Abstract
Within open, distributed and dynamic environments, agents frequently encounter and communicate with new agents and services that were previously unknown. However, to overcome the ontological heterogeneitywhich may exist within such environments, agents first need to reach agreement over the vocabulary and underlying conceptualisation of the shared domain, that will be used to support their subsequent communication.Whilst there are many existing mechanisms for matching the agents’ individual ontologies, some are better suited to certain ontologies or tasks than others, and many are unsuited for use in a real-time, autonomous environment. Agents have to agree on which correspondences between their ontologies are mutually acceptable by both agents. As the rationale behind the preferences of each agent may well be private, one cannot always expect agents to disclose their strategy or rationale for communicating. This prevents the use of a centralised mediator or facilitator which could reconcile the ontological differences. The use of argumentation allows two agents to iteratively explore candidate correspondences within a matching process, through a series of proposals and counter proposals, i.e., arguments. Thus, two agents can reason over the acceptability of these correspondences without explicitly disclosing the rationale for preferring one type of correspondences over another. In this chapter we present an overview of the approaches for alignment agreement based on argumentation.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Amgoud, L., Besnard, P.: Bridging the gap between abstract argumentation systems and logic. In: Godo, L., Pugliese, A. (eds.) SUM 2009. LNCS, vol. 5785, pp. 12–27. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)
Amgoud, L., Cayrol, C.: On the acceptability of arguments in preference-based argumentation. In: Cooper, G., Moral, S. (eds.) Proceedings of the 4th Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (1998)
Amgoud, L., Cayrol, C.: A reasoning model based on the production of acceptable arguments. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 34(1-3), 197–215 (2002)
Atencia, M.: Semantic alignment in the context of agent interaction. Ph.D. thesis, Universita Autonoma de Catalunya, Barcelona (SP) (2010)
Bailin, S.C., Truszkowski, W.: Ontology negotiation between intelligent information agents. Knowledge Engineering Review 17(1), 7–19 (2002), DOI http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0269888902000292
Bench-Capon, T.: Persuasion in practical argument using value-based argumentation frameworks. Journal of Logic and Computation 13(3), 429–448 (2003)
Besana, P., Robertson, D.: How service choreography statistics reduce the ontology mapping problem. In: Aberer, K., Choi, K.-S., Noy, N., Allemang, D., Lee, K.-I., Nixon, L.J.B., Golbeck, J., Mika, P., Maynard, D., Mizoguchi, R., Schreiber, G., Cudré-Mauroux, P. (eds.) ASWC 2007 and ISWC 2007. LNCS, vol. 4825, pp. 44–57. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)
van Diggelen, J., Beun, R.J., Dignum, F., van Eijk, R.M., Meyer, J.J.: ANEMONE: An effective minimal ontology negotiation environment. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, pp. 899–906. ACM, New York (2006), DOI http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1160633.1160794
Doran, P., Payne, T.R., Tamma, V., Palmisano, I.: Deciding agent orientation on ontology mappings. In: Patel-Schneider, P.F., Pan, Y., Hitzler, P., Mika, P., Zhang, L., Pan, J.Z., Horrocks, I., Glimm, B. (eds.) ISWC 2010, Part I. LNCS, vol. 6496, pp. 161–176. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)
Doran, P., Tamma, V., Palmisano, I., Payne, T.R.: Efficient argumentation over ontology correspondences. In: Proceedings of The 8th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, pp. 1241–1242. International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, Richland, SC (2009)
Doran, P., Tamma, V., Payne, T., Palmisano, I.: Dynamic selection of ontological alignments: A space reduction mechanism. In: International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (2009), http://www.aaai.org/ocs/index.php/IJCAI/IJCAI-09/paper/view/551
Dung, P.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n–person games. Artificial Intelligence 77(2), 321–357 (1995)
Euzenat, J.: An API for ontology alignment. In: McIlraith, S.A., Plexousakis, D., van Harmelen, F. (eds.) ISWC 2004. LNCS, vol. 3298, pp. 698–712. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)
Euzenat, J., Mochol, M., Shvaiko, P., Stuckenschmidt, H., Svab, O., Svatek, V., van Hage, W.R., Yatskevich, M.: Results of the ontology alignment evaluation initiative 2006. In: First International Workshop on Ontology Matching, Athens, GA, US (2006)
Euzenat, J., Shvaiko, P.: Ontology matching. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)
FIPA: Contract net interaction protocol specification. Tech. Rep. SC00029H, Foundation for Intelligent Physical Agents (2002)
FIPA: Modeling: Interaction diagrams. Tech. rep., Foundation for Intelligent Physical Agents (2003)
Haase, P., Motik, B.: A mapping system for the integration of OWL-DL ontologies. In: Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Interoperability of Heterogeneous Information Systems, pp. 9–16. ACM, New York (2005), DOI http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1096967.1096970
Isaac, A., dos Santos, C.T., Wang, S., Quaresma, P.: Using quantitative aspects of alignment generation for argumentation on mappings. In: Shvaiko, P., Euzenat, J., Giunchiglia, F., Stuckenschmidt, H. (eds.) OM, CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 431. CEUR-WS.org (2008)
Jennings, N., Faratin, P., Lomuscio, A., Parsons, S., Wooldridge, M., Sierra, C.: Automated negotiation: Prospects methods and challenges. Group Decision and Negotiation 10(2), 199–215 (2001)
Laera, L., Blacoe, I., Tamma, V., Payne, T., Euzenat, J., Bench-Capon, T.: Argumentation over ontology correspondences in MAS. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, pp. 1–8. ACM, New York (2007), DOI http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1329125.1329400
Laera, L., Tamma, V., Euzenat, J., Bench-Capon, T., Payne, T.R.: Reaching agreement over ontology alignments. In: Cruz, I., Decker, S., Allemang, D., Preist, C., Schwabe, D., Mika, P., Uschold, M., Aroyo, L.M. (eds.) ISWC 2006. LNCS, vol. 4273, pp. 371–384. Springer, Heidelberg (2006), doi:10.1007/11926078
Laera, L., Tamma, V.A.M., Euzenat, J., Bench-Capon, T.J.M., Payne, T.R.: Agents arguing over ontology alignments. In: Dunin-Keplicz, B., Omicini, A., Padget, J.A. (eds.) Proceedings of the 4th European Workshop on Multi-Agent Systems, CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 223, CEUR-WS.org (2006)
Maedche, A., Motik, B., Silva, N., Volz, R.: MAFRA – A mApping fRAmework for distributed ontologies. In: Gómez-Pérez, A., Benjamins, V.R. (eds.) EKAW 2002. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2473, pp. 235–250. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)
Morge, M., Routier, J.C., Secq, Y., Dujardin, T.: A formal framework for inter-agents dialogue to reach an agreement about a representation. In: Ferrario, R., Guarino, N., Prevot, L. (eds.) Proceedings of the Workshop on Formal Ontologies for Communicating Agents (2006)
Noy, N.F., Shah, N.H., Whetzel, P.L., Dai, B., Dorf, M., Griffith, N., Jonquet, C., Rubin, D.L., Storey, M.A.D., Chute, C.G., Musen, M.A.: Bioportal: ontologies and integrated data resources at the click of a mouse. Nucleic Acids Research 37(Web-Server-Issue), 170–173 (2009)
Packer, H., Payne, T., Gibbins, N., Jennings, N.: Evolving ontological knowledge bases through agent collaboration. In: Proceedings 6th European Workshop on Multi-Agent Systems, Bath, UK. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)
Parsons, S., Jennings, N.: Negotiation through argumentation-A preliminary report. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference Multi-Agent Systems, Kyoto, Japan, pp. 267–274 (1996)
Prakken, H., Sartor, G.: Argument-based extended logic programming with defeasible priorities. Journal Applied Non-Classical Logics 7(1), 25–75 (1997)
Shvaiko, P., Giunchiglia, F., da Silva, P.P., McGuinness, D.L.: Web explanations for semantic heterogeneity discovery. In: Gómez-Pérez, A., Euzenat, J. (eds.) ESWC 2005. LNCS, vol. 3532, pp. 303–317. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)
Silva, N., Maio, P., Rocha, J.: An approach to ontology mapping negotiation. In: Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Knowledge Capture Workshop on Integrating Ontologies, Banff, Canada (2005)
Trojahn, C., Moraes, M., Quaresma, P., Vieira, R.: Using cooperative agent negotiation for ontology mapping. In: Proceedings of the 4th European Workshop on Multi-Agent Systems, CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 223, pp. 1–10. CEUR-WS.org (2006)
Trojahn, C., Quaresma, P., Vieira, R.: Conjunctive queries for ontology based agent communication in MAS. In: Proceedings of the 7th International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, pp. 829–836. International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, Richland, SC (2008)
Trojahn, C., Quaresma, P., Vieira, R., Moraes, M.: A cooperative approach for composite ontology mapping. LNCS Journal on Data Semantic X (JoDS) 4900(1), 237–263 (2008), doi:10.1007/978-3-540-77688-8
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2011 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Trojahn, C., Euzenat, J., Tamma, V., Payne, T.R. (2011). Argumentation for Reconciling Agent Ontologies. In: Elçi, A., Koné, M.T., Orgun, M.A. (eds) Semantic Agent Systems. Studies in Computational Intelligence, vol 344. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-18308-9_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-18308-9_5
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-18307-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-18308-9
eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)