Deciding Agent Orientation on Ontology Mappings

  • Paul Doran
  • Terry R. Payne
  • Valentina Tamma
  • Ignazio Palmisano
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6496)


Effective communication in open environments relies on the ability of agents to reach a mutual understanding of the exchanged message by reconciling the vocabulary (ontology) used. Various approaches have considered how mutually acceptable mappings between corresponding concepts in the agents’ own ontologies may be determined dynamically through argumentation-based negotiation (such as Meaning-based Argumentation, MbA). In this paper we present a novel approach to the dynamic determination of mutually acceptable mappings, that allows agents to express a private acceptability threshold over the types of mappings they prefer. We empirically compare this approach with the Meaning-based Argumentation and demonstrate that the proposed approach produces larger agreed alignments thus better enabling agent communication. Furthermore, we compare and evaluate the fitness for purpose of the generated alignments, and we empirically demonstrate that the proposed approach has comparable performance to the MbA approach.


Multiagent System Mapping Type Candidate Mapping Argumentation Framework External Structural 
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.
    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)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bailin, S.C., Truszkowski, W.: Ontology negotiation: How agents can really get to know each other. In: Truszkowski, W., Hinchey, M., Rouff, C.A. (eds.) WRAC 2002. LNCS, vol. 2564, pp. 320–334. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bench-Capon, T.: Value based argumentation frameworks. In: Proceedings of Non Monotonic Reasoning, pp. 444–453 (2002)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    van Diggelen, J., Beun, R.J., Dignum, F., van Eijk, R., Meyer, J.J.: Ontology negotiation in heterogeneous multi-agent systems: The anemone system. Applied Ontology 2(3-4), 267–303 (2007)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dung, P.: On the Acceptability of Arguments and its Fundamental Role in Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Logic Programming and n-person Games. In: Artificial Intelligence, vol. 77, pp. 321–358 (1995)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Eckert, K., Meilicke, C., Stuckenschmidt, H.: Improving ontology matching using meta-level learning. In: Aroyo, L., Traverso, P., Ciravegna, F., Cimiano, P., Heath, T., Hyvönen, E., Mizoguchi, R., Oren, E., Sabou, M., Simperl, E. (eds.) ESWC 2009. LNCS, vol. 5554, pp. 158–172. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Euzenat, J., Shvaiko, P.: Ontology Matching. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Laera, L., et al.: Argumentation over ontology correspondences in mas. In: 6th International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS 2007), Honolulu, Hawaii, USA, May 14-18, p. 228 (2007)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    dos Santos, C.T., Quaresma, P., Vieira, R.: Conjunctive queries for ontology based agent communication in mas. In: 7th International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS 2008), Estoril, Portugal, May 12-16, vol. 2, pp. 829–836 (2008)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    dos Santos, C.T., et al.: A cooperative approach for composite ontology mapping. Journal of Data Semantics 10, 237–263 (2008)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    dos Santos, C.T., Euzenat, J., Tamma, V., Payne, T.R.: Argumentation for reconciling agent ontologies. In: SASFA 2010. Springer, Heidelberg (2010) (in press) Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sensoy, M., Yolum, P.: A cooperation-based approach for evolution of service ontologies. In: 7th International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS 2008), Estoril, Portugal, May 12-16, vol. 2, pp. 837–844 (2008)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Shvaiko, P., Euzenat, J., Giunchiglia, F., He, B. (eds.): Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Ontology Matching (OM-2007) Collocated with the 6th International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC 2007) and the 2nd Asian Semantic Web Conference (ASWC 2007), Busan, Korea, CEUR Workshop Proceedings, November 11, vol. 304. (2008)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Silva, N., Maio, P., Rocha, J.: An approach to ontology mapping negotiation. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Integrating Ontologies (2005)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paul Doran
    • 1
  • Terry R. Payne
    • 1
  • Valentina Tamma
    • 1
  • Ignazio Palmisano
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of LiverpoolLiverpoolUnited Kingdom
  2. 2.School of Computer ScienceUniversity of ManchesterUK

Personalised recommendations