Matchmaking for Structured Objects
- 648 Downloads
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.
KeywordsEmerging trends data warehouses systems and applications
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 2.K. Decker, K. Sycara, and M. Williamson. Matchmaking and brokering. In International Conference on Multi-Agent Systems (ICMAS96), December 1996.Google Scholar
- 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
- 5.T. Eiter, D. Veit, J.P. Müller, and M. Schneider. Matchmaking for Structured Objects. Extended version, manuscript, 2000.Google Scholar
- 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.D. Kuokka. The Deliberative Integration of Planning, Execution, and Learning. PhD thesis, School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University, 1990.Google Scholar
- 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.G. Salton. Automatic Text Processing. Addison-Wesley, 1989.Google Scholar
- 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.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.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.D. Veit. Matchmaking algorithms for autonomous agent systems. Master’s thesis, Institute of Computer Science, University of Gieβen, Germany, 1999.Google Scholar
- 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.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.G. Wiederhold. Intelligent Integration of Information. In Proceedings of ACM SIGMOD Conference on Management of Data, pages 434–437,Washington, DC, 1993.Google Scholar