OIL Ontologies for Collaborative Task Performance in Coalitions of Self-Interested Actors

Ermolayev, Vadim; Keberle, Natalya; Tolok, Vyachyslav

doi:10.1007/3-540-46140-x_30

Cited by 8 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It is assumed in PSI that collaboration mechanisms are based on three types of negotiations which use one basic protocol (extended FIPA CNP) but differ by negotiation sets and strategies [EJM04]: (1) on Task allocation; (2) on Design Artifact re-use; (3) on Software Tool provision. PSI Negotiation ontology based on [EKT02] is used as the namespace for formalizing Negotiation Contexts in all negotiation types.…”

Section: Actors Teams Beliefs and Negotiationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Modeling Dynamic Engineering Design Processes in PSI

Ermolayev¹,

Jentzsch

Karsayev

et al. 2005

Perspectives in Conceptual Modeling

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. One way to make engineering design effective and efficient is to make its processes flexible -i.e. self-adjusting, self-configuring, and selfoptimizing at run time. The paper presents the descriptive part of the Dynamic Engineering Design Process (DEDP) modeling framework developed in PSI 1 project. The project aims to build a software tool assisting managers to analyze and enhance the productivity of the DEDPs through process simulations. The framework incorporates the models of teams and actors, tasks and activities, design artifacts as the major interrelated parts. DEDPs are modeled as weakly defined flows of tasks and atomic activities which may only "become apparent" at run time because of several presented dynamic factors. The processes are self-formed through the mechanisms of collaboration in the dynamic team of actors. These mechanisms are based on several types of contracting negotiations. DEDP productivity is assessed by the Units of Welfare collected by the multi-agent system which models the design team. The models of the framework are formalized in the family of DEDP ontologies.

show abstract

Section: Actors Teams Beliefs and Negotiationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Modeling Dynamic Engineering Design Processes in PSI

Ermolayev¹,

Jentzsch

Karsayev

et al. 2005

Perspectives in Conceptual Modeling

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…• BUSINESS PARTNER (P) -an agent representing A's business partner in Austria with whom A intends to meet in Germany at the time of the conference to discuss a joint proposal As usual in travel planning A is capable of just invoking a T with 'BookRoundtrip' task, to formulate his or her constraints, preferences and needs for special arrangements, and to approve the solutions proposed by the chosen T. According to 'BookRoundtrip' description in terms of task ontology (Ermolayev et al, 2001) known both to A and T (but with different granularity), service inputs are 6 :…”

Section: Travel Planning Scenariomentioning

confidence: 99%

“…usage. This remark seems to be rational as far as we pay either the salary to the office manager or a fee to a travel agent, who make arrangements for us in a human-business environment.Moreover, it is not in the eye of the service requestor, but the agent performing 'BookRoundtrip' service will realize according to the service markup or the Partial Local Plan (PLP) in our terminology (Ermolayev et al, 2001;Ermolayev et al, 2005) that the requested process (OWL-S, 2003) or the task in our terminology (Ermolayev et al, 2001;Ermolayev et al, 2005) is composite and will require cooperation with at least air companies' service providing agents and hotel booking service providing agents. These independent actors will evidently also intend to increase their own utilities by requesting fees for their services.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Negotiation on Web service allocation based on the authors' approach (Ermolayev and Plaksin, 2002) is proposed as the mechanism for dynamic composite service formation. OWL-S (OWL-S, 2003), our Task and Negotiation Ontologies (Ermolayev et al, 2001;Ermolayev et al, 2005;Ermolayev and Keberle, 2006) are used for service dynamic composition and to facilitate inter-agent-operability.Further on it is described how the approach to dynamic agent-based service composition is applied to intelligent rational information retrieval from distributed autonomous resources.Finally, the OntoServ.Net (Kaykova et al, 2004;Terziyan, 2005;Terziyan and Kononenko, 2003) framework and the aspects of service mobility and service adaptation are discussed. The architectural principles for service composition in a peer-to-peer service network are also outlined.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Proactively Composing Web Services as Tasks by Semantic Web Agents

Ermolayev¹,

Keberle²,

Kononenko³

et al.

Modern Technologies in Web Services Research

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The chapter presents the framework for agent-enabled dynamic composition of Semantic Web Services. The approach and the framework have been developed in several research and development projects by ISRG and IOG. The core of the methodology is the new understanding of a Semantic Web Service as a capability of an intelligent software agent supplied with the proper ontological description. It is demonstrated how diverse Web Services may be composed and mediated by dynamic coalitions of software agents collaboratively performing tasks for service requestors. Middle Agent Layer is introduced to conduct the transformation of a WebSemantic Web Services are the emerging technology promising to become one of the future key enablers of the Semantic Web. There are strong prerequisites that, being self-described and selfcontained modular active components, Web services will appear to be the key elements in assembling intelligent software infrastructures in the near future.There is the emerging consensus that the ultimate challenge is to make Semantic Web Services automatically tradable and usable by artificial agents in their rational, proactive interoperation on the next generation of the Web. It may be solved by creating frameworks, standards, and software for automatic Web service discovery, execution, composition, interoperation and monitoring . Personal opinion of the authors is that the list should be extended by the means making services the subject of automated negotiation and trade. It is also important for future service enabled Semantic Web infrastructures to cope with business rules 3 , the notions and mechanisms of reputation and trust with respect to services and service providing agents, dynamic character, flexibility, reconfigurability of partial plans (Ermolayev and Plaksin, 2002), workflows, and modeled business processes.Current industry landscape provides only initial and very partial solutions to the ultimate problem. usage. This remark seems to be rational as far as we pay either the salary to the office manager or a fee to a travel agent, who make arrangements for us in a human-business environment.Moreover, it is not in the eye of the service requestor, but the agent performing 'BookRoundtrip' service will realize according to the service markup or the Partial Local Plan (PLP) in our terminology (Ermolayev et al., 2001;Ermolayev et al., 2005) that the requested process (OWL-S, 2003) or the task in our terminology (Ermolayev et al., 2001;Ermolayev et al., 2005) is composite and will require cooperation with at least air companies' service providing agents and hotel booking service providing agents. These independent actors will evidently also intend to increase their own utilities by requesting fees for their services.The chapter first provides the overview of the basic notions, approaches and architectural solutions with respect to agent paradigm, WWW and the Semantic Web, Semantic Web Services. Detailed discussion of the popular travel planning scenario helps to claim that fullscale Web Se...

show abstract