Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Agreement Technologies pp 453–465Cite as

Ontology, Semantics and Reputation

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

  • 1927 Accesses

Part of the book series: Law, Governance and Technology 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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-overview/

  2. 2.

    To save space, we use DL syntax (Baader et al., 2002) rather than RDF/XML syntax.

  3. 3.

    http://trowl.eu/

  4. 4.

    http://hermit-reasoner.com/2009/JAIRbenchmarks/

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.

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Şensoy, M., J. Zhang, P. Yolum, and R. Cohen. 2009. Context-aware service selection under deception. Computational Intelligence 25(4): 335–366.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  11. Euzenat, J., and P. Shvaiko. 2007. Ontology matching. Heidelberg: Springer.

    MATH  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Valente, A. 1995. Legal knowledge engineering – A modeling approach. Amsterdam: IOS.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. IIIA – CSIC, Barcelona, Spain

    Andrew Koster

  2. University of Aberdeen, King’s College, Aberdeen, UK

    Jeff Z. Pan

Authors
  1. Andrew Koster
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jeff Z. Pan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andrew Koster .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Room DI-241, University Rey Juan, Calle Tulipan s/n, Madrid/Mostoles, 28933, Spain

    Sascha Ossowski

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Koster, A., Pan, J.Z. (2013). Ontology, Semantics and Reputation. In: Ossowski, S. (eds) Agreement Technologies. Law, Governance and Technology Series, vol 8. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5583-3_26

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5583-3_26

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-007-5582-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-007-5583-3

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation