Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A mechanism for discovering semantic relationships among agent communication protocols

  • Published:
Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

One relevant aspect in the development of the Semantic Web framework is the achievement of a real inter-agent communication capability at the semantic level. Agents should be able to communicate with each other freely using different communication protocols, constituted by communication acts. For that scenario, we introduce in this paper an efficient mechanism that presents the following main features: (i) It promotes the description of the communication acts of protocols as classes that belong to a communication acts ontology, and associates to those acts a social commitment semantics formalized through predicates in the Event Calculus. (ii) It is sustained on the idea that different protocols can be compared semantically by looking to the set of fluents associated to each branch of the protocols. Those sets are generated using Semantic Web technology rules. (iii) It discovers the following types of protocol relationships: equivalence, specialization, restriction, prefix, suffix, infix and complement_to_infix.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Austin, J. L. (ed.) (1962) How to do things with words. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  2. Baldoni, M., Baroglio, C., Martelli, A., & Patti, V. (2006). A priori conformance verification for guaranteeing interoperability in open environments. In ICSOC (pp 339–351). Berlin: Springer.

  3. Bermúdez J., Goñi A., Illarramendi A., Bagüés M. I. (2007) Interoperation among agent-based information systems through a communication acts ontology. Information Systems 32(8): 1121–1144

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Boley, H. (2006). The ruleml family of web rule languages. In Principles and practice of semantic web reasoning, 4th international workshop, PPSWR 2006, lecture notes in computer science (Vol. 4187, pp. 1–17). Budva, Montenegro: Springer.

  5. Bordeaux, L., Salaün, G., Berardi, D., & Mecella, M. (2004). When are two web services compatible? In TES (pp. 15–28). Berlin: Springer.

  6. de Bruijn J., Ehrig M., Feier C., Martin-Recuerda F., Scharffe F., Weiten M. (2006) Ontology mediation, merging and aligning. In: Davies J., Studer R. (eds) Semantic web technologies. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  7. Chopra, A. K., & Singh, M. P. (2006). Producing compliant interactions: Conformance, coverage, and interoperability. In DALT (pp. 1–15). Berlin: Springer.

  8. Desai N., Mallya A. U., Chopra A. K., Singh M. P. (2005) Interaction protocols as design abstractions for business processes. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 31(12): 1015–1027

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. d’Inverno, M., Kinny, D., & Luck, M. (1998). Interaction protocols in agentis. In Proceedings of the third international conference on multi-agent systems (ICMAS98) (pp. 261–268).

  10. Endriss, U., Maudet, N., Sadri, F., & Toni, F. (2003). Logic-based agent communication protocols. In Workshop on agent communication languages (pp. 91–107).

  11. FIPA. (2005). FIPA communicative act library specification. http://www.fipa.org/specs/fipa00037/SC00037J.html.

  12. Fornara, N., Colombetti, M. (2002). Operational specification of a commitment-based agent communication language. In AAMAS ’02: Proceedings of the first international joint conference on Autonomous agents and multiagent systems (pp. 536–542). New York, NY: ACM Press.

  13. Fornara, N., & Colombetti, M. (2003). Defining interaction protocols using a commitment-based agent communication language. In AAMAS ’03: Proceedings of the second international joint conference on Autonomous agents and multiagent systems (pp. 520–527). New York, NY: ACM Press.

  14. Giunchiglia F., Shvaiko P. (2003) Semantic matching. The Knowledge Engineering Review Journal 18(3): 265–280

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Greenwood, D., Lyell, M., Mallya, A., & Suguri, H. (2007). The IEEE FIPA approach to integrating software agents and web services. In International conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems AAMAS, Hawaii USA (pp. 14–18). Hawaii: AAMAS.

  16. Horridge, M., Bechhofer, S., & Noppens, O. (2007). Igniting the owl 1.1 touch paper: The owl-api. In 3rd OWL experienced and directions workshop, OWLED 2007, Innsbruck, Austria.

  17. Horrocks, I., Patel-Schneider, P. F., Boley, H., Tabet, S., Grosof, B., & Dean, M. (2004). SWRL: A semantic web rule language—combining OWL and ruleml. W3C Member Submission. http://www.w3.org/Submission/SWRL/.

  18. Kagal L., Finin T. (2007) Modeling conversation policies using permissions and obligations. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 14(2): 187–206

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. KQML. (1993). Specification of the KQML agent-communication language. DARPA Knowledge Sharing Initiative. http://www.cs.umbc.edu/kqml/kqmlspec/spec.html.

  20. Mallya A. U., Singh M. P. (2007) An algebra for commitment protocols. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 14(2): 143–163

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Mazouzi, H., Seghrouchni, A. E. F., & Haddad, S. (2002). Open protocol design for complex interactions in multi-agent systems. In AAMAS ’02: Proceedings of the first international joint conference on Autonomous agents and multiagent systems (pp. 517–526). New York, NY: ACM Press.

  22. Montes-Rendón, A., Bravo, M., & Velázquez-Hernández, J. C. (2006). An ontology-based methodology for communicating negotiation agents over internet. In Proceedings of the 2006 joint conference on information sciences, JCIS 2006, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.

  23. Mueller E. T. (2006) Commonsense reasoning. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco

    Google Scholar 

  24. OWL. (2008). Web Ontology Language (OWL) Guide Version 1.0. http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/guide-src/Guide.html.

  25. Ryu, S. H., Saint-Paul, R., Benatallah, B., & Casati, F. (2007). A framework for managing the evolution of business protocols in web services. In Conceptual modelling 2007, proceedings of the fourth Asia-Pacific conference on conceptual modelling (APCCM2007), Ballarat, Victoria, Australia.

  26. Shanahan, M. (1999). The event calculus explained. In Lecture notes in computer science (Vol. 1600, pp. 409–430). Berlin: Springer.

  27. Singh M. P. (1998) Agent communication languages: rethinking the principles. IEEE Computer 31(12): 40–47

    Google Scholar 

  28. Singh, M. P. (2000). A social semantics for agent communication languages. In Issues in agent communication (pp. 31–45). New York: Springer-Verlag.

  29. Sirin E., Parsia B., Cuenca-Grau B., Kalyanpur A., Katz Y. (2007) Pellet: A practical OWL-DL reasoner. Journal of Web Semantics 5(2): 51–53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Venkatraman M., Singh M. P. (1999) Verifying compliance with commitment protocols. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 2(3): 217–236

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Wooldridge M. (2000) Semantic issues in the verification of agent comunication languages. Journal of Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 3(1): 9–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Yolum, P., & Singh, M. (2007). Enacting protocols by commitment concession. In International conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems AAMAS, Hawaii USA (pp. 116–123).

  33. Yolum, P., & Singh, M. P. (2002). Flexible protocol specification and execution: Applying event calculus planning using commitments. In Proceedings of the 1st international joint conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems (AAMAS) (pp. 527–534). New York: ACM Press.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of the Basque Country, Paseo Manuel de Lardizabal, 1, Donostia-San Sebastián, Spain

    Idoia Berges, Jesús Bermúdez, Alfredo Goñi & Arantza Illarramendi

Authors
  1. Idoia Berges
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jesús Bermúdez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Alfredo Goñi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Arantza Illarramendi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Idoia Berges.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Berges, I., Bermúdez, J., Goñi, A. et al. A mechanism for discovering semantic relationships among agent communication protocols. Auton Agent Multi-Agent Syst 23, 453–485 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10458-010-9154-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10458-010-9154-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation