University of Jyväskylä Semantic Approach to Dynamic Coordination in Autonomous Systems Artem Katasonov * and Vagan Terziyan University of Jyväskylä, Finland.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
1 University of Namur, Belgium PReCISE Research Center Using context to improve data semantic mediation in web services composition Michaël Mrissa (spokesman)
Advertisements

The 20th International Conference on Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering (SEKE2008) Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering
CH-4 Ontologies, Querying and Data Integration. Introduction to RDF(S) RDF stands for Resource Description Framework. RDF is a standard for describing.
CS570 Artificial Intelligence Semantic Web & Ontology 2
By Ahmet Can Babaoğlu Abdurrahman Beşinci.  Suppose you want to buy a Star wars DVD having such properties;  wide-screen ( not full-screen )  the extra.
SIG2: Ontology Language Standards WebOnt Briefing Ian Horrocks University of Manchester, UK.
Of 27 lecture 7: owl - introduction. of 27 ece 627, winter ‘132 OWL a glimpse OWL – Web Ontology Language describes classes, properties and relations.
Research topics Semantic Web - Spring 2007 Computer Engineering Department Sharif University of Technology.
Adding Organizations and Roles as Primitives to the JADE Framework NORMAS’08 Normative Multi Agent Systems, Matteo Baldoni 1, Valerio Genovese 1, Roberto.
SmartResource Platform and Semantic Agent Programming Language (S-APL) Artem Katasonov and Vagan Terziyan University of Jyväskylä, Finland MATES, Leipzig.
University of Jyväskylä An Observation Framework for Multi-Agent Systems Joonas Kesäniemi, Artem Katasonov * and Vagan Terziyan University of Jyväskylä,
University of Jyväskylä Artem Katasonov, PhD University of Jyväskylä, Finland Visit to MIT.
Sensemaking and Ground Truth Ontology Development Chinua Umoja William M. Pottenger Jason Perry Christopher Janneck.
Industrial Ontologies Group Oleksiy Khriyenko, Vagan Terziyan INDIN´04: 24th – 26th June, 2004, Berlin, Germany OntoSmartResource: An Industrial Resource.
Approaching Web-Based Expertise with Semantic Web Kimmo Salmenjoki: Department of Computer Science, University of Vaasa, Vagan Terziyan: Department.
University of Jyväskylä Semantic Agent Programming Language (S-APL): A Middleware Platform for the Semantic Web Artem Katasonov and Vagan Terziyan University.
1 DCS861A-2007 Emerging IT II Rinaldo Di Giorgio Andres Nieto Chris Nwosisi Richard Washington March 17, 2007.
A Semantic Workflow Mechanism to Realise Experimental Goals and Constraints Edoardo Pignotti, Peter Edwards, Alun Preece, Nick Gotts and Gary Polhill School.
Semantic Web Technologies Lecture # 2 Faculty of Computer Science, IBA.
Knowledge Mediation in the WWW based on Labelled DAGs with Attached Constraints Jutta Eusterbrock WebTechnology GmbH.
New trends in Semantic Web Cagliari, December, 2nd, 2004 Using Standards in e-Learning Claude Moulin UMR CNRS 6599 Heudiasyc University of Compiègne (France)
BiodiversityWorld GRID Workshop NeSC, Edinburgh – 30 June and 1 July 2005 Metadata Agents and Semantic Mediation Mikhaila Burgess Cardiff University.
Aidministrator nederland b.v. Adding formal semantics to the Web Jeen Broekstra, Michel Klein, Stefan Decker, Dieter Fensel,
Ontology Development Kenneth Baclawski Northeastern University Harvard Medical School.
 Copyright 2005 Digital Enterprise Research Institute. All rights reserved. Towards Translating between XML and WSML based on mappings between.
Applying Semantic Web To Enterprise Application Integration By: Vipul Narain.
A. Dogac Grenoble Ecole de Management MEDFORIST Workshop1 Semantics of Web Services Asuman Dogac Middle East Technical University Software R&D Center Ankara,
Agent Model for Interaction with Semantic Web Services Ivo Mihailovic.
RDF and OWL Developing Semantic Web Services by H. Peter Alesso and Craig F. Smith CMPT 455/826 - Week 6, Day Sept-Dec 2009 – w6d21.
Copyright 2002 Prentice-Hall, Inc. Modern Systems Analysis and Design Third Edition Jeffrey A. Hoffer Joey F. George Joseph S. Valacich Chapter 20 Object-Oriented.
MPEG-7 Interoperability Use Case. Motivation MPEG-7: set of standardized tools for describing multimedia content at different abstraction levels Implemented.
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE [INTELLIGENT AGENTS PARADIGM] Professor Janis Grundspenkis Riga Technical University Faculty of Computer Science and Information.
Metadata. Generally speaking, metadata are data and information that describe and model data and information For example, a database schema is the metadata.
LOGIC AND ONTOLOGY Both logic and ontology are important areas of philosophy covering large, diverse, and active research projects. These two areas overlap.
An Ontological Framework for Web Service Processes By Claus Pahl and Ronan Barrett.
Semantic Web - an introduction By Daniel Wu (danielwujr)
©Ferenc Vajda 1 Semantic Grid Ferenc Vajda Computer and Automation Research Institute Hungarian Academy of Sciences.
SSO: THE SYNDROMIC SURVEILLANCE ONTOLOGY Okhmatovskaia A, Chapman WW, Collier N, Espino J, Conway M, Buckeridge DL Ontology Description The SSO was developed.
SEMANTIC AGENT SYSTEMS Towards a Reference Architecture for Semantic Agent Systems Applied to Symposium Planning Usman Ali.
OOAD Unit – I OBJECT-ORIENTED ANALYSIS AND DESIGN With applications
EEL 5937 Ontologies EEL 5937 Multi Agent Systems Lecture 5, Jan 23 th, 2003 Lotzi Bölöni.
Andreas Abecker Knowledge Management Research Group From Hypermedia Information Retrieval to Knowledge Management in Enterprises Andreas Abecker, Michael.
FDT Foil no 1 On Methodology from Domain to System Descriptions by Rolv Bræk NTNU Workshop on Philosophy and Applicablitiy of Formal Languages Geneve 15.
SKOS. Ontologies Metadata –Resources marked-up with descriptions of their content. No good unless everyone speaks the same language; Terminologies –Provide.
Service Service metadata what Service is who responsible for service constraints service creation service maintenance service deployment rules rules processing.
Understanding and using patterns in software development EEL 6883 Software Engineering Vol. 1 Chapter 4 pp Presenter: Sorosh Olamaei.
Ontology Mapping in Pervasive Computing Environment C.Y. Kong, C.L. Wang, F.C.M. Lau The University of Hong Kong.
The future of the Web: Semantic Web 9/30/2004 Xiangming Mu.
Trustworthy Semantic Webs Dr. Bhavani Thuraisingham The University of Texas at Dallas Lecture #4 Vision for Semantic Web.
Of 33 lecture 1: introduction. of 33 the semantic web vision today’s web (1) web content – for human consumption (no structural information) people search.
Ontology Resource Discussion
Extending the MDR for Semantic Web November 20, 2008 SC32/WG32 Interim Meeting Vilamoura, Portugal - Procedure for the Specification of Web Ontology -
ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 32 Plenary and WGs Meetings Jeju, Korea, June 25, 2009 Jeong-Dong Kim, Doo-Kwon Baik, Dongwon Jeong {kjd4u,
Thinking behind the environment for Making Construals (MCE)
1 Proposal on MFI-5: Process model registration based on ontology (MFI4Process) He Keqing Wang Chong 2006/08/29.
Agent Overview. Topics Agent and its characteristics Architectures Agent Management.
USB for Audio There are also several USB Audio chips. You install a custom driver on the host computer, and the USB sound device appears as a Windows (or.
WonderWeb. Ontology Infrastructure for the Semantic Web. IST Project Review Meeting, 11 th March, WP2: Tools Raphael Volz Universität.
EEL 5937 Content languages EEL 5937 Multi Agent Systems Lecture 10, Feb. 6, 2003 Lotzi Bölöni.
OWL Web Ontology Language Summary IHan HSIAO (Sharon)
Enable Semantic Interoperability for Decision Support and Risk Management Presented by Dr. David Li Key Contributors: Dr. Ruixin Yang and Dr. John Qu.
MTA SZTAKI Department of Distributed Systems Hogyan mixeljünk össze webszolgáltatásokat, ontológiákat és ágenseket? Micsik András.
Models of the OASIS SOA Reference Architecture Foundation Ken Laskey Chair, SOA Reference Model Technical Committee 20 March 2013.
Of 24 lecture 11: ontology – mediation, merging & aligning.
1 Representing and Reasoning on XML Documents: A Description Logic Approach D. Calvanese, G. D. Giacomo, M. Lenzerini Presented by Daisy Yutao Guo University.
The Semantic Web By: Maulik Parikh.
ece 627 intelligent web: ontology and beyond
Lecture #11: Ontology Engineering Dr. Bhavani Thuraisingham
ece 720 intelligent web: ontology and beyond
PASSI (Process for Agent Societies Specification and Implementation)
Presentation transcript:

University of Jyväskylä Semantic Approach to Dynamic Coordination in Autonomous Systems Artem Katasonov * and Vagan Terziyan University of Jyväskylä, Finland ICAS, Valencia April 24, 2009 * Artem Katasonov is at present with VTT Technical Research Center of Finland

University of Jyväskylä Coordination  Coordination is one of the fundamental problems in systems composed of multiple interacting processes: –to avoid negative interactions, e.g. conflict over a resource. –to exploit positive interactions, e.g. to reuse a shareable result.  The pre-dominant approach has been to hard-wire the coordination mechanism into the system structure (locks, semaphores).  Re-planning instead of just waiting for a locked resource as well as exploiting positive interactions is possible only through additional hard-wiring: the program code of the processes must have incorporated some knowledge about the behavior of each other.

University of Jyväskylä Coordination in open systems  The traditional approach becomes insufficient when considering more open systems, where the processes and resources composing the system may be unknown at design time, or in evolving systems.  In open systems, we want computational processes to be able to reason about the coordination issues in their system, and resolve these issues autonomously (Decker and Lesser, 1995).  Ideally, we would like to allow ad-hoc interaction, where two standalone independently-designed systems are able to coordinate whenever a need arises.  One way towards this is to enable the relevant processes to communicate their intentions with respect to future activities and resource utilization (Tamma et al.,2005).

University of Jyväskylä Tamma et al. work  Tamma at al. (Univ. Liverpool) developed an ontological framework for dynamic coordination. They stated the need for an agreed common vocabulary, with a precise semantics. –They provided an ontology that defined coordination in terms of agents carrying out activities involving some resources, which can be non- shareable, consumable, etc. –Then, they described the rules for checking for conflicts among activities: e.g. if two activities overlap in time and require the same non-shareable resource, they are mutually-exclusive. –They also described some possible coordination rules to be followed when a conflict of a certain type is detected.  The ontology of Tamma et al. is an upper ontology, i.e. an ontology which attempts to describe the concepts that are the same across all the domains of interest.

University of Jyväskylä Drawbacks of existing work  In Tamma et al. work, roughly speaking, the idea is to make the agents to communicate their intentions and actions using the upper- ontology concepts (i.e. ”resource”, ”activity”) rather than the domain ontology concepts (e.g. ”printer”, ”printing document”) and in so to resolve the problem of evolving domains or domains not fully known at design time.  Hard-wiring the domain ontology concepts into both communicating systems is substituted with hard-wiring the upper ontology concepts –Design-time alignment is still needed. –Cannot coordinate with agents, for which this is not done.  In cases, when domain ontology is shared, bringing every conversation down to the upper ontology sounds somewhat unnatural.

University of Jyväskylä Insights from the Semantic technology  On the other hand, the Semantic Web research explicitly addresses the possibility of multi-ontology systems.  The standard technologies of the Semantic Web, such as RDF Schema (RDF-S) and Web Ontology Language (OWL), on the level of hierarchies of classes, enable communications in which: –The sender of a message can express it in its own domain ontology and does not need to know any integrating upper ontology. –Only the receiver of the message has to know the upper ontology and to have access to a formal definition of the domain ontology of the sender that links the concepts from that ontology to the upper ontology.

University of Jyväskylä An example Domain ontology person: Domain ontology family: Upper ontology human: Upper ontology rdf:, rdfs:, owl: Definition of person: Definition of family: RDF-S / OWL rules DataQuery EnquirerResponder org:Mary rdf:type person:Woman. org:Mary person:hasSon org:Jack. SELECT ?x WHERE {?x rdf:type family:Mother} family:Mother is a subclass of human:Human with the restriction that it must have a property human:hasSex with the value human:FemaleSe x and must also have at least one property human:hasChild. person:Woman is a subclass of person:Person which is in turn a subclass of human:Human. person:Woman has a restriction to have a property human:hasSex with the value human:FemaleSex. Also, person:hasSon is a sub-property of human:hasChild. org:Mary human:hasSex human:FemaleSex. org:Mary human:hasChild org:Jack. org:Mary rdf:type family:Mother. ?x = org:Mary

University of Jyväskylä Dynamic ontological coordination Agent 1 Agent 2 “I plan to x:Scan a book y:BlaBla on org:AgPS4e” “I now z:Print a document on org:AgPS4e” “Does Agent1’s intention concern me?” “I do not know what x:Scan means..” Domain ontology DO2 Domain ontology DO1 Upper ontology: BDI Upper ontology: Coordination Definition of DO2 Definition of DO1 Upper ontology rules DataIntention Coordination rules e.g. of Tamma et al. Beliefs-Desires-Intentions model To interpret action intentions To resolve conflicts

University of Jyväskylä Upper ontology rules  The definition of a domain ontology of actions have to link it to the two upper ontologies (BDI and coordination), in a way that will enable the upper ontology rules to do the following: 1.Interpret an expression of a mental attitude conveying an action intention to obtain the identifier of the intended activity. 2.Match the activity description in the domain ontology definition with the intention to understand what resources will be utilized (or results produced) by the intended action.  E.g. in FIPA SL communication content language: (I (agent-identifier :name agent1) (done (action (agent-identifier :name agent1) (print some.pdf AgPS4e)))). –to extract the name of the activity ”print”. –then, from the definition of that activity, to understand that ”AgPS4e” is the identifier of the resource (printer) that is going to be utilized by the intended action.

University of Jyväskylä Ontology linking process Attempt one or both: Download online ontology definition - may have to ask the sender for URL Ask the sender for the ontology definition Has unknown concepts? Done Is a registered upper ontology? Obtain the definition of own domain ontology in terms of the upper ontology Success? Attempt ontology alignment Success? Respond: NOT UNDERSTOOD YesNo Yes No YesNo

University of Jyväskylä Semantic Agent Programming Language (S-APL)  It is a hybrid of semantic reasoners like CWM and agent programming languages like AFAPL.  RDF-based, uses Notation 3 syntax.  One of basic constructs: implication (just like in CWM): {ex:Weather ex:hasCondition ex:Sunny. ex:Weather has:hasTemperature ?t. ?t > 20 } => {ex:CurrentWeather ex:is ex:good}  Another basic construct: executing an atomic Java component: {sapl:I sapl:do java:ubiware.shared.MessageSenderBehavior} sapl:configuredAs {p:receiver sapl:is “John”. p:content sapl:is “hello”}

University of Jyväskylä With S-APL:  Can define classes of activities:  Can then attach coordination-related properties: org:Scan coord:requires ?scanner.  Can write then interpretations rules – to understand what activities take place and what resources are involved.  Can write then coordination rules – how e.g. to resolve a conflict if one is detected.  Can also define static policies:

University of Jyväskylä Value  Enabling agents to coordinate without assuming any design-time ontological alignment of them: –agent can express an action intention using own vocabulary, –and through the process of dynamic ontology linking other agents will be able to arrive at a practical interpretation of that intention.  The definition of the domain ontology in terms of an upper ontology must be provided. However, such a definition is external to the agents and may be added later, when an agent is already in the operation.  In result, an intelligent agent can potentially communicate with a ”stupid” agent, e.g. from a legacy system.  It is also possible to connect two ”stupid” agents by putting an intelligent middleware in between.

University of Jyväskylä Limitations – Future work  The coordination ontology and the corresponding modeling syntax has to be extended with constructs that will enable describing the effect of an activity on a resource or an attribute of that resource.  Allowing some of an activity’s parameters to come from the background knowledge of the listener agent rather than from the message.  If an activity changes an attribute of a resource, the resource may undergo some follow-up changes due to environmental causes –the identification of conflicts has to be performed as reasoning or planning process rather than based on straightforward rules.

University of Jyväskylä Additional information on S-APL  S-APL web-page  Katasonov A. and Terziyan V. (2008) Semantic Agent Programming Language (S-APL): A Middleware Platform for the Semantic Web. In: Proc. 2nd IEEE International Conference on Semantic Computing (ICSC'08), August 4-7, 2008, Santa Clara, USA © IEEE, pp

University of Jyväskylä 16