Conjunctive queries for ontology based agent communication in MAS

In order to obtain semantic interoperability in open Multi-Agent Systems, agents need to agree on the basis of different ontologies. In this paper we formally define mapping as correspondences between queries over ontologies. Individual mappings are computed by specialized agents using different mapping approaches. Next, these agents use argumentation to exchange their local results, in order to agree on the mappings. Based on their preferences and strength of the arguments, the agents compute their preferred mapping sets. The arguments in such preferred sets are viewed as the set of globally acceptable arguments. These arguments are then represented as conjunctive queries in OWL-DL extended with DL-safe rules [9], a restriction imposed to attain decidability in such query answering system.

[1]  Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon,et al.  Argumentation over ontology correspondences in MAS , 2007, AAMAS '07.

[2]  Nuno Silva,et al.  An Approach to Ontology Mapping Negotiation , 2005, Integrating Ontologies.

[3]  Renata Vieira,et al.  A Cooperative Approach for Composite Ontology Mapping , 2008, J. Data Semant..

[4]  Maurizio Lenzerini,et al.  Data integration: a theoretical perspective , 2002, PODS.

[5]  Erhard Rahm,et al.  COMA - A System for Flexible Combination of Schema Matching Approaches , 2002, VLDB.

[6]  Erhard Rahm,et al.  A survey of approaches to automatic schema matching , 2001, The VLDB Journal.

[7]  Steffen Staab,et al.  Measuring Similarity between Ontologies , 2002, EKAW.

[8]  Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon.  Persuasion in Practical Argument Using Value-based Argumentation Frameworks , 2003, J. Log. Comput..

[9]  Diego Calvanese,et al.  The Description Logic Handbook: Theory, Implementation, and Applications , 2003, Description Logic Handbook.

[10]  Fausto Giunchiglia,et al.  S-Match: an Algorithm and an Implementation of Semantic Matching , 2004, ESWS.

[11]  Boris Motik,et al.  A mapping system for the integration of OWL-DL ontologies , 2005, IHIS '05.

[12]  Frank Dignum,et al.  ANEMONE: an effective minimal ontology negotiation environment , 2006, AAMAS '06.

[13]  Jérôme Euzenat,et al.  Reaching Agreement over Ontology Alignments , 2006, International Semantic Web Conference.

[14]  Boris Motik,et al.  Reducing SHIQ-Description Logic to Disjunctive Datalog Programs , 2004, KR.

[15]  Walter Truszkowski,et al.  Ontology negotiation between intelligent information agents , 2002, The Knowledge Engineering Review.

[16]  Renata Vieira,et al.  An Extended Value-Based Argumentation Framework for Ontology Mapping with Confidence Degrees , 2007, ArgMAS.

[17]  Vladimir I. Levenshtein,et al.  Binary codes capable of correcting deletions, insertions, and reversals , 1965 .

[18]  Phan Minh Dung,et al.  On the Acceptability of Arguments and its Fundamental Role in Nonmonotonic Reasoning and Logic Programming , 1993, IJCAI.

[19]  Erhard Rahm,et al.  Generic Schema Matching with Cupid , 2001, VLDB.

[20]  Boris Motik,et al.  MAFRA - A MApping FRAmework for Distributed Ontologies , 2002, EKAW.

[21]  Jérôme Euzenat,et al.  A Survey of Schema-Based Matching Approaches , 2005, J. Data Semant..

[22]  Peter F. Patel-Schneider,et al.  Reducing OWL entailment to description logic satisfiability , 2004, Journal of Web Semantics.

[23]  Ian Horrocks,et al.  A Conjunctive Query Language for Description Logic Aboxes , 2000, AAAI/IAAI.

[24]  Ian Dickinson,et al.  An Ontology Based Approach to Automated Negotiation , 2002, AMEC.