Rule Responder: Rule-Based Agents for the Semantic-Pragmatic Web.

International Journal of Artificial Intelligence Tools (Impact Factor: 0.32). 12/2011; 20(6):1043-1081. DOI: 10.1142/S0218213011000528
Source: DBLP

ABSTRACT Rule Responder is a Pragmatic Web infrastructure for distributed rule-based event processing multi-agent eco-systems. This allows specifying virtual organizations -- with their shared and individual (semantic and pragmatic) contexts, decisions, and actions/events for rule-based collaboration between the distributed members. The (semi-)autonomous agents use rule engines and Semantic Web rules to describe and execute derivation and reaction logic which declaratively implements the organizational semiotics and the different distributed system/agent topologies with their negotiation/coordination mechanisms. They employ ontologies in their knowledge bases to represent semantic domain vocabularies, normative pragmatics and pragmatic context of event-based conversations and actions.

Download full-text


Available from: Adrian Paschke, Jun 20, 2015
1 Follower
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Rule Responder is a rule-based multi-agent framework in which agents run platform-specific rule engines as distributed inference services. They communicate with each other using Reaction RuleML as the common rule interchange format, e.g. for question answering or execution of mobile rule code in distributed problem solving, concurrent processing workflows and distributed event/action processing. In this paper we demonstrate the new capabilities of Reaction RuleML 1.0 for supporting the functionalities of Rule Responder such as knowledge interface declarations with signatures, modes, and scopes; distributed knowledge modules with static and dynamic scopes enabling imports and scoped reasoning within metadata-based scopes (closed constructive views) on the knowledge base; messaging reaction rules enabling conversation-scope based interactions between agents interchanging queries, answers, and rulebases; and evaluation and testing of interchanged knowledge bases with intended semantic profiles and self-validating test suites. We demonstrate these Reaction RuleML 1.0 capabilities with our proof-of-concept implementation Rule Responder agent architecture and Prova 3.0 rule engine.
    8th International Rule Challenge, Prague, Czech Republic, August 19th, 2014; 08/2014
  • 8th International Symposium, RuleML 2014, Co-located with the 21st European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, ECAI 2014, Prague, Czech Republic; 08/2014
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Frameworks for aggregating similar services into structures called communities have been recently advocated. A common assumption in those frameworks is that residing services are coopetitive, i.e., competing over received requests, but also cooperating, for instance in terms of substituting each other. In this coopetition context, deciding to compete or cooperate at different moments in time is an open question yet to be addressed. The contribution of this paper is the answer to this challenging question by proposing a game-theoretic-based decision mechanism that services can use to effectively choose competition or cooperation strategies that maximize their payoffs. To achieve this objective, we investigate autonomous services’ characteristics and their expected utilities over different strategies. We propose a game-theoretic best response technique to measure the threshold that services can use in order to decide about the two strategies. We prove that the proposed decision mechanism is efficient and can be implemented in time linear in the length of the time period considered for the analysis and the number of services in the community. Moreover, we conduct extensive simulations to analyze various scenarios and confirm the obtained theoretical results. Those results show that our model outperforms existing competitive and random coopetitive strategies and the more services deviate from our game-theoretic-based coopetitive strategy the more they make less benefits.
    Expert Systems with Applications 08/2014; 41(10):4878–4890. DOI:10.1016/j.eswa.2014.02.002 · 1.97 Impact Factor