A Framework of Cooperative Agents with Implicit Support for Ontologies

  • Riza Cenk Erdur
  • Inanç Seylan
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4149)


W3C’s OWL has gained wide acceptance in the agent community and it has already been used in many agent applications which we think syntactically. By taking advantage of OWL’s description logic foundation, this paper defines a hybrid description logic language which facilitates the use of ontologies as first class entities in agent communication. Using this language, we axiomatize cooperative agent behavior. Then we suggest an operational model to implement this behavior. As a case study, we present an application from software package management domain that tests the model’s usability.


Modal Logic Multiagent System Description Logic Kripke Model Cooperative Agent 
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.
    Finin, T., Fritzson, R., McKay, D., McEntire, R.: KQML as an Agent Communication Language. In: Adam, N., Bhargava, B., Yesha, Y. (eds.) Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (CIKM 1994), Gaithersburg, pp. 456–463. ACM Press, New York (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chen, H., Perich, F., Chakraborty, D., Finin, T., Joshi, A.: Intelligent agents meet semantic web in a smart meeting room. In: AAMAS 2004: Proceedings of the Third International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, Washington, pp. 854–861. IEEE Computer Society (2004)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Zou, Y., Finin, T., Ding, L., Chen, H., Pan, R.: Using Semantic web technology in Multi-Agent systems: a case study in the TAGA Trading agent environment. In: Proceeding of the 5th International Conference on Electronic Commerce (2003)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dikenelli, O., Erdur, R.C., Kardas, G., Gümüs, Ö., Seylan, I., Gürcan, Ö., Tiryaki, A.M., Ekinci, E.E.: Developing multi agent systems on semantic web environment using seagent platform. In: Dikenelli, O., Gleizes, M.-P., Ricci, A. (eds.) ESAW 2005. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3963, pp. 1–13. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Botelho, L., Willmott, S., Zhang, T., Dale, J.: Review of content languages suitable for agent-agent communication. Technical Report 200233, EPFL I&C (2002)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Horrocks, I., Patel-Schneider, P.F., Bechhofer, S., Tsarkov, D.: OWL rules: A proposal and prototype implementation. J. of Web Semantics 3, 23–40 (2005)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Erdur, R.C., Seylan, I.: An extended description logics approach to agent communication language semantics. In: Proceedings of the AAMAS 2006 Workshop on Agent Communication (AC 2006) (2006),
  8. 8.
    Louis, V., Martinez, T.: The jade semantic agent: Towards agent communication oriented middleware. AgentLink News, 16–18 (2005)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Schild, K.: A correspondence theory for terminological logics: preliminary report. In: Proceedings of IJCAI 1991, 12th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Sidney, AU, pp. 466–471 (1991)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Baader, F., Laux, A.: Terminological logics with modal operators. Technical Report RR-94-33, Deutsches Forschungszentrum für Künstliche Intelligenz GmbH, Erwin-Schrödinger Strasse, Postfach 2080, 67608 Kaiserslautern, Germany (1994)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Baader, F., Küsters, R., Wolter, F.: Extensions to description logics. In: [26], pp. 219–261Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wolter, F., Zakharyaschev, M.: Satisfiability problem in description logics with modal operators. In: Cohn, A.G., Schubert, L., Shapiro, S.C. (eds.) Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR 1998), Montreal, Canada, pp. 512–523. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (1998)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Baader, F., Nutt, W.: Basic description logics. In: [26], pp. 43–95Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Horrocks, I., Patel-Schneider, P.F., van Harmelen, F.: From SHIQ and RDF to OWL: The making of a web ontology language. J. of Web Semantics 1, 7–26 (2003)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Artale, A., Franconi, E.: A survey of temporal extensions of description logics. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 30, 171–210 (2000)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Calvanese, D., Giacomo, G.D.: Expressive description logics. In: [26], pp. 178–218Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sycara, K., Williamson, M., Decker, K.: Unified information and control flow in hierarchical task networks. In: Working Notes of the AAAI 1996 workshop Theories of Action, Planning, and Control (1996)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Chellas, B.F.: Modal Logic: An Introduction. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1980)MATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gasquet, O., Herzig, A.: From classical to normal modal logics. In: Wansing, H. (ed.) Proof Theory of Modal Logics. Applied Logic Series, vol. 2, pp. 293–311. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (1996)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Herzig, A., Longin, D.: A logic of intention with cooperation principles and with assertive speech acts as communication primitives. In: AAMAS 2002: Proceedings of the first international joint conference on Autonomous agents and multiagent systems, pp. 920–927. ACM Press, New York (2002)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Pitt, J., Mamdani, A.: Some remarks on the semantics of fipa’s agent communication language. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 2, 333–356 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Singh, M.P.: Agent communication languages: Rethinking the principles. IEEE Computer 31, 40–47 (1998)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Laux, A.: Representing belief in multi-agent worlds via terminological logics. Technical Report RR-93-29, DFKI, Deutsches Forschungszentrum für Künstliche Intelligenz GmbH, Erwin-Schrödinger Strasse, Postfach 2080, 67608 Kaiserslautern, Germany (1993)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Rao, A.S.: AgentSpeak(L): BDI agents speak out in a logical computable language. In: Perram, J., Van de Velde, W. (eds.) MAAMAW 1996. LNCS, vol. 1038. Springer, Heidelberg (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bellifemine, F., Rimassa, G.: Developing multi-agent systems with a fipa-compliant agent framework. Softw. Pract. Exper. 31, 103–128 (2001)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Baader, F., Calvanese, D., McGuinness, D.L., Nardi, D., Patel-Schneider, P.F. (eds.): The Description Logic Handbook: Theory, Implementation, and Applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2003)MATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Riza Cenk Erdur
    • 1
  • Inanç Seylan
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer EngineeringEge UniversityBornova, IzmirTurkey

Personalised recommendations