Models of Interaction as a Grounding for Peer to Peer Knowledge Sharing

  • David Robertson
  • Adam Barker
  • Paolo Besana
  • Alan Bundy
  • Yun Heh Chen-Burger
  • David Dupplaw
  • Fausto Giunchiglia
  • Frank van Harmelen
  • Fadzil Hassan
  • Spyros Kotoulas
  • David Lambert
  • Guo Li
  • Jarred McGinnis
  • Fiona McNeill
  • Nardine Osman
  • Adrian Perreau de Pinninck
  • Ronny Siebes
  • Carles Sierra
  • Chris Walton
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4891)


Most current attempts to achieve reliable knowledge sharing on a large scale have relied on pre-engineering of content and supply services. This, like traditional knowledge engineering, does not by itself scale to large, open, peer to peer systems because the cost of being precise about the absolute semantics of services and their knowledge rises rapidly as more services participate. We describe how to break out of this deadlock by focusing on semantics related to interaction and using this to avoid dependency on a priori semantic agreement; instead making semantic commitments incrementally at run time. Our method is based on interaction models that are mobile in the sense that they may be transferred to other components, this being a mechanism for service composition and for coalition formation. By shifting the emphasis to interaction (the details of which may be hidden from users) we can obtain knowledge sharing of sufficient quality for sustainable communities of practice without the barrier of complex meta-data provision prior to community formation.


Business Process Model Check Interaction Model Multiagent System Message Passing 
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.


  1. 1.
    Agusti, J., Puigsegur, J., Robertson, D.: A visual syntax for logic and logic programming. Journal of Visual Languages and Computing 9 (1998)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Altintas, I., Birnbaum, A., Baldridge, K., Sudholt, W., Miller, M., Amoreira, C., Potier, Y., Ludaescher, B.: A framework for the design and reuse of grid workflows. In: Herrero, P., Perez, M., Robles, V. (eds.) SAG 2004. LNCS, vol. 3458, pp. 120–133. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Andrews, A., Curbera, F., Dholakia, H., Goland, Y., Klein, J., Leymann, F., Liu, K., Roller, D., Smith, D., Thatte, S., Trickovic, I., Weerawarana, S.: Business process execution language for web services, version 1.1 (2003)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Artikis, A., Pitt, J., Sergot, M.: Animated specifications of computational societies. In: Castelfranchi, C., Lewis Johnson, W. (eds.) Proceedings of the 1st International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems, Bologna, Italy, July 15–19, 2002, pp. 1053–1061. Association for Computing Machinery (2002)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Barker, A., Mann, R.: Integration of multiagent systems to AstroGrid. In: Proceedings of Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XV, European Space Astronomy Centre, Spain (2005)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Barwise, J.: Scenes and other situations. Journal of Philosophy 78(7), 369–397 (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Benerecetti, M., Giunchiglia, F., Serafini, L.: Model checking multiagent systems. Journal of Logic and Computation 8(3), 401–423 (1998)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Besana, P., Robertson, D., Rovatsos, M.: Exploiting interaction contexts in p2p ontology mapping. In: 2nd International Workshop on Peer to Peer Knowledge Management, San Diego, California, USA. CEUR Workshop Proceedings, pp. 1613–1673 (July 2005); ISSN 1613-0073, online Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bordini, R.H., Fisher, M., Pardavila, C., Wooldridge, M.: Model checking agentspeak. In: Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, Melbourne, Australia. ACM Press, New York (2003)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bordini, R.H., Fisher, M., Visser, W., Wooldridge, M.: State-space reduction techniques in agent verification. In: Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, pp. 896–903. ACM Press, New York (2004)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Clark, K.L., McCabe, F.G.: Go! for multi-threaded deliberative agents. In: Leite, J.A., Omicini, A., Sterling, L., Torroni, P. (eds.) DALT 2003. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2990, pp. 54–75. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Clarke, E.M., Grumberg, O., Peled, D.A.: Model Checking. MIT Press, Cambridge (1999)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    de Pinninck, A.P., Dupplaw, D., Kotoulas, S., Siebes, R.: The openknowledge kernel. In: Proceedings of the IX CESSE conference, Vienna, Austria (2007)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    de Pinninck, A.P., Dupplaw, D., Kotoulas, S., Siebes, R., Roberson, D., van Harmelen, F.: The architecture of the open-knowledge system. Technical report, Open-knowledge consortium (2006)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Decker, K., Sycara, K., Williamson, M.: Middle-agents for the internet. In: Proceedings of the 15th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Nagoya, Japan (1997)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Esteva, M., de la Cruz, D., Sierra, C.: Islander: an electronic institutions editor. In: Proceedings of the 1st International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems, pp. 1045–1052 (2002)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Fensel, D., Benjamins, R., Motta, E., Wielinga, R.: A framework for knowledge system reuse. In: Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Stockholm, Sweden (1999)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Fensel, D., Bussler, C.: The web service modellign framework. Electronic commerce: Research and applications 1, 113–137 (2002)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Giunchiglia, F., Shvaiko, P., Yatskevich, M.: S-match: an algorithm and an implementation of semantic match. In: Proceedings of the European Semantic Web Symposium, pp. 61–75 (2004)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Goldin, D., Smolka, S., Attie, P., Sonderegger, E.: Turing machines, transition systems and interaction. Information and Computation 194(2) (2004)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Grosz, B., Kraus, S.: Collaborative plans for complex group action. Artificial Intelligence 2 (1986)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Halpen, J.Y., Moses, Y.: Knowledge and common knowledge in a distributed environment. Journal of the ACM 37(3), 549–587 (1990)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hassan, F., Robertson, D.: Constraint relaxation to reduce brittleness of distributed agent ppotocols. In: Proceedings of the ECAI Workshop on Coordination in Emergent Agent Societies, Valencia, Spain (2004)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hassan, F., Robertson, D., Walton, C.: Addressing constraint failures in an agent interaction protocol. In: Proceedings of the 8th Pacific Rim International Workshop on Multi-Agent Systems, Kuala Lumpur, Malasia (2005)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Holzmann, G.J.: The SPIN Model Checker: Primer and Reference Manual. Addison Wesley, Reading (2003)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Jackson, D., Wing, J.: Lightweight formal methods. IEEE Computer (April 1996)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kagal, L., Finin, T., Joshi, A.: A policy language for pervasive systems. In: Fourth IEEE International Workshop on Policies for Distributed Systems and Networks (2003)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kalfoglou, Y., Schorlemmer, M.: Ontology mapping: the state of the art. Knowledge Engineering Review (2003)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kavantzas, N., Burdett, D., Ritzinger, G., Lafon, Y.: Web services choreography description language version 1.0, 2004. W3C Working Draft (October 12, 2004)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Klusch, M., Sycara, K.: Brokering and matchmaking for coordination of agent societies: a survey. In: Coordination of Internet agents: models, technologies, and applications, pp. 197–224. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Lambert, D., Robertson, D.: Matchmaking and brokering multi-party interactions using historical performance data. In: Fourth International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-agent Systems (2005)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Li, G., Chen-Burger, J., Robertson, D.: Mapping a business process model to a semantic web services model. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Web Services, San Diego (2004)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Li, G., Robertson, D., Chen-Burger, J.: A novel approach for enacting distributed business workflow on a peer-to-peer platform. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on E-Business Engineering, Beijing (2005)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Lowry, M., Philpot, A., Pressburger, T., Underwood, I.: A formal approach to domain-oriented software design environments. In: Proceedings of the 9th Knowledge-Based Software Engineering Conference, Monterey, California, pp. 48–57 (1994)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Martin, D., Burstein, M., Hobbs, J., Lassila, O., McDermott, D., McIlraith, S., Narayanan, S., Paolucci, M., Parsia, B., Payne, T., Sirin, E., Srinivasan, N., Sycara, K.: owl-s 1.1 (2004)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    McGinnis, J., Robertson, D.: Realising agent dialogues with distributed protocols. In: van Eijk, R.M., Huget, M.-P., Dignum, F.P.M. (eds.) AC 2004. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3396, pp. 106–119. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    McIlraith, S., Son, T.: Adapting golog for composition of semantic web services. In: Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, pp. 482–493 (2002)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Milner, R., Parrow, J., Walker, D.: A calculus of mobile processes, part I/II. Information and Computation 100(1), 1–77 (1992)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Motta, E., Domingue, J., Cabral, L., Gaspari, M.: Irs-ii: A framework and infrastructure for semantic web services. In: Proceedings of the Second International Semantic Web Conference, Florida, USA (2003)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Oinn, T., Addis, M., Ferris, J., Marvin, D., Senger, M., Greenwood, M., Carver, T., Glover, K., Pocock, M., Wipat, A., Li, P.: Taverna: a tool for the composition and enactment of bioinformatics workflows. Bioinformatics 20(17), 3045–3054 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Osman, N.: Addressing Constraint Failures in Distributed Dialogue Protocols. Ph.D thesis, School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh, M.Sc Thesis (2003)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Osman, N., Robertson, D., Walton, C.: Run-time model checking of interaction and deontic models for multi-agent systems. In: Proceedings of the Third European Workshop on Multi-agent Systems, Brussels, Belgium (2005)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Paolucci, M., Kawamura, T., Payne, T., Sycara, K.: Importing the semantic web. In: UDDI (2002)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Paolucci, M., Soudry, J., Srinivasan, N., Sycara, K.: A broker for OWL-S web services. In: Proceedings of the 2004 AAAI Spring Symposium on Semantic Web Services (2004)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Paulucci, M., Kawamura, T., Payne, T.R., Sycara, K.: Semantic matching of web services capabilities. In: Proceedings of the International Semantic Web Conference (2002)Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Robertson, D.: A lightweight coordination calculus for agent social norms. In: Proceedings of Declarative Agent Languages and Technologies workshop at AAMAS, New York, USA (2004)Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Robertson, D.: Multi-agent coordination as distributed logic programming. In: International Conference on Logic Programming, Sant-Malo, France (2004)Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Robertson, D., Agusti, J.: Software Blueprints: Lightweight Uses of Logic in Conceptual Modelling. Addison Wesley/ACM Press (1999) ISBN 0201398192Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Robertson, D., Bundy, A., Muetzelfeldt, R., Haggith, M., Uschold, M.: Eco-Logic: Logic-Based Approaches to Ecological Modelling. Logic Programming Series. MIT Press, Cambridge (1991)Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Siebes, R., Dupplaw, D., Kotoulas, S., de Pinninck, A.P., Roberson, D., van Harmelen, F.: The functional description of the open-knowledge system. Technical report, Open-knowledge consortium (2006)Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Smith, R.G.: The contract net protocol: high-level communication and control in a distributed problem solver. In: Distributed Artificial Intelligence, pp. 357–366. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Francisco (1988)Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    van der Hoek, W., Wooldridge, M.: On the logic of cooperation and propositional control. Artificial Intelligence 164(1-2) (2005)Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    van Leeuwen, J., Wiedermann, J.: A computational model of interaction in embedded systems. Technical Report UU-CS-02-2001, Dept. of Computer Science, University of Utrecht (2001)Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Walton, C.: Model checking agent dialogues. In: Proceedings of the 2004 Workshop on Declarative Agent Languages and Technologies, New York, USA (2004)Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Walton, C.: Model checking multi-agent web services. In: Proceedings of AAAI Spring Symposium on Semantic Web Services, California, USA (2004)Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Walton, C.: Model checking multi-agent web services. In: Proceedings of the AAAI Spring Symposium on Semantic Web Services, Stanford, USA. AAAI, Menlo Park (2004)Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Walton, C., Barker, A.: An agent-based e-science experiment builder. In: Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Semantic Intelligent Middleware for the Web and the Grid, Valencia, Spain (August 2004)Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Wegner, P.: Why interaction is more powerful than algorithms. Communications of the ACM 40(5) (1997)Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Wong, H., Sycara, K.: A taxonomy of middle-agents for the internet. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Multi-agent Systems (2000)Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Wooldridge, M., Fisher, M., Huget, M.P., Parsons, S.: Model checking multiagent systems with MABLE. In: Proceedings of the First International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, Bologna, Italy (2002)Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Wooldridge, M., Jennings, N.R.: The cooperative problem solving process. Journal of Logic and Computation 9(4) (1999)Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Zeng, L., Benatallah, B., Dumas, M., Kalagnanam, J., Sheng, Q.: Quality driven web services composition. In: Proceedings of the twelfth international conference on World Wide Web, pp. 411–421. ACM Press, New York (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Zhang, Z., Zhang, C.: An improvement to matchmaking algorithms for middle agents. In: Proceedings of the first international joint conference on Autonomous agents and multiagent systems, pp. 1340–1347. ACM Press, New York (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • David Robertson
    • 1
  • Adam Barker
    • 1
  • Paolo Besana
    • 1
  • Alan Bundy
    • 1
  • Yun Heh Chen-Burger
    • 1
  • David Dupplaw
    • 2
  • Fausto Giunchiglia
    • 3
  • Frank van Harmelen
    • 4
  • Fadzil Hassan
    • 1
  • Spyros Kotoulas
    • 4
  • David Lambert
    • 1
  • Guo Li
    • 1
  • Jarred McGinnis
    • 1
  • Fiona McNeill
    • 1
  • Nardine Osman
    • 1
  • Adrian Perreau de Pinninck
    • 5
  • Ronny Siebes
    • 4
  • Carles Sierra
    • 5
  • Chris Walton
    • 1
  1. 1.InformaticsUniversity of EdinburghUK
  2. 2.Electronics and Computer ScienceUniversity of SouthamptonUK
  3. 3.Information and Communication TechnologyUniversity of TrentoItaly
  4. 4.Mathematics and Computer ScienceFree UniversityAmsterdamNetherlands
  5. 5.Artificial Intelligence Research InstituteBarcelonaSpain

Personalised recommendations