Advertisement

Issues for Robust Consensus Building in P2P Networks

  • A. -R. Mawlood-Yunis
  • M. Weiss
  • N. Santoro
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4278)

Abstract

The need for semantic interoperability between ontologies in a peer-to-peer (P2P) environment is imperative. This is because, by definition participants in P2P environment are equal, autonomous and distributed. For example, the synthesis of concepts developed independently by different academic researchers, different research labs, various emergency service departments and, hospitals and pharmacies, just to mention a few, are an assertive request for cooperation and collaboration among these independent peers. In this work we are looking at issues that enable us to build a robust semantic consensus to solve the interoperability problem among heterogeneous ontologies in P2P networks. To achieve a robust semantic consensus we focus on three key issues: i. semantic mapping faults, ii. consensus construction iii. fault-tolerance. All these three issues will be further elaborated in this paper, initial steps to address theses issues will be described and fault-tolerant semantic mapping research directions will be further identified.

Keywords

Semantic Mapping Query Path Semantic Interoperability Plurality Vote Triple Modular Redundancy 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Aberer, K., Cudre-Mauroux, P., Hauswirth, M.: Start making sense: The Chatty Web approach for global semantic agreements. Journal of Web Semantics 1(1), 89–114 (2003)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Axelrod, R.: The Complexity of Cooperation. Princeton University Press, Princeton (1997)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lyu, M.R.: Software Fault Tolerance. Wiley publishing, Chichester (1995)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Castano, S., Ferrara, A., Montanelli, S.: H-Match: an Algorithm for Dynamically Matching Ontologies in Peer-based Systems. In: Proc. of the 1st VLDB Int. Workshop on Semantic Web and Databases (SWDB), pp. 231–250 (2003)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fergus, P., Mingkhwan, A., Merabti, M., Hanneghan, M.: Distributed emergent semantics in P2P networks. In: Proc. of the Second IASTED International Conference on Information and Knowledge Sharing, pp. 75–82 (2003)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gomez-Perez, A., Fernandez-Lopez, M., Corcho, O.: Ontological Engineering. Springer publishing, Heidelberg (2003)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Halevy, A., Ives, Z., Mork, P., Tatarinov, I.: Piazza: Mediation and integration infrastructure for semantic web data. In: proceedings of the International World-Wide Web Conference WWW 2003 (2003)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mena, E., Illarramendi, A., Kashyap, V., Sheth, A.: OBSERVER: an approach for query processing in global information systems based on interpretation across pre-existing ontologies. Distributed and Parallel Databases 8(2), 223–271 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Papalilo, E., Friese, T., Smith, M., Freisleben, B.: Trust Shaping: Adapting Trust Establishment and Management to Application Requirements in a Service-Oriented Grid Environment. In: Zhuge, H., Fox, G.C. (eds.) GCC 2005. LNCS, vol. 3795, pp. 47–58. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Paradhan, D.K.: Fault-Tolerant Computing System Design. Prentice-Hall PTR publication, Englewood Cliffs (1996)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sainty, B.: Achieving greater cooperation in a noisy prisoner’s dilemma: an experimental investigation. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 39(4), 421–435 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Stephens, L.M., Huhns, M.N.: Consensus ontologies. Reconciling the semantics of Web pages and agents. IEEE Internet Computing 5(5), 92–95 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wu, J., Axelrod, R.: How to Cope with Noise in the Iterated Prisoner’s Dilemma. Journal of Conflict Resolution 39(1), 183–189 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Yacoub, S., Lin, X., Simske, S., Burns, J.: Automating the analysis of voting systems. In: 14th International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering, pp. 203–214 (2003)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. -R. Mawlood-Yunis
    • 1
  • M. Weiss
    • 1
  • N. Santoro
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Computer ScienceCarleton UniversityOttawa, OntarioCanada

Personalised recommendations