Advertisement

Matchmaking for Structured Objects

  • Thomas Eiter
  • Daniel Veit
  • Jörg P. Müller
  • Martin Schneider
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2114)

Abstract

A fundamental task in multi-agent systems is matchmaking, which is to retrieve and classify service descriptions of agents that (best) match a given service request. Several approaches to matchmaking have been proposed so far, which involve computation of distances between service offers and service requests that are both provided as aggregates of the same set of attributes which have atomic values. In this paper, we consider the problem of matchmaking in the setting where both service offers and requests are described in a richer language, which has complex types built from basic types using constructors such as sets, lists, or record aggregation. We investigate methods for computing distance values of complex objects, based on a generic combination of distance values of the object components, as well as domain-dependent distance functions. The methods have been implemented in Grappa, the Generic Request Architecture for Passive Provider Agents, which is a framework for developing open matchmaking facilities that can handle complex objects described in XML. Using Grappa, a large scale application has been built in the Human Resource Network project of the Office for Labor Exchange of the German government, in which job offerings have to be matched against a large database of unemployed persons and qualified candidates should be retrieved.

Keywords

Emerging trends data warehouses systems and applications 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    K. Arisha, T. Eiter, S. Kraus, F. Ozcan, R. Ross, and V.S. Subrahmanian. IMPACT:A Platform for Collaborating Agents. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 14(2):64–72, March/April 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    K. Decker, K. Sycara, and M. Williamson. Matchmaking and brokering. In International Conference on Multi-Agent Systems (ICMAS96), December 1996.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    K. Decker, K. Sycara, and M. Williamson. Middle-agents for the internet. In Proceedings of the Fifteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-97), pages 578–583, August 1997.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    T. Eiter and H. Mannila. Distance measures for point sets and their computation. Acta Informatica, 34:109–133, 1997.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    T. Eiter, D. Veit, J.P. Müller, and M. Schneider. Matchmaking for Structured Objects. Extended version, manuscript, 2000.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    M.R. Genesereth and R.E. Fikes. Knowledge Interchange Format, Version 3.0 Reference Manual. Technical Report Logic-92-1, Computer Science Department, Stanford University, June 1992. http://www-ksl.stanford.edu/knowledge-sharing/papers/kif.ps.
  7. 7.
    D. Kuokka. The Deliberative Integration of Planning, Execution, and Learning. PhD thesis, School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University, 1990.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    D. Kuokka and L. Harada. Integrating information via matchmaking. Journal of Intelligent Information Systems, 6(2/3):261–279, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    M. Nodine, W. Bohrer, and A.H.H. Ngu. Semantic brokering over dynamic heterogenous data sources in InfoSleuth. In Proceedings of the Fifteenth International Conference on Data Engeneering, pages 358–365, August 1999.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    G. Salton. Automatic Text Processing. Addison-Wesley, 1989.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    V.S. Subrahmanian, P. Bonatti, J. Dix, T. Eiter, S. Kraus, F. Ozcan, and R. Ross. Heterogenous Agent Systems. MIT Press, June 2000. (ISBN: 0262194368).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    K. Sycara, J. Lu, and M. Klusch. Interoperability among heterogenous software agents on the internet. Technical Report CMU-RI-TR-98-22, The Robotics Institute Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, October 1998.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    K. Sycara, J. Lu, M. Klusch, and S. Widoff. Dynamic service matchmaking among agents in open information environments. ACM SIGMOD Record 28 (1), Special Issue on Semantic Interoperability in Global Information Systems, pages 47–53, 1999.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    D. Veit. Matchmaking algorithms for autonomous agent systems. Master’s thesis, Institute of Computer Science, University of Gieβen, Germany, 1999.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    D. Veit, J.P. Müller, M. Schneider, and B. Fiehn. Spt: Matchmaking for autonomous agents in electronic marketplaces. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Autonomous Agents, 2001.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    P. Weinstein and W. Birmingham. Service classification in a proto-organic society of agent. In Proceedings of the IJCAI-97Workshop on Artificial Intelligence in Digital Libraries, 1997.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    G. Wiederhold. Intelligent Integration of Information. In Proceedings of ACM SIGMOD Conference on Management of Data, pages 434–437,Washington, DC, 1993.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thomas Eiter
    • 1
  • Daniel Veit
    • 2
  • Jörg P. Müller
    • 3
  • Martin Schneider
    • 3
  1. 1.TU Vienna, Institute of Information SystemsKnowledge Based Systems GroupViennaAustria
  2. 2.Universität Karlsruhe (TH), Information Management and SystemsKarlsruheGermany
  3. 3.Siemens AG, Corporate TechnologyMunichGermany

Personalised recommendations