Ontology, Semantics and Reputation

Chapter
Part of the Law, Governance and Technology Series book series (LGTS, volume 8)

Abstract

In this chapter we discuss the problem of communicating about trust and how semantic technologies can help. We briefly introduce these semantic technologies and then discuss two well-known ontologies of trust: \({\mathcal{L}}_{Rep}\) and FORe. However, defining a shared language for trust ignores the personal and subjective aspect of trust, which are an important part of how it is used. We therefore discuss a number of filtering and alignment methods that allow for the processing of communicated trust evaluations without compromising the subjective aspect of trust.

Keywords

Trust Model Trust Evaluation Inductive Logic Programming Normative Knowledge Semantic Distance 
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.

References

  1. .
    Abdul-Rahman, A., and S. Hailes. 2000. Supporting trust in virtual communities. In Proceedings of the 33rd Hawaii international conference on system sciences, vol. 6, 4–7. Maui: IEEE.Google Scholar
  2. .
    Baader, F., S. Brandt, and C. Lutz. 2005. Pushing the \(\mathcal{E}\mathcal{L}\) envelope. In Proceedings of IJCAI-05, 364–369. Edinburgh: Professional Book Center.Google Scholar
  3. .
    Baader, F., C. Lutz, H. Sturm, and F. Wolter. 2002. Fusions of description logics and abstract description systems. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research (JAIR) 16: 1–58.MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. .
    Black, E., A. Hunter, and J. Z. Pan. 2009. An argument-based approach to using multiple ontologies. In Proceeding of the 3rd international conference on scalable uncertainty management (SUM 2009), LNAI, vol. 5785, ed. L. Godo and A. Pugliese, 68–79. Washington, DC: Springer.Google Scholar
  5. .
    Calvanese, D., G. D. Giacomo, D. Lembo, M. Lenzerini, and R. Rosati. 2005. DL-Lite: Tractable description logics for ontologies. In Proceedings of AAAI 2005.Google Scholar
  6. .
    Casare, S., and J. Sichman. 2005. Towards a functional ontology of reputation. In AAMAS ’05: Proceedings of the fourth international joint conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems, 505–511. Utrecht: ACM. doi:http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1082473.1082550.
  7. .
    Conte, R., and M. Paolucci. 2002. Reputation in artificial societies: Social beliefs for social order. Boston: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
  8. .
    Şensoy, M., and P. Yolum. 2007. Ontology-based service representation and selection. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 19(8): 1102–1115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. .
    Şensoy, M., J. Zhang, P. Yolum, and R. Cohen. 2009. Context-aware service selection under deception. Computational Intelligence 25(4): 335–366.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. .
    Du, J., G. Qi, J. Z. Pan, and Y.-D. Shen. 2011. A decomposition-based approach to OWL DL ontology diagnosis. In Proceeding of the 23rd IEEE international conference on tools with artificial intelligence (ICTAI 2011), 659–664. Boca Raton, FL.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. .
    Euzenat, J., and P. Shvaiko. 2007. Ontology matching. Heidelberg: Springer.MATHGoogle Scholar
  12. .
    Flouris, G., Z. Huang, J. Z. Pan, D. Plexousakis, and H. Wache. 2006. Inconsistencies, negations and changes in ontologies. In Proceedings of AAAI2006, 1295–1300.Google Scholar
  13. .
    Harel, D. 1979. First-order dynamic logic. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer. http://books.google.es/books?id=mp4pAQAAIAAJ.
  14. .
    Hogan, A., J. Z. Pan, A. Polleres, and S. Decker. 2010. SAOR: Template rule optimisations for distributed reasoning over 1 Billion linked data triples. In Proceedings of the 9th international semantic web conference (ISWC2010), LNCS, vol. 6496, ed. P. Patel-Schneider, Y. Pan, P. Hitzler, P. Mika, L. Zhang, J. Z. Pan, I. Horrocks and B. Glimm, 337–353. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  15. .
    Horridge, M., B. Parsia, and U. Sattler. 2010. Justification oriented proofs in owl. In International semantic web conference (1). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, ed. P. F. Patel-Schneider, Y. Pan, P. Hitzler, P. Mika, L. Zhang, J. Z. Pan, I. Horrocks, and B. Glimm, 354–369. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  16. .
    Horrocks, I., O. Kutz, and U. Sattler. 2006. The even more irresistible SROIQ. In Proceedings of KR 2006, 57–67. AAAI Press.Google Scholar
  17. .
    Koster, A., J. Sabater-Mir, and M. Schorlemmer. 2011. Trust alignment: A sine qua non of open multi-agent systems. In Proceedings of on the move to meaningful internet systems (OTM 2011, Part I). LNCS, vol. 7044, ed. R. Meersman, T. Dillon, and P. Herrero, 182–191. Hersonissos: Springer.Google Scholar
  18. .
    Koster, A., M. Schorlemmer, and J. Sabater-Mir. 2012. Engineering trust alignment: Theory, method and experimentation. Journal of Human-Computer Studies 70(6): 450–473. doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2012.02.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. .
    Meyer, T., K. Lee, R. Booth., and J. Z. Pan. 2006. Maximally satisfiable terminologies for the description logic ALC. In Proceedings of AAAI ’06, 269–274. Boston, MA: AAAI Press.Google Scholar
  20. .
    Nardin, L. G., A. A. F. Brandão, G. Muller, and J. S. Sichman. 2008. SOARI: A service-oriented architecture to support agent reputation models interoperability. In Trust in agent societies – 11th international workshop, TRUST 2008. LNAI, vol. 5396, ed. R. Falcone, S. K. Barber, J. Sabater-Mir, and M. P. Singh, 292–307. Estoril: Springer.Google Scholar
  21. .
    OWL web ontology language overview. 2009. http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-features, 12 Nov. 2009.
  22. .
    Pan, J. Z. 2004. Description logics: Reasoning support for the semantic web. Ph.D. thesis, School of Computer Science, The University of Manchester.Google Scholar
  23. .
    Pinyol, I. 2011. Milking the reputation Cow: Argumentation, reasoning and cognitive agents. Monografies de l’Institut d’Investigació en Intel ⋅ligencia Artificial, vol. 44. Bellaterra, Barcelona: Consell Superior d’Investigacions Científiques.Google Scholar
  24. .
    Pinyol, I., and J. Sabater-Mir. 2007. Arguing about reputation. the lrep language. In Engineering societies in the agents world VIII: 8th international workshop, ESAW 2007. LNAI, vol. 4995, ed. A. Artikis, G. O’Hare, K. Stathis, and G. Vouros, 284–299. Berlin/Heidelberg/New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  25. .
    Pinyol, I., J. Sabater-Mir, and G. Cuni. 2007. How to talk about reputation using a common ontology: From definition to implementation. In Proceedings of tenth workshop “Trust in Agent Societies” at AAMAS ’07, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA, 90–102.Google Scholar
  26. .
    Regan, K., P. Poupart, and R. Cohen. 2006. Bayesian reputation modeling in e-marketplaces sensitive to subjectivity, deception and change. In Proceedings of the 21st national conference on artificial intelligence (AAAI), 1206–1212. Boston: AAAI.Google Scholar
  27. .
    Ren, Y., J. Z. Pan, and Y. Zhao. 2010. Soundness preserving approximation for TBox reasoning. In Proceedings of the 25th AAAI conference (AAAI-2010), 351–356. Atlanta, GA: AAAI Press.Google Scholar
  28. .
    Staab, E., and T. Engel. 2008. Combining cognitive with computational trust reasoning. In TRUST 2008. LNAI, vol. 5396, ed. R. Falcone, K. Barber, J. Sabater-Mir, and M. P. Singh, 99–111. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  29. .
    Teacy, W. T. L., J. Patel, N. R. Jennings, and M. Luck. 2006. Travos: Trust and reputation in the context of inaccurate information sources. Journal of Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 12(2): 183–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. .
    Valente, A. 1995. Legal knowledge engineering – A modeling approach. Amsterdam: IOS.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht. 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.IIIA – CSICBarcelonaSpain
  2. 2.University of AberdeenKing’s CollegeAberdeenUK

Personalised recommendations