Salvatore Garruzzo
Skip Abstract Section
Abstract
Forming groups of agents is an important task in many agent-based applications, for example when determining a coalition of buyers in an e-commerce community or organizing different Web services in a Web services' composition. A key issue in this context is that of generating groups of agents such that the communication among agents of the same group is not subjected to comprehension problems. To this purpose, several approaches have been proposed in the past in order to form groups of agents based on some similarity measures among agents. Such similarity measures are mainly based on lexical and/or structural similarities among agent ontologies. However, the necessity of taking into account a semantic component of the similarity value arises, for example by considering the context in which a term is used in an agent ontology. Therefore we propose a clustering technique based on the HISENE semantic negotiation protocol, using a similarity value that has lexical, structural and semantic components. Moreover, we introduce a suitable multiagent architecture that allows computing agent similarities by means of an efficient distributed approach.
- Abdul-Rahman, A. and Hailes, S. 1997. Using recommendations for managing trust in distributed systems. In Proceedings of the IEEE Malaysia International Conference on Communication.]]Google Scholar
- Antoniou, G., Franconi, E., and van Harmelen, F. 2005. Introduction to semantic web ontology languages. In Reasoning Web, Proceedings of the Summer School, Malta, 2005. Springer.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- Bailin, S. and Truszkowski, W. 2002. Ontology negotiation between intelligent information agents. Knowl. Eng. Rev. 17, 1, 7--19.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- Beun, R.-J. and van Eijk, R. M. 2003. A cooperative dialogue game for resolving ontological discrepancies. In Workshop on Agent Communication Languages. 349--363.]]Google Scholar
- Beun, R.-J., van Eijk, R. M., and Prust, H. 2004. Ontological feedback in multiagent systems. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS '04). IEEE, 110--117.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- Blomqvist, E. and Öhgren, A. 2006. Constructing an enterprise ontology for an automotive supplier. In Information Control Problems In Manufacturing 2006: A Proceedings volume from the 12th IFAC International Symposium (1st Etienne, France, May), A. Dolgui, G. Morel, C. Pereira (Eds.), 17--19.]]Google Scholar
- Breban, S. and Vassileva, J. 2002. A coalition formation mechanism based on inter-agent trust relationships. In Proceedings of the 1st Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, Bologna, Italy. 306--308.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- Buccafurri, F., Rosaci, D., Sarné, G. M. L., and Palopoli, L. 2004. Modeling cooperation in multi-agent communities. Cog. Sys. Res. Special Issue on Intelligent Agents and Data Mining for Cognitive Systems 5, 3, 171--190.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- Buccafurri, F., Rosaci, D., Sarné, G. M. L., and Ursino, D. 2002. An agent-based hierarchical clustering approach for e-commerce environments. In Proceedings of E-Commerce and Web Technologies, 3rd International Conference, (EC-Web 2002), Aix-en-Provence, France. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2455. Springer, 109--118.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- Caballero, A., Botia, J. A., and Gomez-Skarmeta, A. F. 2006. Trust and reputation model based on wsmo. In Proceedings of Trust Workshop at the AAMAS. Hakodate, Japan.]]Google Scholar
- Carbo, J., Molina, J. M., and Davila, J. 2002. Introduction of newcomers into a fuzzy reputation agent system. In Proceedings of Applied Informatics. 351--354.]]Google Scholar
- Conceptual Graphs URL. 2005. http://www.cs.uah.edu/ delugach/cg/.]]Google Scholar
- DAML+OIL URL. 2005. http://www.daml.org.]]Google Scholar
- Dang, V. and Jennings, N. 2004. Generating coalition structures with finite bound from the optimal guarantees. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems. ACM, New York, USA, 564--571.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- Das, G. and Mannila, H. 2000. Context-based similarity measures for categorical databases. In Proceedings of the 4th European Conference on Principles of Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery. Springer-Verlag, London, UK, 201--210.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- Ding, H. and Sølvberg, I. 2004. Towards the schema heterogeneity in distributed digital libraries. In International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems (ICEIS 5). 307--312.]]Google Scholar
- Embley, D. 2004. Toward semantic understanding: An approach based on information extraction ontologies. In Proceedings of the Conference on Australasian Database (CRPIT '04). Australian Computer Society, 3--12.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- FIPA URL 2006. http://www.fipa.org.]]Google Scholar
- Ganzha, M., Gawinecki, M., Paprzycki, M., Gasiorowski, R., Pisarek, S., and Hyska, W. 2006. Utilizing semantic web and software agents in a travel support system. Semantic Web Technologies and eBusiness: Virtual Organization and Business Process Automation, A. F. Salam and Jason Stevens (Eds.)]]Google Scholar
- Garruzzo, S. and Rosaci, D. 2006a. HISENE2: A reputation-based protocol for supporting semantic negotiation. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Ontologies, DataBases, and Applications of Semantics (ODBASE 2006). Montpellier, France, 949--966.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- Garruzzo, S. and Rosaci, D. 2006b. Information agents that learn to understand each other via semantic negotiation. In 6th International Conference on Distributed Applications and Interoperable Systems (DAIS 2006). Springer, 199--212.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- GENE Project URL 2007. http://www.geneontology.org.]]Google Scholar
- Ghurbhurn, R., Beaune, P., and Solignac, H. 2005. The role of ontologies in a multi-agent based data integration system. In Multi-Agent Systems and Applications IV, 4th International Central and Eastern European Conference on Multi-Agent Systems, (CEEMAS 2005), (Budapest, Hungary), Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 3690. Vol. 1. 661--664.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- Grefenstette, G. 1994. Explorations in Authomatic Thesaurus Construction. Kluwer.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- Gruber, T. 1993. A translation approach to portable ontologies. Knowl. Acq. 5, 2, 199--220.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- Guarino, N. 1998. Formal ontologies in information systems. In Proceedings of FOIS Conference. IOS Press, Trento, Italy, 3--15.]]Google Scholar
- Guha, R. V. March 2004. Semantic negotiation: Co-identifying objects across data sources. In Proceedings of the Semantic Web Services Conference.]]Google Scholar
- Guha, R. V. and McCool, R. 2003. Tap: A semantic web platform. Comput. Netw. 42, 5, 557--5777.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- HISENE Project URL 2007. http://hisene.altervista.org.]]Google Scholar
- JADE URL 2006. http://jade.tilab.com.]]Google Scholar
- Jain, A. and Dubes, R. 1988. Algorithms for Clustering Data. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- Jennings, N. 1995. Controlling cooperative problem solving in industrial multi-agent systems using joint intentions. Artif. Intell. 75, 2, 195--240.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- Kalfoglou, Y. and Schorlemmer, M. 2003. Ontology mapping: The state of the art. Knowl. Eng. Rev. 18, 1, 1--31.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- Ketchpel, S. 1994. Forming coalitions in the face of uncertain rewards. In Proceedings of the 12th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI 94). AAAI Press, Seattle, WA, 414--419.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- MovieLens URL 2007. http://movielens.umn.edu.]]Google Scholar
- Ogston, E., Overeinder, B., van Steen, M., and Brazier, F. 2003. Group formation among peer-to-peer agents: Learning group characteristics. In 2nd International Workshop, on Agents and Peer-to-Peer Computing (AP2PC 2003), Melbourne, Australia. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2872. Springer, 59--70.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- OML URL. 2005. http://www.ontologos.org/oml/.]]Google Scholar
- OWL URL. 2005. http://www.w3.org/tr/owl-features/.]]Google Scholar
- Ramchurn, S., Huynh, D., and Jennings, N. 2004. Trust in multi-agent systems. Knowl. Eng. Rev. 19, 1, 1--25.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- Reed, C., Norman, T., and Jennings, N. 2002. Negotiating the Semantics of Agent Communication Languages. Computa. Intell. 18, 2, 229--25.]]Google Scholar
- Rosaci, D. 2005. An ontology-based two-level clustering for supporting e-commerce agents activities. In Proceedings of E-Commerce and Web Technologies, Sixth International Conference, (EC-Web 2005) (Copenhagen, Denmark, August 23--26). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 3590. Springer, 31--40.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- Rosaci, D., Terracina, F., and Ursino, D. 2003. A technique for extracting sub-source similarities from information sources having different formats. World Wide Web J. 6, 4, 375--399.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- Sabater, J. and Sierra, C. 2001. Regret: A reputation model for gregarious societies. In Proceedings of the 4th Workshop on Deception Fraud and Trust in Agent Societies (Montreal, Canada). 61--70.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- Sabater, J. and Sierra, C. 2004. Review on computational trust and reputation models. Artif. Intell. Rev. 24, 1, 33--60.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- Sandholm, T. and Lesser, V. 1997. Coalition among computationally bounded agents. Artif. Intell. 94, 1, 99--137.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- Schein, A. I., Popescul, A., Ungar, L. H., and Pennock, D. M. 2002. Methods and metrics for cold-start recommendations. In Proceedings of the 25th Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (SIGIR 2002). 253--260.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- Schillo, M., Funk, P., and Rovatsos, M. 2000. Using trust for detecting deceitful agents in artificial societies. Appl. Artif. Intell. 14, 825--848.]]Google ScholarCross Ref
- Schmidt, S., Steele, R., Dillon, T., and Chang, E. 2007. Fuzzy trust evaluation and credibility development in multi-agent systems. Appl. Soft Comput. 7, 2, 492--505.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- Shehory, O. and Kraus, S. 1998. Methods for task allocation via agent coalition formation. Artif. Intell. 101, 1-2, 165--200.]]Google ScholarDigital Library
- Singh, M. and Huhns, M. 2005. Service-Oriented Computing:Semantics, Processes, Agents. John Wiley and Sons.]]Google Scholar
- Singh, M., Rao, A., and Georgeff, M. 1999. Formal methods in dai: logic-based representation an reasoning. Multiagent Systems: A Modern Approach to Distributed Artificial Intelligence, 331--376.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- Soh, L. and Chen, C. 2005. Balancing ontological and operational factors in refining multiagent neighborhoods. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Autonomous agents and multiagent systems (AAMAS '05). ACM Press, 745--752.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- SWRL URL. 2005. http://www.w3.org/swrl/.]]Google Scholar
- Tambe, M. 1999. Toward flexible teamwork. J. Artif. Intell. Res. 7.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- Tamma, V., Visser, P., Malerba, D., and Jones, D. 2000. Computer assisted ontology clustering for knowledge sharing. In Proceedings of the ECML'2000/ML net Workshop on Machine Learning in the New Information Age, Barcelona, Spain. CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 23. 75--63.]]Google Scholar
- Tsvetovat, M. and Sycara, K. 2000. Customer coalitions in the electronic marketplace. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Autonomous Agents (AGENTS 2000). ACM Press, Barcelona, Spain, 263--264.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- van Diggelen, J., Beun, R.-J., Dignum, F., van Eijk, R. M., and Meyer, J.-J. 2004. Optimal communication vocabularies and heterogeneous ontologies. In Developments in Agent Communication. LNAI 3396. Springer.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- van Diggelen, J., Beun, R.-J., Dignum, F., van Eijk, R. M., and Meyer, J.-J. 2006. An effective minimal ontology negotiation environment. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS'06). ACM Press.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- Vassileva, J., Breban, S., and Horsh, M. 2002. Agent reasoning mechanism for long-term coalitions based on decision making and trust. Computat. Intell. 18, 4, 583--595.]]Google ScholarCross Ref
- Villamil, M. B., Musse, S. R., and de Oliveira, L. P. L. 2003. A model for generating and animating groups of virtual agents. In Proceedings of the Intelligence Virtual Agents (IVA 2003). 164--169.]]Google ScholarCross Ref
- Visser, P. and Tamma, V. 1999. An experience with ontology clustering for information integration. In Proceedings of the IJCAI-99 Workshop on Intelligent Information Integration, (July 31, in conjunction with the 16th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence) City Conference Center, Stockholm, Sweden. CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 23.]]Google Scholar
- W3C Recommendation URL. 2005. http://www.w3.org.]]Google Scholar
- Wang, Y. and Vassileva, J. 2007. Toward trust and reputation-based Web service selection: A survey. Multi-agent and Grid Systems J. special Issue on New tendencies on Web Services and Multi-agent Systems (WS-MAS).]]Google Scholar
- Williams, A. 2004. Learning to Share Meaning in a Multi-Agent System. Auton. Agents Multi-Agent Syst. 8, 2, 165--193.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- Wooldridge, M. and Jennings, N. 1994. Towards a theory of cooperative problem solving. In Proceedings of the Workshop of Distributed Software Agents and Applications (MAAMAW-94), Odense, Denmark. 40--53.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- Yamamoto, J. and Sycara, K. 2001. A stable and efficient buyer coalition formation scheme for e-marketplaces. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Autonomous Agents (AGENTS 2001). ACM Press, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, 576--583.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- Yu, B. and Singh, M. 2002. An evidential model of distributed reputation management. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Peer-to-Peer Computing (AAMAS 2002), Bologna, Italy. 294--301.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
Index Terms
- Agent clustering based on semantic negotiation
Recommendations
Using Semantic Negotiation for Ontology Enrichment in e-Learning Multi-agent Systems
CISIS '15: Proceedings of the 2015 Ninth International Conference on Complex, Intelligent, and Software Intensive SystemsIn this work, we propose an algorithm, called E-Learning Ontology Enrichment (ELOE), to derive a global representation from the personal ontologies of different agents present in an e-Learning MAS. Using ELOE, each agent of a MAS-based e-Learning system ...
A multi-agent protocol for service level agreement negotiation in cloud federations
The emergence of complex cloud services and the growing number of QoS metrics entail the need of automation to transform business requirements into QoS constraints. Furthermore, in the emergent context of Cloud Federations providers need to share ...
An Agent Based Negotiation Protocol for Cloud Service Level Agreements
WETICE '14: Proceedings of the 2014 IEEE 23rd International WETICE ConferenceIn an agent-based cloud scenario, when two agents, provided with different ontologies exchange messages to negotiate a Service Level Agreement for a cloud service, they could fail to understand both the correct meaning of their messages and the offered ...
Comments