Combining ontologies and agents to help in solving the heterogeneity problem in e-commerce negotiations

Online e-commerce marketplaces for buying and selling products are omnipresent and bring together several suppliers and buyers. Each supplier and buyer has its own format, concepts and characteristics to represent products. Even if both supplier and buyer use an ontology, they may use ontologies that differ significantly either syntactically or semantically. This paper combines the use of ontologies and agent technologies to help in solving the semantic heterogeneity problem in e-commerce negotiations. Thereby, the focus is on ontologies, whose specifications include a concept (item/product), its characteristics (attributes) with the correspondent data types, a natural language description explaining the meaning of the concept, and a set of relationships among these concepts. Our approach aims at creating a methodology that assesses lexical and semantic similarity among concepts represented in different ontologies without the need to build an a priori shared ontology. The lexical measures are used to compare attributes and relations between concepts. We have classified attributes according to their data value types and considered the relation has-part. For the final validation, we are proposing to use the WordNet-based semantic similarity measure between concept names and between their correspondent descriptions.

[1]  Ian Horrocks,et al.  Patel-Schneider: OIL: Ontology Infrastructure to Enable the Semantic Web , 2001 .

[2]  Nicholas R. Jennings,et al.  On Agent-Mediated Electronic Commerce , 2003, IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng..

[3]  Eiichiro Kodama,et al.  Implementation of FIPA Ontology Service , 2001 .

[4]  George A. Miller,et al.  WordNet: A Lexical Database for English , 1995, HLT.

[5]  M Damashek,et al.  Gauging Similarity with n-Grams: Language-Independent Categorization of Text , 1995, Science.

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

[7]  Walter Truszkowski,et al.  Ontology negotiation between scientific archives , 2001, Proceedings Thirteenth International Conference on Scientific and Statistical Database Management. SSDBM 2001.

[8]  Andreia Malucelli,et al.  Ontology-Services Agent to Help in the Structural and Semantic Heterogeneity , 2004, Virtual Enterprises and Collaborative Networks.

[9]  Alun D. Preece,et al.  Detecting mismatches among experts' ontologies acquired through knowledge elicitation , 2002, Knowl. Based Syst..

[10]  Peishen Qi,et al.  Ontology Translation on the Semantic Web , 2003, J. Data Semant..

[11]  Monique Calisti,et al.  Multilingual Agents: Ontologies, Languages and Abstractions , 2001 .

[12]  Ian Horrocks,et al.  OIL: An Ontology Infrastructure for the Semantic Web , 2001, IEEE Intell. Syst..

[13]  Michel Klein,et al.  Combining and relating ontologies: an analysis of problems and solutions , 2001, OIS@IJCAI.

[14]  Henrik Eriksson,et al.  The evolution of Protégé: an environment for knowledge-based systems development , 2003, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[15]  Deborah L. McGuinness,et al.  Ontologies and Electronic Commerce , 2001, IEEE Intell. Syst..

[16]  M. Brian Blake,et al.  Local consensus ontologies for B2B-oriented service composition , 2003, AAMAS '03.

[17]  Gloria J. A. Guth,et al.  Surname Spellings and Computerized Record Linkage , 1976 .

[18]  Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon,et al.  An Analysis of Ontology Mismatches; Heterogeneity versus Interoperability , 2007 .

[19]  Dieter Fensel,et al.  Ontologies: A silver bullet for knowledge management and electronic commerce , 2002 .

[20]  C. V. Aart Creating and Using Ontologies in Agent Communication � , 2002 .