Searching in the ISWC Semantic Bank: < negotiation > - One Item Found A Strategy A Strategy for Automated Meaning Negotiation for Automated Meaning Negotiation in Distributed Information Retrieval Vadim Ermolayev Ermolayev � Vadim Zaporozhye National University, Ukraine Natalya Keberle Vladimir Vladimirov Wolf-Ekkehard Matzke Cadence Design System s Gm bH, Germ any CADENCE CONFIDENTIAL Wednesday, November the 9-th, 2005 Session IVb: AGENTS AND DISTRIBUTED ARCHITECTURES
Shall be as informal as possible The Outlook Otherwise we’ll perish in endless deliberation • Motivation: – Google game or – Do we always use the PROPER domain theory? • What happens in Distributed Information Retrieval: – Actors, Roles and the need to reach Agreements (on Domain Theories) • Semantic Context and Negotiation Settings • Meaning Negotiation Strategy: – How to behave smartly to reach agreements – Argumentation: Contexts, Propositional Substitutions, Presuppositions, Concession, Reputation … and around • Conclusions and future work 2 Ask Google: <Strategy+Meaning+Negotiation> ISWC 2005
Do we Use the Proper Domain Theory? •You work on agent-based system implementing a tourism-related application • Who is inventing the same square wheel ? •One usual way to find out: – To ask a search engine: <agent> and <tourism> and <project> – E.g., Google : http://google.com/search?q=agent+tourism+project •The results were … 3 Ask Google: <Strategy+Meaning+Negotiation> ISWC 2005
Seems that … we don’t – at all! Links Found: - 141 000 Analyzed: - 1-50 Among them: Matches: - 13(26%) Mismatches: - 37(74%) 4 Ask Google: <Strategy+Meaning+Negotiation> ISWC 2005
If We’ve been Smarter Tourist Service Software I s _ a •We should have used a Is_a _ s I a different DOMAIN Software Information Flight ONTOLOGY Agent e-Service Booking Implements Synonym_of a e-Service _ Is_a s I •This may have Recommender System led us to … Travel Agent Component_of Agent 5 Ask Google: <Strategy+Meaning+Negotiation> ISWC 2005
… the Transformation Like: • <agent> AND <tourism> AND <project> DOMAI N ONTOLOGY <agent>: synonym_of(<agent>, <software agent>) <software agent>: is_a(<software agent>, <software>) <software agent>: implements(<software agent>, <recommender system>) <software agent>: component_of(<software agent>, <travel agent>) • <tourism> AND <project> AND <software agent> AND (<recommender system> OR <travel agent>) • We have tried Google with that … 6 Ask Google: <Strategy+Meaning+Negotiation> ISWC 2005
Is this the Proper Domain Theory? Resources : 18 Among them : Matches: 15 ( +2 - 94% ) vs 26% before Mismatches: 3 ( 6% ) Interesting to note: All of them could be found among the results (141 000) of the previous query Compare: recall, precision 7 Ask Google: <Strategy+Meaning+Negotiation> ISWC 2005
How to Adhere to the PROPER Domain Theory? •Still not ready to answer •We’ll explore what happens in DIR first … 8 Ask Google: <Strategy+Meaning+Negotiation> ISWC 2005
Information Retrieval Agents in Tourism Projects? 9 Ask Google: <Strategy+Meaning+Negotiation> ISWC 2005
Information Retrieval (semantically mediated – our Google game) Agents in Tourism Projects? DO Software Agents as Recommender Systems in Tourism Projects? 10 Ask Google: <Strategy+Meaning+Negotiation> ISWC 2005
Distributed Information Retrieval (agent-based, mediated… Semantic Context?) Mediator (Agent) Match? Align? DO 1 shot vs iterative IRP (Agent) Semantic Context of a Query is too IRO poor (incomplete) to provide reliable IR 1 shot matching IRP (Agent) IRP (Agent) IRO IRO IR IR 11 Ask Google: <Strategy+Meaning+Negotiation> ISWC 2005
Distributed Information Retrieval (agent-based, mediated, Negotiated Semantic Context) UA RACI NG Query Formulation Mediator Query Transformation QTA Query Decomposition MA Negotiation with IRPAs QPA DO Sub-Query Outsourcing IRP (Agent) IRO IR IRP (Agent) IRP (Agent) IRO IRO IR IR 12 Ask Google: <Strategy+Meaning+Negotiation> ISWC 2005
How to Adhere to the PROPER Domain Theory? •Just observe what people do : Mind that you are software and – Be smart software – Don’t be stubborn – Be ready to concede – As much as your reputation allows – Be pro-active – Try to reach the agreement on the Semantic Context of the Query • Negotiation -incorporating all of the above – Use Argumentation to negotiate – In a way to Concede monotonically to the Deal 13 Ask Google: <Strategy+Meaning+Negotiation> ISWC 2005
Negotiation Settings: One-to-One, Non-Symmetric, Multi-Issue, on Semantic Context •The Goal – The Deal stricken over the Negotiation Set •The Interaction Protocol – Symmetric vs Non-Symmetric – One-to-One , One-to-Many, Many-to-Many •The Negotiation Set – Single-Issue vs Multi-Issue – Semantic Context (the part of the Domain Theory communicated to the negotiation party) •The Strategy (of a party) The FOCUS of the paper – The set of internal Rules an Agent uses to pursue the Goal (of striking the Deal) 14 Ask Google: <Strategy+Meaning+Negotiation> ISWC 2005
Semantic Context after (Beun, van Eijk, and Prüst, 2004) • Definition 1 (Semantic Context): The context C c of Г * is the union of the set Г i of TT ** ∈ a concept c ∈ γ statements Г which are the assumptions over i γ ∈ c and the set Г j of TT statements Г which j may be explicitly inferred from { Г c : � s *** } U Г i ┴ using the rules of the type system: = = C Γ Γ Γ U c i j c * Г stands for Domain Theory ** TT stands for Type Theory See, e.g.: Luo, Z. : Computation and Reasoning: A Type Theory for Computer Science. Int. Series of Monographs on Computer Science. Clarendon Press, Oxford (1994) *** Г c : � s reflects that 1) c is the concept (has the special type “sort”) and 2) this fact (1) may be inferred ┴ from the Domain Theory 15 Ask Google: <Strategy+Meaning+Negotiation> ISWC 2005
Negotiation Strategy: the Questions to be Answered (by providing the Rules) •Let Q has Г Q and M has Г M : – Which of the parties starts first? – Straightforward! Q of course •The others are more difficult : – How to generate argumentation on the semantic discrepancies between Г Q and Г M ? – How to ensure that these discrepancies are eliminated monotonically in negotiation rounds? – How to assess if the current level of these semantic discrepancies is sufficient to strike the deal? – How to find out that the movement to the perfect match (no discrepancies) is no longer possible? 16 Ask Google: <Strategy+Meaning+Negotiation> ISWC 2005
Argumentation on Semantic Discrepancies • Define S emantic D istance as × → Hints on how to SD Γ Γ R : Q M measure the SD • Efficient argumentation should lower the SD are in the paper (monotonically) • Biggest contribution to SD is provided by the “ orphans ” of Г Q wrt Г M (or Г M wrt Г Q ) – Orphans : concepts, concept properties, or propositions expressing relationships of Г Q having no analogy in Г M (or of Г M in Г Q ) • So – find a kind of an extra context Δ o for each encountered orphan, say, o o ≠ ∅ • A party concedes on o if C Δ I o Euzenat, J. et al .: State of the Art on Ontology Alignment. KnowledgeWeb project deliverable D2.2.3, v.1.2. August 2, 2004. URL: http://knowledgeweb.semanticweb.org/ 17 Ask Google: <Strategy+Meaning+Negotiation> ISWC 2005
Orphans: an Example The Google Game Г M Г Q Tourist Service Software Agent Implements I s _ a a Is_a _ s I Software Information Flight Agent e-Service Booking Implements Synonym_of a e-Service _ Is_a s I n I _ d Project o m Recommender a i n System _ o f Orphan in Г Q Travel Agent Component_of Agent Tourism One can find a different (more detailed) example in the paper 18 Ask Google: <Strategy+Meaning+Negotiation> ISWC 2005
Contexts & Propositional Substitutions Г M Г Q • Q -> the Context of a Project : Tourist Service Agent Software – An Agent implements a Project Implements I s • M -> Equivalence _ a a Is_a _ hypotheses : s I – Agent Q ↔ Agent M Software Information – Agent Q ↔ Software Agent M Agent e-Service • M -> Propositional Synonym_of Implements a _ Is_a substitution : s Project I – Software Agent implements a Recommender Recommender System System • Communicated to Q Travel as the Argumentation Agent Component_of Agent ( Context ) • By making Presuppositions 19 Ask Google: <Strategy+Meaning+Negotiation> ISWC 2005
Presuppositions •Based on the computed Sim values • M - Presupposition: Project Q ↔ Recommender System M • M : What if Q submitted – An Agent implements a Recommender System • But NOT – An Agent implements a Project • The Sim value of Agent Q ↔ Software Agent M will GROW n PR U • Formally: Presupposition Set is formed = PR i = wrt the communicated context C i 1 20 Ask Google: <Strategy+Meaning+Negotiation> ISWC 2005
Recommend
More recommend
