An extensible argument-based ontology matching negotiation approach

Maio, Paulo; Silva, Nuno

doi:10.1016/j.scico.2014.01.011

Cited by 7 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In industrial management, these techniques are applied in management systems for multiple tasks, such as to decide the way to dry an oven in automobile production (Ye et al (2005), Tang and Parsons (2005) 2010), to manage waste-water discharges (Aulinas et al 2012), to decide about an automatic freight process (Chow et al 2013) or to improve the performance of transport systems in rural areas (Velaga et al 2012). Knowledge engineering is another interesting field in which some studies apply argumentation techniques for different tasks, such as to make automatic matching among existing ontologies or knowledge bases (Maio et al 2011;Maio and Silva 2014) or to discuss about a particular issue in medical guidelines (Grando et al 2012). For some critical tasks, argumentation techniques are applied too, such as an emergency rescue (Zhang et al 2012) or security administration (Rowe et al 2012).…”

Section: Application Fieldmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…At this point, we distinguish three different levels (see Table 9): "No, only theory" for studies that use only some simple data to probe the proposed model in a specific case; "Yes, real but private" for studies that evaluate their models with real data but the experiments are not replicable because their data are private or not available for anyone; Maio and Silva (2014) and finally, "Yes, public data" for studies that offer a public repository of datasets to allow the replicability of the experiments. The second aspect to classify a study in this section is whether the proposed model is compared with other alternative models or techniques (see Table 10).…”

Section: Evaluation Process Of the Proposed Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…5.2.6). It allows the agents to perform semantic reasoning with the information that is available in the complete ontology and, even, to make matching of different ontologies (Maio and Silva 2014). Following this approach, some argument formats have been proposed, such as the Argument Interchange Format (AIF) (Chesñevar et al 2006) or ArgDF (Zablith 2007).…”

Section: Combining Approaches To Address a Multifaceted Perspective Omentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

A systematic review of argumentation techniques for multi-agent systems research

Carrera

Iglesias

2015

Artif Intell Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The ability to build arguments that express thoughts is crucial for intelligent interactions among human beings. Thus, argumentation techniques have been applied for years in fields, such as rhetoric or artificial intelligence. More specifically, the agents paradigm fits into the use of these types of techniques because agents shape a society in which they interact to make arrangements or to decide future actions. Those interactions can be modelled using argumentation techniques. Therefore, the application of those techniques in multi-agent systems is an interesting research field. However, no systematic review has been conducted previously, to the best of the authors' knowledge, to provide an overview of argumentation techniques for multi-agent systems. This paper presents a systematic review of argumentation techniques for multi-agent systems research. The period of time that is included in this review is from 1998 to 2014. The objective of this review is to obtain an overview of the existing approaches and to study their impact on research and practice. The research method has been defined to identify relevant studies based on a predefined search strategy, and it is clearly defined to facilitate the reading of this paper. All of the included studies in this review have been analysed from two different points of view: the Application view and the Multi-Agent System view. A comprehensive analysis of the extracted data is provided in the paper, which is based on a set of research questions that are defined. The results of this review reveal suggestions for further research and practice. The argumentation technology is actually in a phase of internal enhancement and exploration. Moreover, the research interest in this topic has increased in the last years. Furthermore, several interesting findings are presented in the paper.

show abstract

Section: Application Fieldmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Evaluation Process Of the Proposed Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Combining Approaches To Address a Multifaceted Perspective Omentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A systematic review of argumentation techniques for multi-agent systems research

Carrera

Iglesias

2015

Artif Intell Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Framework (AAF) (Bondarenko et al, 1993) Toni, 2007, 2008;Fan et al, 2014Fan et al, , 2013 Argumentation-based Negotiation (ABN) (Rahwan et al, 2003) ( Ye et al, 2010;Hsairi et al, 2006;Zhang et al, 2012;ElSisi and Mousa, 2012;Harvey et al, 2007;Brandao Neto et al, 2013;Xue-jie et al, 2013;Sierra et al, 1998;Morge and Beaune, 2004;Alonso, 2004) Three-Layer Argumentation Framework (TLAF) (Maio and Silva, 2012) (Maio et al, 2011;Maio and Silva, 2014) Logic Programming without Negation as Failure (LPwNF) (Kakas et al, 1994) ( Moraitis and Spanoudakis, 2007;Kakas and Moraitis, 2003) …”

Section: Assumption-based Argumentationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Collaborative (Hsairi et al, 2006;Moraitis and Spanoudakis, 2007;Yuan et al, 2009;Obeid and Moubaiddin, 2009;Ge et al, 2010;Hsairi et al, 2010;Ye et al, 2010;Maio et al, 2011;Zhang et al, 2012;El-Sisi and Mousa, 2012;Aulinas et al, 2012;Chow et al, 2013;Grando et al, 2012;Harvey et al, 2007;Marreiros et al, 2005;Rowe et al, 2012;Velaga et al, 2012;Letia and Groza, 2012;Amgoud and Serrurier, 2008;Monteserin and Amandi, 2011;Das, 2005;Bulling et al, 2008;Amgoud and Serrurier, 2007;Huang and Lin, 2010;Janjua and Hussain, 2012;Tao et al, 2014;Wang et al, 2014;Kakas and Moraitis, 2003;Fogli et al, 2013;Fan et al, 2014;Bedi and Vashisth, 2014;Ferrando and Onaindia, 2013;Maio and Silva, 2014;Vicari et al, 2003;Tang and Parsons, 2005;Morge and Beaune, 2004) Competitive (Yuan et al, 2011;Keppens, 2011;Heras et al, 2013b,a;Brandao Neto et al, 2013;…”

Section: Behaviour Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%