Maxim Davidovsky, Vadim Ermolayev, Vyacheslav Tolok


Ontologies today are increasingly used as consensual knowledge representations in many distributed applications. However, if a system of knowledge based nodes is decentralized, the ontologies at those nodes differ. Therefore the alignment of knowledge representations is required. One of the promising approaches to solve this heterogeneity is the use of agents for aligning knowledge representations. The paper presents a brief survey of the approaches to agent-based ontology alignment. The analysis of these approaches is grounded on the analysis of the requirements to ontology alignments by typical applications that address semantic heterogeneity in open and decentralized settings.


  1. Abolhassani, H., Hariri, B. B., Haeri, S. H. (2006). On Ontology Alignment Experiments. Webology, 3(3).
  2. Atencia, M., Schorlemmer, M. (2008). Formalising interaction-situated semantic alignment: The communication product. In Tenth International Symposium on Artificial Intelligence and Mathematics (ISAIM'08), Fort Lauderdale, Florida, USA.
  3. Barwise, J., Seligman, J. (1997). Information Flow: The Logic of Distributed Systems. Cambridge University Press.
  4. Bench-Capon, T. J. M. (2003). Persuasion in Practical Argument Using Value-based Argumentation Frameworks. J Logic Computation, (Vol. 13(2003), pp. 429-448).
  5. Bermejo-Alonso, J. et al. (2006). A Survey on Ontologies for Agents. From Theory to Practice. ASLab-ICEA-R2006-002.
  6. Berners-Lee, T. et al. (2001). The Semantic Web. Scientific American, May 2001, p. 29-37.
  7. Besana, P., Robertson, D. (2006). Probabilistic dialogue models for dynamic ontology mapping. In da Costa, P. et al. (Eds.), URSW 7806 Uncertainty Reasoning for the Semantic Web (Vol. 2). Proc. 2nd ISWC Workshop on Uncertainty Reasoning for the Semantic Web, CEURWS (Vol. 218).
  8. Brasoveanu, A. et al. (2010). Generic Multimodal Ontologies for Human-Agent Interaction. Int. J. of Computers, Communications & Control, (Vol. V (2010), No. 5, pp. 625-633).
  9. Brzykcy, G. et al. (2008). Schema Mappings and Agents' Actions in P2P Data Integration System, J. UCS, (Vol. 14(7), pp. 1048-1060).
  10. Cardoso, H. L., Teixeira, D. D., Oliveira, E. (2008). An Ontology-Mapping Service for Agent-Based Automated Negotiation. Proc. AAMAS'08 Workshop on Agent-based Technologies and Applications for Enterprise Interoperability (ATOP).
  11. Cayrol, C., Lagasquie-Schiex, M. (2005). On the Acceptability of Arguments in Bipolar Argumentation Frameworks. Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty, 378-389.
  12. Chuttur, M. Y. (2011). Challenges Faced by Ontology Matching Techniques: Case Study of the OAEI Datasets. Journal of Information Technology, (Vol.3 (1), pp. 33-42).
  13. Davidovsky, M., Ermolayev, V., Tolok, V. (2010). Evaluation of Semi-Automated Ontology Instance Migration. In M. Essaaidi et al. (Eds.), Intelligent Distributed Computing IV, SCI 315 (pp. 179-190), Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg.
  14. Dong, H., Hussain, F. K., Chang, E. (2008). State of the Art in Negotiation Ontologies for MAS. International Journal of Web Services Practices (Vol. 3, No.3-4, pp. 157-163).
  15. Dongilli P., Fillottrani P. R., Franconi E., Tessaris S. (2005). A multi-agent system for querying heterogeneous data sources with ontologies. Proc. of Thirteenth Italian Symposium on Advanced Database Systems, SEBD-2005.
  16. Duckham, M., Worboys, M. (2007). Automated geographic information fusion and ontology alignment. In Belussi, A., Catania, B, Clementini, E., and Ferrari, E. (Eds.), Spatial data on the Web: Modelling and Management, Chapter 6 (pp. 109-132). Springer, Berlin.
  17. Dung, P. (1995). On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence, (Vol. 77(2), pp. 321-357).
  18. Ermolayev, V. et al. (2005). A strategy for automated meaning negotiation in distributed information retrieval. In Proc. 4th ISWC, Galway (IE), 201-215.
  19. Euzenat, J. (2004a). An API for ontology alignment. The Semantic Web - ISWC 2004, 698-712.
  20. Euzenat, J. et al. (2004b). State of the art on ontology Alignment. Deliverable D2.2.3. KWEB/2004/D2.2.3/ v1.2.
  21. Euzenat J. and Shvaiko P. (2007). Ontology Matching, Berlin Heidelberg (DE), Springer-Verlag.
  22. Euzenat, J. et al. (2006). Negotiation and argumentation techniques among agents complying to different ontologies. Deliverable D2.3.7, KWEB, v1.0.
  23. Finin T. et al. (2005). Information Retrieval and the Semantic Web. Proceedings of the 38th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, HICSS 7805, 113a-113a.
  24. Gargantilla, J., Gomez-Perez, A. (2004). OntoWeb: A Survey on Ontology-Based Applications. Deliverable 1.6. OntoWeb Consortium IST Project IST-2000- 29243
  25. Guzzoni, D., Baur, C., Cheyer, A. (2007). Modeling Human-Agent Interaction with Active Ontologies. Artificial Intelligence SS-07-04, 52-59.
  26. Huang, J., Zavala, R., Mendoza, B., Huhns, M. N. (2005). Reconciling Agent Ontologies for Web Service Applications. Multiagent System Technologies: Third German Conference (MATES-05). (Vol. LNAI 3550 pp. 106 - 117), Berlin, Springer Verlag.
  27. Huhns, M. N., Singh, M. P. (1997). Ontologies for Agents. IEEE Internet Computing, (Vol. 1, no. 6, pp. 81-83).
  28. Isaac, A. et al. (2008). Using quantitative aspects of alignment generation for argumentation on mappings. In Proc. ISWC'08 Workshop on Ontology Matching, Karlsruhe, Germany.
  29. Kalfoglou, Y., Schorlemmer M. (2002). IF-Map: An Ontology-Mapping Method based on InformationFlow Theory, Proc. 1st Int. Conf. Ontologies, Databases and Application of Semantics (ODBASE'02), Irvine, CA, USA
  30. Laera, L., Tamma, V., Euzenat, J., Bench-Capon, T., Payne T. (2006). Reaching agreement over ontology alignments. In Proc. The 5th International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC 2006), Athens, GA, USA.
  31. Li, L., Yang, Y. (2008). Agent negotiation based ontology refinement process and mechanisms for service applications. Service Oriented Computing and Applications 2, 15-25.
  32. Maio P., Silva, N. (2010). Ontology Alignment Argumentation with Mutual Dependency Between Arguments and Mappings. International Workshop on Data Engineering meets the Semantic Web (DESWeb), 26th IEEE International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE); Long Beach, (CA), USA.
  33. Mascardi, V. et al. (2007). Enhancing Communication inside Multi-Agent Systems - An Approach Based on Alignment via Upper Ontologies. Proc. Int'l Workshop Agents, Web-Services and Ontologies: Integrated Methodologies (MALLOW-AWESOME 7807), 92-107.
  34. Maudet, N., Parsons, S., Rahwan, I. (2007). Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems: Context and Recent Developments. In Proc. Argumentation in MultiAgent Systems (ARGMAS06). Post-Proc. The Third International Workshop, (Revised), LNCS 4766, Springer-Verlag, 1-16.
  35. Medcraft, P. S., Schiel, U., Baptista C. S. (2003). DIA: Data Integration Using Agents. International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems - ICEIS, 79-86.
  36. Mohammadian M., Jentzsch R. (2004). Chapter II: Computational Intelligence Techniques Driven Intelligent Agents for Web Data Mining and Information Retrieval in Masoud Mohammadian (ed.) Intelligent Agents for Data Mining and Information Retrieval, IDEA Group Publishing, Hershey.
  37. Nagy, M., Vargas-Vera, M. (2010). Towards an Automatic Semantic Data Integration: Multi-agent Framework Approach. In Gang Wu (Eds.) Book chapter in Semantic Web (pp. 107-134). In-Tech.
  38. Obitko, M. (2007). Translations between Ontologies in Multi-Agent Systems. PhD thesis, Czech Technical University in Prague, Czech.
  39. Packer, H. S., Gibbins, N., Jennings, N. R. (2009). Ontology evolution through agent collaboration. Brain 1-4.
  40. Paurobally, S., Tamma, V., Wooldridge, M. (2007). A Framework for Web service negotiation. ACM Transactions on Autonomous and Adaptive Systems (TAAS), (Vol. 2(4)).
  41. Rahwan, I., Simari, G. R. (2009). Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence, (Eds.). Springer.
  42. Scharffe, F. et al. (2007). Analysis of knowledge transformation and merging techniques and implementations. KWEB/2004/D2.2.7/0.8.
  43. Schorlemmer, M. et al, (2007). A formal foundation for ontology-alignment interaction models. International Journal on Semantic Web and Information Systems (Vol. 3(2), pp.50-68).
  44. Sobh T. (2009). Information Fusion Using OntologyBased Communication between Agents. International Arab Journal of e-Technology, (Vol. 1, No. 2).
  45. Tamma, V., Wooldridge, M., Dickinson, I. (2002). An ontology for automated negotiation. In Proc. The international workshop on ontologies in agent systems (OAS 02), AAMAS 02 conference, Bologna, Italy.
  46. Tijerino, Y. A., Al-Muhammed, M., Embley, D. W. (2004). Toward a flexible human-agent collaboration framework with mediating domain ontologies for the semantic web. In Proc. The ISWC 2004 Workshop on Meaning Coordination and Negotiation (pp. 131-142) Hiroshima, Japan.
  47. Trojahn, C. Euzenat, J. (2010). Consistency-driven argumentation for alignment agreement. In Proc. The Fifth International Workshop on Ontology Matching (OM-2010) collocated with the 9th International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC-2010) Shanghai, China.
  48. Trojahn, C. et al. (2009). Comparing Argumentation Frameworks for Composite Ontology Matching. Journal on Data Semantics - JODS (Vol. 10, pp. 237- 263). Springer-Verlag Berlin, Heidelberg.
  49. Trojahn, C., Moraes, M., Quaresma, P., Vieira, R. (2008). A cooperative approach for composite ontology mapping. LNCS 4900, 237.Van Aart, C. et al. (2002). Creating and Using Ontologies in Agent Communication. Telecom Italia EXP magazine (Vol 2, No 3).
  50. Vázquez-Naya, J. M. et al. (2009). Ontology Alignment Overview. Encyclopedia of Artificial Intelligence 2009, (pp. 1283-1289).
  51. Zhdanova A. V. et al. (2004). Ontology Alignment Solution. Deliverable D14 v2.0.
  52. Zuo, L. A. (2006). Semantic and Agent-Based Approach to Support Information Retrieval, Interoperability and Multi-Lateral Viepoints for Heterogeneous Environmental Databases. PhD Thesis, The Department of Electronic Engineering, Queen Mary, University of London.

Paper Citation

in Harvard Style

Davidovsky M., Ermolayev V. and Tolok V. (2012). A SURVEY ON AGENT-BASED ONTOLOGY ALIGNMENT . In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Agents and Artificial Intelligence - Volume 2: ICAART, ISBN 978-989-8425-96-6, pages 355-361. DOI: 10.5220/0003748603550361

in Bibtex Style

author={Maxim Davidovsky and Vadim Ermolayev and Vyacheslav Tolok},
booktitle={Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Agents and Artificial Intelligence - Volume 2: ICAART,},

in EndNote Style

JO - Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Agents and Artificial Intelligence - Volume 2: ICAART,
SN - 978-989-8425-96-6
AU - Davidovsky M.
AU - Ermolayev V.
AU - Tolok V.
PY - 2012
SP - 355
EP - 361
DO - 10.5220/0003748603550361