Developing semantically interoperable e-commerce systems.
ABSTRACT This paper discusses semantic interoperability issues in agentbased E-commerce systems. The literature reports various techniques to enable agents to understand the meanings of the messages exchanged. We will argue how these different techniques can be combined in one agent communication protocol to obtain the best of each world. The resulting communication protocol enables agents to sufficiently understand each other to participate in successful collaboration.
- SourceAvailable from: Amit Sheth[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The huge number of autonomous and heterogeneous data repositories accessible on the “global information infrastructure” makes it impossible for users to be aware of the locations structure/organization, query languages and semantics of the data in various repositories. There is a critical need to complement current browsing, navigational and information retrieval techniques with a strategy that focuses on information content and semantics. In any strategy that focuses on information content, the most critical problem is that of different vocabularies used to describe similar information across domains. We discuss a scalable approach for vocabulary sharing. The objects in the repositories are represented as intensional descriptions by preexisting ontologies expressed in Description Logics characterizing information in different domains. User queries are rewritten by using interontology relationships to obtain semantics preserving translations across the ontologiesCooperative Information Systems, 1996. Proceedings., First IFCIS International Conference on; 07/1996
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Communication in heterogeneous multi agent systems is hampered by the lack of shared ontologies. Ontology negotiation offers an integrated approach that enables agents to gradually build towards a semantically integrated system by sharing parts of their ontologies. This solution involves a combination of a normal agent com-munication protocol with an ontology alignment protocol. For such a combination to be successful, it must satisfy several criteria. This paper discusses the goals and requirements that are important for any ontology negotiation protocol. Fur-thermore, we will propose some implementations that are constructed according to these criteria.International Journal of Agent-oriented Software Engineering - IJAOSE. 01/2007; 1(1).
- 01/2000; Brooks Cole Publishing Co..
Developing Semantically Interoperable
Jurriaan van Diggelen, Frank Dignum
Institute of Information and Computing Sciences
Utrecht University, the Netherlands
This paper discusses semantic interoperability issues in agent-
based E-commerce systems. The literature reports various
techniques to enable agents to understand the meanings of
the messages exchanged. We will argue how these different
techniques can be combined in one agent communication
protocol to obtain the best of each world. The resulting
communication protocol enables agents to sufficiently under-
stand each other to participate in successful collaboration.
Categories and Subject Descriptors
I.2.11 [Artificial Intelligence]: Distributed Artificial In-
telligence—multiagent systems, coherence and coordination;
D.2.12 [Software Engineering]: Interoperability—data map-
Electronic Commerce, Semantic Interoperability, Ontologies
With the advent of the internet, a physical connection has
been established between computers from all over the world.
This offers unprecedented opportunities for electronic com-
merce. One of these opportunities is described in a future
scenario presented by AgentLink . It envisions a fully au-
tonomous software-based travel agent assisting a European
customer in planning a holiday trip to the United States.
The travel agent takes a number of tasks upon itself, such
as finding a cheap flight, arranging transport in the US and
booking accommodation. The agent does not blindly follow
orders. It suggests other possibilities when appropriate and
revises previous plans when unexpected situations arise.
The travel agent must be capable of interacting with other
agents in an open and dynamic environment. This raises
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for
personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are
not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies
bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. To copy otherwise, to
republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific
permission and/or a fee.
ICEC’07, August 19–22, 2007, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.
Copyright 2007 ACM 978-1-59593-700-1/07/0008 ...$5.00.
a number of interoperability issues. Many of these issues
have already been addressed by global standards. For ex-
ample, TCP/IP has been adopted as a standard to establish
network interoperability and XML has become a standard
for achieving syntactic interoperability. However, the com-
plex type of interaction required by the travel agent scenario
raises the need for yet another type of interoperability, i.e.
semantic interoperability. This means that agents should
also be capable of understanding the meaning of the mes-
sages exchanged. For example, the travel agent might en-
counter another agent representing a French airline company
that refers to a flight as a voyage en avion. If the travel agent
does not know that a voyage en avion means the same as a
flight, misunderstandings could arise which would obstruct
Traditionally, semantic interoperability problems have been
attacked in the same way as all other interoperability prob-
lems, i.e. by standardization. This corresponds to the most
popular definition of an ontology: an ontology is a specifi-
cation of a shared conceptualization . Different system
components sharing the same ontology can exchange their
knowledge fluently as their knowledge representations are
compatible with respect to the concepts regarded as rele-
vant and with respect to the names given to these concepts.
Nevertheless, for e-commerce applications, ontology stan-
dardization has fundamental limitations. Mainly, this is be-
cause a standardized ontology forces an agent to abandon
its own world view and adopt one that is not specifically
designed for its task . This may result in a suboptimal
To overcome this problem, various proposals have been
made. Ontology alignment has been proposed as a tech-
nique that enables agents to keep their individual ontologies
by making use of mappings between the different ontologies
. An ontology agent  has been proposed to facilitate
agent communication by registering ontologies and perform-
ing services such as translating between ontologies. Ontol-
ogy Negotiation has been proposed as a technique to en-
able agents to reconcile their heterogeneous ontologies dur-
ing their conversation [4, 34].
In this paper, we will not speak our for one particular
approach as each of them has its advantages and disadvan-
tages. Rather, we will argue how the different techniques
can be combined in one agent communication protocol to
obtain the best of each world. Central to our approach is
that not every agent needs to understand every other agent
completely. The speaker should only be capable of commu-
nicating the information that is relevant to the hearer. This
prevents that ontology reconciliation requires every agent to
know every other ontology in the world, which would clearly
The paper is organized as follows. Section 2 discusses the
ontology standardization approach. Given the current prac-
tice, we will set out some requirements for agent communica-
tion. Section 3 discusses the ontology alignment approach.
We will show how this technique can be used to overcome
the shortcomings of the standardization approach and argue
which requirements this imposes on agent communication.
Section 4 discusses dynamic ontology reconciliation and the
requirements for agent communication. Section 5 introduces
the agent communication protocol which meets the require-
ments set out in the previous sections. We conclude in Sec-
2. ONTOLOGY STANDARDIZATION
Many authors have stressed that an ontology captures
consensual knowledge, which is not private to an individ-
ual, but accepted by a group . This corresponds to how
ontologies were originally conceived in the early 90s, namely
as a specification of a shared conceptualization . At the
time, ontologies were used to support knowledge sharing and
reuse . They were envisioned as key components to re-
alize the goals of the Knowledge Sharing Effort , an ini-
tiative to enable libraries of reusable knowledge components
that can be invoked over networks. Using these libraries,
developers would no longer have to start their knowledge
bases from scratch. Instead, they could assemble a number
of reusable components (such as reasoning modules and on-
tologies), and focus on the specialized task which would be
new to their specific system. A standardized ontology can
be said to enable knowledge sharing as it provides a way to
specify content-specific agreements. Once the ground rules
for modeling a domain are specified in an ontology, multiple
parties can agree to adhere to that specification. This would
enable them to share knowledge, as their knowledge bases
would all have the same underlying structure.
This vision has stimulated various types of research. A
very ambitious approach is to develop an all-purpose ontol-
ogy as pursued in the Cyc project . If the Cyc ontology
would indeed be usable for all purposes, it would be the ideal
candidate for a standard ontology of all agents. This would
solve all semantic interoperability problems, as every agent
would share one and the same ontology: the Cyc ontology.
However, it is highly unlikely that the Cyc project will suc-
ceed in the goal of creating an ontology that is applicable
to all e-commerce applications. The all-purpose ontology
would need to contain all product names of every company
in the world, which is hardly conceivable. Furthermore, even
if it would be feasible to create such an ontology, it would
be too large to be practicable. To illustrate this point, ac-
cording to a recent article , the Cyc knowledge base cur-
rently contains more than 2.2 million assertions and more
than 250,000 terms.
A less drastic way to standardize ontologies are top-level
ontologies. A top-level ontology describes very general con-
cepts that are the same for every domain and are not depen-
dent on task and purpose. The aim is to use this ontology
as a ground for more specialized (task-specific) ontologies.
This already creates some degree of interoperability between
different components that are based on the same upper on-
tology. Examples of top-level ontologies are the upper-level
ontology by Sowa , SUMO  and BFO .
Mostly, a standard ontology is developed for a specific
domain. For example, standardized ontologies have been
proposed for the financial domain , for the travel do-
main  and for representing information about the crew
of a space shuttle . Domain specific ontologies are made
publicly available in ontology libraries (e.g. ontolingua ).
In this way, a developer can easily select one or more on-
tologies that best suit the needs of an agent. Developers
can guarantee semantic interoperability between agents by
agreeing to use the same standardized ontology. Further-
more, even without such an agreement between developers,
two agents representing knowledge about the same domain
could coincidentally use the same underlying standard ontol-
ogy. It is expected that, when building software with ontolo-
gies becomes common practice, every domain will have its
own standard and widely used ontologies. Agent developers
will be eager to equip their agents with a popular ontology
to make them interoperable with as many other agents as
2.1 Using standardized ontologies in agent
Given the current practice of applying standardized on-
tologies, we will now discuss the consequences for agent com-
munication. If every agent would use the same standard all-
purpose ontology, ontology issues would require little atten-
tion from the agent communication community. However,
as has been argued above, this scenario is highly unlikely.
We make the following two observations. Firstly, ontology
standardization typically leads to partially shared ontolo-
gies, not necessarily to fully shared ontologies. This is the
case for top-level ontologies. Also when agents use multi-
ple domain-specific ontologies, some of the ontologies may
be shared, while others may not. Secondly, ontology stan-
dardization may lead to ontologies being shared without the
agents being aware of this. Two agents may use the same
standard ontology, because their developers independently
chose the same popular standard ontology for modeling that
Figure 1 shows two example ontologies of agents Ag-1 and
Ag-2 that could result from an ontology standardization ef-
fort. We assume simple ontologies consisting of concepts
in a subconcept hierarchy. An arrow between two concepts
represents a subconcept relation (and against the flow a su-
perconcept relation). Two concepts in two different branches
in the ontology are disjoint. Concepts that are equivalent or
overlap are connected with a line with the ≡ or ⊕ symbol in
it. For readability, we have left out concept relations that
are derivable from other relations.
In the context of ontology standardization, a number of
other things are noteworthy. Firstly, the concepts are pre-
fixed with the ontology name followed by a colon, i.e. they
are namespaced. This avoids naming conflicts by ensuring
that concepts from different ontologies always have different
names. Secondly, the ontologies are composed of two stan-
dardized ontologies: so1 for representing flight information
and so2 for representing location information. Furthermore,
the ontologies are extended with additional concepts from
ontologies o1 and o2 that are required to meet the domain-
specific needs of the agents. In this way, the phenomena
discussed earlier are clearly present in this example.
Figure 1: Example scenario of ontology standardization
The ontologies are not fully shared. For example, the de-
velopers did not agree on a standardized ontology for model-
ing the concept accommodation. Consequently, the concepts
o1:accommodation and o2:accommodations are not shared.
Also, Ag-1 has added some specific concepts to its ontol-
ogy such as o1:Boeing-737 and o1:Boeing-747. The shared
concepts that the agents’ developers have agreed upon are
represented with a box around them. Examples of these
are the concepts in ontology so1. We will refer to these as
common concepts. So-called unknowingly shared concepts
are known by both agents without the agents being aware
of this, i.e. they are shared without explicit agreement. Ex-
amples of unknowingly shared concepts are the concepts in
2.2 Requirements for agent communication
For an agent communication protocol to deal with these
phenomena, a number of requirements can be identified.
These requirements are listed below:
1. Agents should maximally exploit the potential use of
2. Agents should exploit the use of unknowingly shared
The first requirement can be fulfilled by allowing the speaker
to compose its message using a more general concept than
what it actually intended to convey.
should be allowed to translate its concept o1:Boeing-737 to
the more general common concept so1:sd-flight while send-
ing a message to Ag-2. From the perspective of Ag-2, there
is no information loss, as its ontology cannot contain the
more specific concept o1:Boeing-737 anyway. The benefit of
message generalization is that Ag-2 can understand sd-flight
while it cannot understand the specific concept Boeing-737.
The second requirement can be fulfilled by allowing the
speaker to use non-common concepts (which may turn out to
be unknowingly shared). For example, Ag-1 should be able
to use so2:location, which happens to be understandable to
Ag-2. However, if Ag-1 would use the concept o1:Boeing-
737 which is not understandable to Ag-2, the agents should
find a way to convey the information differently. When the
agents have discovered that a concept is unknowingly shared,
the concept instantaneously becomes a common concept.
We will come back to these issues when we will discuss
the complete communication protocol in Section 5.
For example, Ag-1
It is widely agreed that ontology standardization cannot
solve all semantic interoperability problems. The limitations
can best be understood by recognizing that ontologies are
highly task-dependent . An agent needs an ontology that
is tailored to its own task. By assembling standardized on-
tologies for the purpose of interoperability, this aspect of on-
tologies is not taken seriously. The agent soon gets burdened
with a huge ontology that is for the largest part composed
with concepts that are irrelevant for the agents task. For
example, to solve all semantic interoperability problems in
an e-commerce setting, an agent would have to be equipped
with an ontology that is composed of every ontology in the
system. Clearly, such an ontology would be too large to be
of practical use.
In the next section, we will discuss a technique that can
be used to overcome these problems.
Ontology alignment allows the agents to maintain their
own task-specific ontologies. Communication is enabled by
a set of pre-defined mappings, which specify the relations
between the agents’ ontologies. The mappings are mostly
created by humans. For this purpose tools have been devel-
oped that assist people in mapping ontologies. Examples of
such tools are Chimaera , Prompt  and FCA-Merge
Two different topologies can be used to implement ontol-
ogy mappings: point-to-point mappings and using an inter-
mediate ontology. In the point-to-point topology, a mapping
is defined for every pair of ontologies. The speaker uses these
mappings to translate directly from its own ontology to the
hearer’s ontology. The disadvantage of the point-to-point
topology is that many mappings have to be established in
order to align the agents’ ontologies. To reach complete in-
teroperability in a system of n agents,
must be established (equal to the number of non-reflexive,
non-directed arches in a fully connected graph). A way to
reduce the number of mappings is to use an intermediate on-
tology or interlingua  which indirectly aligns the agents’
ontologies. In this way, the speaker may translate from its
own ontology to the intermediate ontology, which the hearer
translates again to its own ontology.
Concepts can be mapped in different ways. One way is to
state that two concepts are equivalent, i.e. an equivalence
mapping. Another way of concept mapping uses into map-
2n2− n mappings
Figure 2: Example of combined ontology standardization and alignment
pings and onto mappings [29, 5]. An into mapping states
that one concept is more specific than the other, whereas an
onto mapping states that one concept is more general than
In our approach, we avoid the introduction of specialized
mapping operators by introducing a special type of concept,
i.e. an acquired concept. Acquired concepts are defined ad-
ditionally to the concepts already present in the agent’s on-
tology, i.e. the agent’s native concepts. Contrary to the
agent’s native concepts, acquired concepts are not used for
storing knowledge and reasoning. They only serve as a way
to specify a mapping between agents’ ontologies. Figure 2
illustrates the use of acquired concepts for ontology align-
ment, where acquired concepts are represented as shaded.
An equivalence mapping can be easily represented by adding
an acquired concept to the ontology which is defined as an
equivalent concept with one of the native concepts. For ex-
ample, Figure 2 represents that o1:accommodations is equiv-
alent with o2:accommodation. An into mapping can be rep-
resented by adding an acquired concept as a subconcept of a
native concept (e.g. o1:hotel is mapped into o2:accommodation).
An onto mapping can be represented by adding an acquired
concept as a superconcept of a native concept (e.g. o1:hotel
is mapped onto o2:holiday-inn).
Acquired concepts can be used both for representing point-
to-point mappings as well as for representing an intermedi-
ate ontology. The first topology can be realized by adding
the native concepts of one agent’s ontology as acquired con-
cepts to the other agent’s ontology, for every pair of agents.
The second topology can be realized by first establishing a
distinguished set of concepts, and adding these as acquired
concepts to all agents’ ontologies.
The benefit of using acquired concepts to represent con-
cept mappings is that the standard facilities for ontological
reasoning are applicable. Nevertheless, it imposes some re-
quirements on agent communication, which will be discussed
3.1 Requirements for agent communication
Because acquired concepts are not used for knowledge rep-
resentation and reasoning, an agent should only use acquired
concepts for communication purposes. This requirement is
Agents should only apply acquired concepts for communica-
This requirement can be straightforwardly met by specify-
ing that the hearer of a message translates acquired concepts
to its native ontology. The speaker is allowed to use acquired
concepts in its messages in the same way as it would use na-
One might raise the objection that an agent should also be
allowed to represent its knowledge in terms of acquired con-
cepts, i.e. that the ontology of the knowledge base should
include acquired concepts. This objection is misguided for
the following reason. The knowledge-base of an agent is not
an independent component, but is strongly interwoven with
the agent’s internal workings. Changing the ontology of the
knowledge base would also require a change in the agent’s ac-
tion selection criteria and goal selection criteria and so forth.
Adding the relations of an acquired concept with the agent’s
native concepts is one thing, but specifying how the agent
should use an acquired concept in planning and goal selec-
tion is far more difficult. Thus, the application of acquired
concepts is, by definition, restricted to communication.
The use of ontology alignment for e-commerce systems
suffers a disadvantage: it presumes that all mappings can
be established at design-time, before the agents start inter-
acting. This assumption does not always hold because of
two reasons. Firstly, in an open system, it is not known
beforehand which agents will constitute the system. It is
therefore impossible to state at design-time which ontology
mappings are needed at agent interaction time. Secondly,
it is not clear when design-time stops and interaction time
starts. As many development methodologies point out ,
system development should proceed in a number of itera-
tive cycles. According to the so-called development cycle,
improvements are implemented in each cycle based on the
findings from the previous cycle. This means that agents,
and their ontologies in particular, also evolve at interaction
time . Ontology alignment is not flexible enough to deal
with changing ontologies, as it assumes that one moment
exists after which the agents’ ontologies no longer change.
Some concepts may still not be understandable to other
agents after the ontology standardization and alignment ef-
fort. In Figure 2, o1:Boeing-737 and o2:bus are such con-
cepts. If the problem is insurmountable, the agents must
be able to reconcile the ontological difference at agent inter-
action time. A wide range of proposals exist which can be
applied for this purpose. Before we discuss how dynamic on-
tology reconciliation techniques can be incorporated in agent
communication, we will discuss two categories of these tech-
niques: ontology mediators and automatic ontology map-
One way to obtain an ontology mapping at agent interac-
tion time is to use a mediation service , or ontology agent.
According to the FIPA Ontology Service Specification ,
an ontology agent facilitates agent communication by regis-
tering ontologies, generating mappings between ontologies,
and by making translations between ontologies. In other
words, an ontology agent provides a central point which can
be consulted by agents with communication problems. This
approach opens the possibility to reconcile heterogeneous
ontologies at agent interaction time, thus being more flex-
ible than ontology alignment. Other approaches that use
mediation services are KRAFT  and OBSERVER .
Although the mediation approach might appears as an at-
tractive solution for interoperability problems in multi-agent
systems, it does not solve the problem of how to establish
these mappings themselves. Basically, it relocates the prob-
lem from the individual agents to the ontology agent. Fur-
thermore, the ontology agent must be trusted by the agents
using them to provide the correct ontology mappings.
4.2 Automatic ontology mapping techniques
When no (trusted) ontology mediator is present to re-
solve the ontological heterogeneities, the agents must be
able to establish an ontology mapping themselves. This can
be done by using automatic ontology mapping techniques.
These techniques can be subdivided in the following four
categories: extensional methods, terminological methods,
structural methods, semantics-based methods . We will
briefly discuss each of them below.
Extensional methods compare the instances of classes. For
example, o1:accommodations can be derived to be equiva-
lent to o2:accommodation by observing that all instances
of o1:accommodations (e.g. URL’s of the web pages of ac-
commodations) are also instances of o2:accommodation (see
 for an application with news agents). For this tech-
nique to work, a number of criteria must be met. Firstly,
the instances must be represented uniformly. For example,
the technique fails if one agent uses a URL to represent
an instance of accommodation, and the other agent uses
a string with the name of the accommodation. Secondly,
the agents must be able to compare instances of classes.
Either, the instances in their knowledge bases overlap, or
they can classify unseen instances to classes in their ontol-
ogy. For example, suppose that o1:accommodations contains
only instances of accommodation in the United States, and
o2:accommodation contains only instances of accommoda-
tion in Great Britain. If Ag-2 cannot recognize that an
instance of o1:accommodations qualifies as an instance of
o2:accommodation, the technique breaks down.
Terminological methods compare the strings that are used
as the names of classes. The methods range from finding
a common substring in two strings, using Wordnet , to
using translation dictionaries to translate between different
languages. Whereas these approaches might produce good
results on some occasions, they presume that the developers
of the ontologies have chosen self-evident names. In an e-
commerce setting, the ontology may very well contain prod-
uct names that are not self-evident at all and do not occur
in Wordnet or translation dictionaries, e.g. DC10. Termi-
nological methods fail on such occasions.
Structural methods compare the structures of classes in
an ontology. For example, if two concepts have the same
number of attributes, they are judged as being similar to a
certain degree. Such methods, perhaps in combination with
other methods, might help in finding the right ontology map-
pings, but do not provide reliable evidence. For example the
concepts so2:location, so2:city, so2:country are structured in
exactly the same way as so1:flight, so1:sd-flight, so1:ld-flight
(one superconcept, two subconcepts).
Semantics-based methods make use of the formal seman-
tics of ontology languages to derive ontology mappings. For
example, subsumption or satisfiability tests are used, which
are well-studied reasoning tasks in description logic. The
limitations of these methods are that they only become us-
able after a preprocessing phase in which a number of con-
cept mappings are declared. When no relations at all are
known to exist between ontologies, these techniques are not
usable to derive ontology mappings.
4.3 Requirements for agent communication
From Section 4.1 and 4.2, we can conclude that no uni-
versally applicable technique exists to dynamically reconcile
heterogeneous ontologies. Ontology mediators may not al-
ways possess the desired ontology mapping, and different
techniques for automatic ontology mapping have a different
scope of application. What the different techniques have
in common, is that they are resource-consuming.
matic ontology mapping techniques are usually based on
machine learning techniques and require much computing
power. Finding an ontology mediator that knows the cor-
rect mapping may also be a difficult task. Additionally, it is
well conceivable that such ontology agents will charge money
for their services.
In this paper, we will not commit to any particular dy-
namic ontology reconciliation technique. Rather, we will ar-
gue how such a technique should be embedded in agent com-
munication, knowing that it is resource consuming. In our
framework, dynamic automatic ontology reconciliation boils
down to adding an acquired concept at run-time. We call
this process concept explication. To improve efficiency, the
agents should only apply concept explication when strictly
needed. This is stated in the following requirement.
Agents should explicate concepts when needed and only when
As argued in Section 2.2, the speaker is allowed to state
its message in more general common concepts, when what
it really intends to convey can only be expressed in non-
common concepts. As has been argued, the resulting in-
formation loss may not be noticeable for the receiver. For
example, there is absolutely no need for Ag-2 to learn the
concepts o1:Boeing-737 and o1:Boeing-747 as this would
not add anything to what can be communicated between
Ag-1 and Ag-2. Sometimes, however, the information loss
affects the effectivity of communication. In the extreme case,
the agents would communicate everything using the common
concept so1:something. Clearly, such communications would
lead to an intolerable amount of information loss. Therefore,
when the speaker sends a message which is overgeneralized,
the hearer should recognize this and only then apply con-
cept explication. After the speaker has taught the concept to
the hearer, the hearer adds the concept as an acquired con-
cept to its ontology. This extra common concept allows the
message to be sent more precisely next time. The precise
workings of this mechanism are discussed in the following
In this section, we will give the precise workings of the
agent communication protocol that meets the requirements
1, 2 and 3. An overview of the communication protocol is
given in Figure 3.
Figure 3: Communication protocol
As has been argued in Section 4, we will not give a gen-
eral specification of how the agents explicate concepts. De-
pending on the domain, an appropriate method for concept
explication must be implemented. For Send message, In-
terpret message and Evaluate message, we will give generic
template decision procedures which should be used by every
agent in the system. In discussing the protocol, the following
terminology is useful. concept c is called a particularization
of d if c is a subconcept of d or c overlaps with d. A concept
c is called an implied concept of d if c is a superconcept of d
or c is equivalent with d.
We will now specify Send message as follows:
Specification 1. Send Message
The speaker translates what it intends to convey to:
• the most specific common implied concept, or
• an implied concept that is more specific than the most
specific common implied concept
As argued in Section 2.2, the speaker should be allowed
to compose its message in more general common concepts,
in order to make maximal use of common concepts. This is
specified in the first option. However, when multiple com-
mon superconcepts are available, the speaker must choose
the most specific one. For example, when Ag-1 intends to
convey o1:Boeing-737, it may use the most specific super-
concept so1:sd-flight, but it may not use the common su-
perconcept so1:flight. In this way, the speaker minimizes
Requirement 1.2 states that the speaker should exploit the
use of unknowingly shared concepts. This is specified in the
second option of Specification 1. However, the speaker is
only allowed to use a non-common concept in its message
when this enables it to convey its message more specifically
than would be possible using a common concept. There-
fore, the specification states that if the agent uses a non-
common concept, its should be more specific than the most
specific common implied concept. In this way, the speci-
fication avoids incomprehension by the hearer as much as
Message interpretation is specified as follows.
Specification 2. Interpret Message
The hearer translates the concept in the message to the most
specific implied native concept.
As described in Requirement 2, the agent should only use
acquired concepts in communication. Therefore, when the
agent interprets a message, it translates the concept to its
native ontology. To minimize information loss, the hearer
must translate to the most specific implied native concept.
Because a concept in a message may be unknown or over-
generalized, the hearer must evaluate the message and pro-
vide an appropriate response. Message evaluation is speci-
fied as follows.
Specification 3. Evaluate message
Let c be the concept which is used in the message.
• If c does not occur in the hearer’s ontology, Then the
hearer evaluates ”Concept unknown”
• If c is sent using ”Inform” and the hearer’s ontology
contains concepts which are
– native particularizations of c, and
– are not a common subconcept of c, and
– are not a subconcept of a common subconcept of c
Then the hearer evaluates ”Concept overgeneralized”
• Else the hearer evaluates ”OK”
The first rule regards unknown concepts. When the speaker
uses a non-common concept in the message which is not
understood by the hearer, the hearer replies ”Concept un-
known”, after which the speaker explicates the concept.
The second rule regards concepts that are known but
might be overgeneralized. There are two methods for en-
suring that the messages are not overgeneralized.
The first method is performed by the speaker. If it trans-
lates what it does not state its message in more general
terms, it lets this be known by sending a message of the ”Ex-
actInform” type. If, on the other hand, it sends a message
that is stated in more general concepts, it sends a message of
the ”Inform”type. When an ”ExactInform”message is sent,
the hearer knows that the message is not overgeneralized.
The second method applies when an ”Inform” message is
sent, in which case it is more difficult to recognize over-
generalization. The hearer recognizes overgeneralization by
reasoning as follows. Upon hearing that an object belongs to
the concept used in the message, it knows that the object is a
member of every implied concept of the concept in the mes-
sage and that the object is not a member of all concepts that
are disjoint with the concept in the message. This knowl-
edge cannot be a symptom of overgeneralization. However,
the hearer remains ignorant about the particularizations of
the concept used in the message. This ignorance may be a
symptom of overgeneralization. Thus, native particulariza-
tions may indicate overgeneralization. This is stated in the
first condition of the second rule.
However, not all native particularizations indicate over-
generalization. Remember that Specification 1 requires the
speaker to use the most specific common implied concept (or
to a non-common subconcept of that). The aim of this mea-
sure was to prevent the speaker from becoming more general
than necessary. However, it can also be used to enable the
hearer to form a belief about what the speaker intended to
convey and what it did not. In philosophy of language, such
a derivation is known as a conversational implicature . In
our proposal, it works as follows: the hearer knows that the
speaker does not intend to convey the common subconcepts
of the concept used in the message, otherwise it would have
used a different concept in the message. It therefore knows
that these concepts do not indicate overgeneralization. This
is stated in the second condition of the second rule. More-
over, the hearer can reason as follows. It also knows that the
speaker did not intend to convey any non-common subcon-
cepts of the common subconcept of the concept used in the
message. This is stated in the third condition of the second
1. Consider the ontologies in Figure 1. Ag-2 intends to
convey o2:accommodation. Ag-2 translates to the most
specific common implied concept so1:something and
sends an Inform-message. Ag-1 replies that ”Concept
overgeneralized”, because its ontology contains the na-
tive particularization o1:accommodations. Ag-2 trans-
lates o2:accommodation to the non-common concept
o2:accommodation and sends an ExactInform-message.
Ag-1 replies ”Concept unknown”. Ag-2 explicates the
concept. o2:accommodation is added to Ag-1’s ontol-
ogy as an acquired common concept which is equiva-
lent to o1:accommodations and Ag-2’s ontology repre-
sents that o2:accommodation is common (as in Fig-
ure 2). Ag-2 sends the message again with concept
o2:accommodation. Ag-1 interprets the message as the
most specific implied native concept o1:accommodations,
and responds ”OK”.
2. Consider the ontologies in Figure 2. Ag-2 intends to
convey o2:holiday-inn. Ag-2 translates to o1:hotel and
sends an Inform-message.
sage as o1:hotel. Ag-1 evaluates the message as ”OK”,
because its ontology cannot contain more specific infor-
mation, i.e. there are no native particularizations of
Ag-1 interprets the mes-
3. Consider the ontologies in Figure 2. Ag-2 intends to
convey o2:bus, which Ag-2 translates to so1:transport.
Ag-2 sends an Inform-message.
message as OK, because all native particularizations of
so1:transport are either common, or a subconcept of a
common concept. Therefore, it knows that, if more spe-
cific information could have been conveyed, Ag-1 would
have used a more specific concept.
Ag-1 evaluates the
4. Consider the ontologies in Figure 2. Ag-2 intends to
convey so2:location. Ag-2 translates to the most spe-
cific common implied concept so1:something and sends
an Inform-message. Ag-1 replies that ”Concept over-
generalized”. Ag-2 translates so2:location to the non-
common concept so2:location and sends another mes-
sage. Ag-1 understands the message, and responds
”OK”. After this conversation, both agents represent
the concept so2:location as common concepts.
This example shows how the dialogue mechanism fulfills
the requirements introduced in this paper. The agents ex-
ploit the potential use of common concepts (Requirement
1.1) by expressing themselves in more general common con-
cepts without losing information in the communication pro-
cess. As appears from Example 1.2 and 1.3, this prevents
the unnecessary explication of concepts. The use of unknow-
ingly shared concepts (Requirement 1.2) is demonstrated in
Example 1.4. The agents effectively apply acquired concepts
in agent communication, as appears from Example 1.2 (Re-
quirement 2). Finally, the agents explicate concepts when
needed and only when needed (Requirement 3). As demon-
strated in Example 1.1, the agents adequately recognize in-
formation loss which leads to the necessary application of
concept explication. The agents also recognize when con-
cept explication is not needed. As demonstrated in Example
1.2, Ag-1 recognizes that no information is lost, as its on-
tology cannot represent more specific information. Example
1.3 shows the use of conversational implicatures to recognize
that as much information as possible has been conveyed.
This paper demonstrates how various techniques for ontol-
ogy reconciliation can be combined to develop semantically
interoperable E-commerce systems. The informal style of
presentation serves this purpose well. Nevertheless, many
applications require a more rigorous treatment in order to
formally verify the communication mechanism.
presented such a formal analysis in . Using formal com-
munication protocols and description logic ontologies , we
provided solid proofs that the communication mechanisms
possess the desirable properties. A brief discussion on these
desirable properties is given below.
To analyze the issues relevant to ontology reconciliation,
it must be possible to compare two concepts from two dif-
ferent ontologies. Whereas formal ontology languages such
as description logics  provide accurate means to specify
the relations between concepts in the same ontology, they
leave the relation between concepts in different ontologies
undefined. We have addressed this problem by introduc-
ing the notion of a god’s eye view ontology, i.e. the ontology
that would arise if the Venn-diagram representations of each
agent’s ontology would be placed on top of each other.
Within the god’s eye view ontology, the notions of sound
and lossless communication can be formally defined. Sound
communication means that the concept as interpreted by the
hearer is a superconcept of the concept the speaker intends
to convey. Lossless communication means that the concept
as interpreted by the hearer is the most specific supercon-
cept of the concept the speaker intends to convey. We have
proven that the mechanisms for sending and interpreting
messages as specified in 1 and 2 guarantee sound communi-
cation. We have proven that the evaluation mechanism of
Specification 3 guarantees lossless communication.
When the agents start in a situation which is most dif-
ficult, they do not share any concepts with each other. In
order to reduce the required number of concept explications
to a minimum, the agents should bring about as few com-
mon concepts as possible. The smallest amount of common
concepts which can be used for lossless communication of
every concept is called an optimal communication vocabu-
lary . We have proven that a slightly extended version of
the communication mechanism presented here is guaranteed
to establish an optimal communication vocabulary .
In this paper, we have discussed various approaches pro-
posed in the literature for solving semantic interoperability
problems. For E-commerce systems, every approach is use-
ful in some sense. Therefore, we have incorporated all tech-
niques in one agent communication protocol, to obtain the
best of each world. The resulting communication protocol
demonstrates that ontologies can be effectively reconciled
without requiring every agent to know every other agent’s
ontology. Communication proceeds using general common
concepts whenever this does not give rise to unnecessary in-
formation loss. When too much information is lost in the
communication process, the agents extend their ontologies
in order to solve the problem.
 F. Baader, D. Calvanese, D. McGuiness, D. Nardi,
and P. Patel-Schneider, editors. The description logic
handbook: Theory, implementation and applications.
Cambridge University Press, 2003.
 S. Bailin and W. Truszkowski. Ontology negotiation
between intelligent information agents. Knowledge
Engineering Review, 17(1):7–19, 2002.
 A. Borgida and L. Serafini. Distributed description
logics: Assimilating information from peer sources. In
S. Spaccapietra, editor, Journal of Data Semantics,
volume 1 of LNCS, pages 153–184. Springer Verlag,
 B. Chandrasekaran, J. R. Josephson, and V. R.
Benjamins. What are ontologies, and why do we need
them? IEEE Intelligent Systems, 14(1):20–26, 1999.
 M. Ciocoiu, M. Gruniger, and D. Nau. Ontologies for
integrating engineering applications. Journal of
Computing and Information Science in Engineering,
 A. Farquhar, R. Fikes, and J. Rice. The ontolingua
server: a tool for collaborative ontology construction.
Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud., 46(6):707–727, 1997.
 C. Fellbaum. WordNet: An Electronic Lexical
Database. MIT Press, 1998.
 FIPA. FIPA Ontology Service Specification, 2000.
 P. Grenon, B. Smith, and L. Goldberg. Biodynamic
ontology: Applying BFO in the biomedical domain. In
D. M. Pisanelli, editor, Ontologies in Medicine, pages
20–38, Amsterdam, 2004. IOS Press.
 H. Grice. Logic and conversation. In P. Cole and
J. Morgan, editors, Speech Acts, pages 41–58, New
York, 1975. Academic Press.
 T. R. Gruber. Towards Principles for the Design of
Ontologies Used for Knowledge Sharing. In N. Guarino
and R. Poli, editors, Formal Ontology in Conceptual
Analysis and Knowledge Representation, Deventer,
The Netherlands, 1993. Kluwer Academic Publishers.
 KSE. Knowledge sharing effort public library, 1994.
 D. B. Lenat and R. V. Guha. Building Large
Knowledge-Based Systems: Representation and
Inference in the Cyc Project. Addison-Wesley
 M. Luck, P. McBurney, and C. Preist. Agent
technology: Enabling next generation computing.
Agent link community, pages 74–75, 2003.
 C. Matuszek, J. Cabral, M. Witbrock, and
J. DeOliveira. An introduction to the syntax and
content of Cyc. In the 2006 AAAI Spring Symposium
on Formalizing and Compiling Background Knowledge
and Its Applications to Knowledge Representation and
Question Answering, 2006.
 D. Maynard, G. Stamou, I. Zaihrayeu, J. Barrasa,
J. Euzenat, M. Hauswirth, M. Ehrig, P. Bouquet,
R. Dieng-Kuntz, R. L. Hern´ andez, S. Tessaris, S. V.
Acker, and T.-L. Bach. D2.2.3: State of the art on
current alignment techniques. Knowledge Web, 2004.
 D. L. McGuinness, R. Fikes, J. Rice, and S. Wilder.
The chimaera ontology environment. In Proceedings of
the Seventeenth National Conference on Artificial
Intelligence (AAAI 2000), Austin, Texas, 2000.
 E. Mena, A. Illarramendi, V. Kashyap, and A. Sheth.
OBSERVER: An approach for query processing in
global information systems based on interoperation
across pre-existing ontologies. International journal on
Distributed And Parallel Databases (DAPD),
8(2):223–272, April 2000.
 M. M. Montez, J. L. Bas, S. Bellido, O. Corcho,
S. Losada, R. Benjamins, and J. Contreras. WP10:
Case study eBanking D10.3 Financial Ontology. April
 R. Neches, R. Fikes, T. Finin, T. Gruber, R. Patil,
T. Senator, and W. R. Swartout. Enabling technology
for knowledge sharing. AI Magazine, 12(3):36–56,
 I. Niles and A. Pease. Towards a standard upper
ontology. In FOIS ’01: Proceedings of the
international conference on Formal Ontology in
Information Systems, pages 2–9, New York, NY, USA,
2001. ACM Press.
 N. F. Noy and M. Klein. Ontology evolution: Not the
same as schema evolution. Knowledge Information
Systems, 6(4):428–440, 2004.
 N. F. Noy and M. A. Musen. Prompt: Algorithm and
tool for automated ontology merging and alignment.
In Proceedings of the National Conference on Artificial
Intelligence (AAAI), 2000.
 A. D. Preece, K. ying Hui, W. A. Gray, P. Marti,
T. J. M. Bench-Capon, D. M. Jones, and Z. Cui. The
KRAFT architecture for knowledge fusion and
transformation. Knowledge Based Systems,
 G. Schreiber, H. Akkermans, A. Anjewierden,
R. de Hoog, N. Shadbolt, W. V. de Velde, and
B. Wielinga. Knowledge Engineering and
Management, The CommonKADS Methodology. MIT
 J. F. Sowa. Knowledge Representation: Logical,
Philosophical and Computational Foundations.
Brooks/Cole Publishing Co., Pacific Grove, CA, USA,
 H. Stuckenschmidt and I. J. Timm. Adapting
communication vocabularies using shared ontologies.
Proceedings of the Second International Workshop on
Ontologies in Agent Systems (OAS), July 2002.
 R. Studer, V. R. Benjamins, and D. Fensel.
Knowledge engineering: Principles and methods. Data
Knowledge Engineering, 25(1-2):161–197, 1998.
 G. Stumme and A. Maedche. FCA-MERGE:
Bottom-up merging of ontologies. In IJCAI, pages
 J. van Diggelen, R. Beun, F. Dignum, R. van Eijk,
and J.-J. Meyer. Optimal communication vocabularies
and heterogeneous ontologies. In Agent
Communication, International Workshop on Agent
Communication, AC 2004, volume 3396 of LNAI,
pages 76–90. Springer Verlag, 2004.
 J. van Diggelen, R. Beun, F. Dignum, R. van Eijk,
and J.-J. Meyer. ANEMONE: An effective minimal
ontology negotiation environment. In P. Stone and
G. Weiss, editors, Proceedings of the Fifth
International Conference on Autonomous Agents and
Multi-agent Systems (AAMAS06), pages 899–906.
 J. van Diggelen, R. Beun, F. Dignum, R. van Eijk,
and J.-J. Meyer. Ontology negotiation: Goals,
requirements and implementation. International
Journal of Agent-Oriented Software Engineering
(IJAOSE), 1(1):63–90, 2007. Inderscience publishers.
 G. Wiederhold and M. Genesereth. The conceptual
basis for mediation services. IEEE Expert: Intelligent
Systems and Their Applications, 12(5):38–47, 1997.