.1016/j.websem.2011.11.005. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.websem.2011.11.005.
  37. Singh, M. P. 2000. A social semantics for agent communication languages. In: Proceedings of the 1999 IJCAI workshop on agent communication languages. Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, vol. 1916, 31–45. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  38. Tolksdorf, R., C. Bizer, R. Eckstein, and R. Heese. 2004. Trustable B2C markets on the semantic web. Computer Systems Science and Engineering 19(3): 199–206.Google Scholar
  39. Wishart, R., R. Robinson, J. Indulska, and A. Jøsang. 2005. Superstringrep: Reputation-enhanced service discovery. In Proceedings of the twenty-eighth Australasian conference on computer science – volume 38, ACSC ’05, 49–57. Darlinghurs: Australian Computer Society. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1082161.1082167.
  40. Yolum, P., and M. P. Singh. 2004. Reasoning about commitments in the event calculus: An approach for specifying and executing protocols. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 42: 227–253.MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Yoon, J. 2007. Telco 2.0: A new role and business model. IEEE Communications Magazine 45(1): 10–12.Google Scholar
  42. Zhang, X., and Q. Zhang. 2005. Online trust forming mechanism: Approaches and an integrated model. In Proceedings of the 7th international conference on electronic commerce, ICEC ’05, 201–209. New York: ACM. doi:http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1089551.1089591.Google Scholar
  43. Zou, Y., T. W. Finin, Y. Peng, A. Joshi, and R. S. Cost. 2002. Agent communication in DAML world. In: WRAC. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2564, ed. W. Truszkowski, C. Rouff, and M. G. Hinchey, 347–354. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht. 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nicoletta Fornara
    • 1
  • Gordan Ježić
    • 2
  • Mario Kušek
    • 2
  • Ignac Lovrek
    • 2
  • Vedran Podobnik
    • 2
  • Krunoslav Tržec
    • 3
  1. 1.Università della Svizzera italianaLuganoSwitzerland
  2. 2.Faculty of Electrical Engineering and ComputingUniversity of ZagrebZagrebCroatia
  3. 3.Ericsson Nikola TeslaZagrebCroatia

Personalised recommendations