Enhancing Interoperability: Ontology-Mapping in an Electronic Institution

  • Henrique Lopes Cardoso
  • Daniel Dinis Teixeira
  • Eugénio Oliveira
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 25)


The automation of B2B processes requires a high level of interoperability between potentially disparate systems. We model such systems using software agents (representing enterprises), which interact using specific protocols. When considering open environments, interoperability problems are even more challenging. Addressing business automation as a task that intends to align businesses through a tight integration of processes may not be desirable, because business relationships may be temporary and dynamic. Furthermore, openness implies heterogeneity of technologies, processes, and even domain ontologies. After discussing these issues, this paper presents, in the context of an Electronic Institution, an ontology-mapping service that enables the automation of negotiation protocols when agents may use different ontologies to represent their domain knowledge. The ontology-mapping service employs two approaches used for lexical and semantic similarity, namely N-Grams and WordNet, and poses few requirements on the ontologies’ representation format. Examples are provided that illustrate the integration of ontology-mapping with automated negotiation.


Automated negotiation Open environment Heterogeneity problem Ontology-mapping 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Luck, M., et al.: Agent Technology: Computing as Interaction (A Roadmap for Agent Based Computing). In: AgentLink (2005)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Davulcu, H., et al.: Modeling and Analysis of Interactions in Virtual Enterprises. In: Ninth International Workshop on Research Issues on Data Engineering: Information Technology for Virtual Enterprises. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (1999)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lopes Cardoso, H., Oliveira, E.: Electronic Institutions for B2B: Dynamic Normative Environments. Artificial Intelligence and Law 16(1), 107–128 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Camarinha-Matos, L.M., Afsarmanesh, H.: Elements of a base VE infrastructure. Journal of Computers in Industry 51(2), 139–163 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hviid, M.: Long-Term Contracts and Relational Contracts. In: Bouckaert, B., Geest, G.D. (eds.) Encyclopedia of Law and Economics, Volume III: The Regulation of Contracts, pp. 46–72. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham (2000)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Castelfranchi, C.: Engineering Social Order. In: Omicini, A., Tolksdorf, R., Zambonelli, F. (eds.) ESAW 2000. LNCS, vol. 1972, pp. 1–18. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    FIPA-ACL. Message Structure Specification,
  8. 8.
    Malucelli, A.: Ontology-based Services for Agents Interoperability. Faculdade de Engenharia, Universidade do Porto, Porto (2006)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Willmott, S., Constantinescu, I., Calisti, M.: Multilingual Agents: Ontologies, Languages and Abstractions. In: Workshop on Ontologies in Agent Systems, 5th International Conference on Autonomous Agents, Montreal, Canada (2001)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    FIPA. Foundation for Intelligent Physical Agents,
  11. 11.
    FIPA-OSS. Ontology Service Specification,
  12. 12.
    Lopes Cardoso, H., et al.: Institutional Services for Dynamic Virtual Organizations. In: Camarinha-Matos, L.M., Afsarmanesh, H., Ortiz, A. (eds.) Collaborative Networks and Their Breeding Environments – 6th IFIP Working Conference on Virtual Enterprises (PRO-VE 2005), Valencia, Spain, pp. 521–528 (2005)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Damashek, M.: Gauging Similarity via N-Grams: Language-independent Sorting, Categorization, and Retrieval of Text. Science 267, 843–848 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Princeton University. WordNet: a lexical database for the English language,
  15. 15.
    Lenat, D., Miller, G., Yokoi, T.: CYC, WordNet, and EDR: Critiques and Responses. Communications of the ACM 38(11), 45–48 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Pedersen, T., Patwardhan, S., Michelizzi, J.: WordNet:Similarity - Measuring the Relatedness of Concepts. In: Nineteenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI 2004), San Jose, CA (2004)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pedersen, T.: WordNet:Similarity,
  18. 18.
    JADE. Java Agent DEvelopment Framework,
  19. 19.
    Stanford Center for Biomedical Informatics Research. The Protégé Ontology Editor and Knowledge Acquisition System,
  20. 20.
    Rahm, E., Bernstein, P.A.: A survey of approaches to automatic schema matching. The International Journal on Very Large Data Bases 10(4), 334–350 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Dignum, F.: Agents, markets, institutions and protocols. In: Sierra, C., Dignum, F.P.M. (eds.) AgentLink 2000. LNCS, vol. 1991, pp. 98–114. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bailin, S.C., Truszkowski, W.: Ontology Negotiation between Scientific Archives. In: Thirteenth International Conference on Scientific Statistical Database Management. IEEE Computer Society Press, Fairfax (2001)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wiesman, F., Roos, N.: Domain independent learning of ontology mappings. In: Third International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents & Multi Agent Systems. ACM Press, New York (2004)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Pinto, H.S., Gómez-Pérez, A., Martins, J.P.: Some Issues on Ontology Integration. In: Workshop on Ontology and Problem-Solving Methods: Lessons Learned and Future Trends. CEUR Publications, Stockholm (1999)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    van Eijk, R.M., et al.: On Dynamically Generated Ontology Translators in Agent Communication. International Journal of Intelligent Systems 16, 587–607 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Mascardi, V., Rosso, P., Cordì, V.: Enhancing Communication inside Multi-Agent Systems - An Approach based on Alignment via Upper Ontologies. In: Baldoni, M., Baroglio, C., Mascardi, V. (eds.) Int. Workshop on Agent, Web Services, and Ontologies Integrated Methodologies (MALLOW-AWESOME 2007), Durham, pp. 92–107 (2007)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Henrique Lopes Cardoso
    • 1
  • Daniel Dinis Teixeira
    • 1
  • Eugénio Oliveira
    • 1
  1. 1.LIACC, DEI / Faculdade de EngenhariaUniversidade do PortoPortoPortugal

Personalised recommendations