IntroductionAgents have become a increasingly popular approach in dealing with this overload of online possibilities either for information discovery and filtering or automatic negotiation of services [4][5] [7][9].In multi-agent systems, the knowledge about other agents involves more than the identity or even the services provided. The agent of any particular user would like to know about how these services are provided and whether they suit the user's expectations. So this information (often called 'trust') should be subjective and dynamic and even uncertain (since a good past behaviour does not assure anything about future behaviour). Trust in distributed systems have been discussed by several researchers [5][6][8][1][10]. Our model of reputationDespite some authors [11] consider several kinds of trust, our approach adopt a different point of view: one solely generic trust useful for versatile agents (playing anyrole)Reputation is built through the past experience of the agent and the references received from other agents. Reputation is represented as fuzzy values because it is a subjective and vague point of view about how the future behaviour of other agent would fit in the expectations of the user.We have defined the next general fuzzy sets over the reputation domain. They will allow the user a personalization of the behaviour of his agent introducing his subjective points of view about others from the beginning.Each agent will establish the demand level that he will request to: a) ask for references to other agent (enough to ask)The asked agents will only be those who the agent of the user appreciates enough to ask. This selection is done matching the enough to ask demand level with the reputation of each one of all the agents known.Similarly, each asked agent will answer the reference request, just only if the reputation of the asking agent is enough to answer. This decision is made matching the demand level required by the asked agent to answer a reference request with the reputation of the asking agent. b) give an answer to other agent's question (enough to answer)Each time an asked agent answers, the agent of the user will take into account his opinion to modify the reputation of the merchant.We will use the reputation of the asked agent to determine how much his reference will count for. This fuzzy value of reputation is turned into a crisp value (W) representing the weight of its opinion.The old reputation of the merchant is also estimated (weighted) with a value of 2-W.By this way, the new reputation of the merchant is built as the average sum of two weighted fuzzy reputations: the old one and the reference given by the friendly asked agent.Once the new reputation of the merchant is set, the agent should then verify whether this new reputation value is good enough to start the negotiation with the merchant.This decision is made by matching the enough to buy demand level with the new reputation of the merchant. c) buy from other agent (enough to buy)As we said previously, once the product/service is ...
L a Colección «Batihoja» del Instituto de Estudios Auriseculares llega al número 65 con este libro de Felipe B. Pedraza Jiménez que gira en torno al Arte nuevo lopesco. Invierte en el título el orden más común de «texto y contexto», porque en este caso la edición del discurso de Lope, que ocupa el final de la obra (pp. 131-161), no es lo principal, dado que, como es bien conocido, en 2016 el propio profesor Pedraza, en colaboración con Pedro Conde Parrado, publicó el magno volumen de 978 páginas Arte nuevo de hacer comedias. Edición crítica. Fuentes y ecos latinos, reseñado en esta misma revista por Fausta Antonucci. 1 De la edición crítica y anotada que hace cuatro años presentaba Pedraza se conservan ahora el texto y las variantes «con unas mínimas correcciones regularizadoras» (p. 14), así como con unas «Cuestiones ecdóticas» previas (pp. 133-144) que reproducen con alguna supresión y modificación las consideraciones sobre transmisión textual y criterios editoriales de entonces. No es, pues, una novedad en este sentido, por lo que no haré ningún comentario al respecto en esta reseña, a propósito de un texto en el que poco más hay que discutir, salvo volver quizás sobre alguna cuestión de puntuación, siempre muy opinable.El «contexto» es el del Arte nuevo, sí, pero también, y casi más, este libro es un reflejo de cómo Felipe B. Pedraza intervino muy activamente en el marco conmemo-
Mis pulmones y mi corazón funcionaban o los obligaban a funcionar normalmente; lo mismo ocurría con mis intestinos, esos bufones entre los actores de nuestros autos sacramentales íntimos 1. Un gran poema dramático se parece a un organismo de primer orden, con su estructura esquelética, su anatomía de personajes y de acciones, y su sistema nervioso de ideas, alusiones, símbolos e imágenes 2. Si, por un lado, parece bien repertoriado el conjunto de técnicas y de recursos del personaje del gracioso en la Comedia, no parece que
Reseña de La puesta en escena del teatro áureo: Ayer, hoy y mañana de Duncan Wheeler (trad. Mar Diestro-Dópido).
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.