=Paper= {{Paper |id=Vol-223/paper-35 |storemode=property |title=Using Cooperative Agent Negotiation for Ontology Mapping |pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-223/47.pdf |volume=Vol-223 |authors=Cassia Trojahn (Universidade de Évora),Marcia Moraes (Pontificia Universidade Catolica do Rio Grande do Sul),Paulo Quaresma (Universidade de Evora),Renata Vieira (Universidade do Vale do Rio dos Sinos) |dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/eumas/SantosMQV06 }} ==Using Cooperative Agent Negotiation for Ontology Mapping== https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-223/47.pdf

Using Cooperative Agent Negotiation for Ontology Mapping
Cássia Trojahn a Márcia Moraes b Paulo Quaresma a Renata Vieira c
a
Departamento de Informática, Universidade de Évora, Portugal
b
Faculdade de Informática, Pontifı́cia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do
Sul, Brazil
c
Pós-Graduação em Computação Aplicada, Universidade do Vale do Rio dos
Sinos, Brazil

Abstract
Well-known approaches for the ontology mapping can be grouped into lexical, semantic,
and structural ones. We assume that the approaches are complementary to each other and
their combination produces better results than the individual ones. However, they produce
different and probably conflicting results, which must be shared, compared, chosen and agreed.
This paper proposes a cooperative negotiation model, where agents apply individual mapping
algorithms and negotiate on a final mapping result. We compare our model with three state
of the art matching systems. The results, although preliminary, are promising especially for
what concerns precision and recall.

1 Introduction
Ontology mapping is the process of linking corresponding terms from different ontologies. The
mapping result can be used for ontology merging, agent communication, query answering, or for
navigation on the Semantic Web.
Well-known approaches to the problem can be grouped into lexical, semantic, and structural
ones, as terms may be mapped by a measure of lexical similarity, or they can be evaluated se-
mantically, usually on the basis of semantic oriented linguistic resources, or considering the term
positions in the ontology hierarchy. However even in the same group of approaches, different ap-
proaches are abundant in the literature. Examples of lexical approaches are [24][19] while semantic
and structural ones can be seen in [11][21].
Individual approaches are not satisfactory to the problem. We assume that these approaches
are complementary to each other and their combination produces better results than the individual
ones. However, they produce different and probably conflicting results, which must be shared,
compared, chosen and agreed. We propose a cooperative negotiation model, where agents apply
individual mapping algorithms and negotiate on a final mapping result. We compared our model
with three state of the art schema-based matching systems, namely Cupid [14], COMA [6], and S-
Match [9]. The results, although preliminary, are promising, especially for what concerns precision
and recall.
This paper is structured as follows. The next section comments on cooperative negotiation.
Section 3 introduces the ontology mapping approaches. Section 4 presents our cooperative nego-
tiation model. Section 5 presents the experiments using our model. Section 6 comments relevant
related works. Finally, Section 7 presents the final remarks and the future works.

2 Cooperative Negotiation
Negotiation is a process by which two or more parties make a joint decision [27]. It is a key form
of interaction that enables groups of agents to arrive to mutual agreement regarding some belief,
goal or plan [2]. Hence the basic idea behind negotiation is reaching a consensus [10].
Negotiation usually proceeds in a series of rounds, with every agent making a proposal at each
round [26]. The process can be described as follows, based on [16]. One agent generates a proposal
and other agents review it. If some other agent does not like the proposal, it rejects the proposal
and might generate a counter-proposal. If so, the other agents (including the agent that generated
the first proposal) review the counter-proposal and the process is repeated. It is assumed that a
proposal becomes a solution when it is accepted by all agents.
Cooperative negotiation is a particular kind of negotiation where agents cooperate and collab-
orate to obtain a common objective. In cooperative negotiation, each agent has a partial view of
the problem and the results are put together via negotiation trying to solve the conflicts posed by
having only partial views [8].
This kind of negotiation has been currently adopted in resource and task allocation fields
[3][20][27]. In these approaches, the agents try to reach the maximum global utility that takes
into account the worth of all their activities. In our approach the cooperative negotiation is a form
of interaction that enables the agents to arrive to mutual agreement regarding the result of different
ontology mapping approaches.

3 Ontology Mapping
The ontology mapping process aims to define a mapping between terms of a source ontology and
terms of a target ontology. The approaches for ontology mapping varies from lexical (see [24][19])
to semantic and structural levels (see [11]). Moreover, the mapping process can be grouped into
data layer, ontology structure, or context layer.
At the lexical level, metrics to compare string similarity are adopted. One well-known measure
is the Levenshtein distance or edit distance [17], which is given by the minimum number of op-
erations (insertion, deletion, or substitution of a single character) needed to transform one string
into another. Based on Levenshtein measure, [19] proposes a lexical similarity measure for strings,
the String Matching (SM), that considers the number of changes that must be made to change one
string into the other and weighs the number of these changes against the length of the shortest
string of these two. Other common metrics can be found in [23] and [7].
The semantic level considers the semantic relations between concepts to measure the similarity
between them, usually on the basis of semantic oriented linguistic resources. The well-known
WordNet1 database, a large repository of English semantically related items, has been used to
provide these relations. This kind of mapping is complementary to the pure string similarity
metrics. Cases where string metrics fail to identify high similarity between strings that represent
completely different concepts are common. For example the words “score” and “store”, represent
different concepts, but the Levenshtein metric returns 0.68. It is not uncommon works exploring
the semantic-structural levels [4][11]. At the structural level, positions of the terms in the ontology
hierarchy are considered, i.e, terms more generals and terms more specifics are considered as input
to the mapping process. For instance, in WordNet database there is not direct relation between
“blue” and “pink” terms, but they can be connected by an ancestor term, such as “color”.
On the other hand, the mapping can be grouped into data layer, ontology structure, and context
layer. In the data layer, the instances of the ontology are used as input to the mapping approach (for
instance, the attributes data type of the instances are compared). In the ontology layer, the terms
of the ontology structure and the hierarchy are taking into account (as example, the class name is
take into account). The recent approach involves to consider the ontology’s application context,
i.e, how the ontology entities are used in some external context. This is especially interesting, for
instance, to identify WordNet senses that must be considered to specific terms.
Using only one approach is not satisfactory to the problem. We understand that the approaches
are complementary to each other and their combination produces better results than the individual
ones. However, they produce different and probably conflicting results, which must be resolved. For
instance, when mapping the terms “Music/History” (where “Music” is the super-class of “History”)
and “Architecture/History”, an agent based on lexical approaches indicates that the terms are
equivalent, while an agent based on structural approaches indicates that the terms can not be
mapped because the super-classes are not the same. We propose a cooperative negotiation model,
where agents apply individual mapping algorithms and negotiate on a final mapping result.
1 http://www.wordnet.princeton.edu
Figure 1: Organizational model.

4 Cooperative Negotiation Model for Ontology Mapping
In our model, the agents use lexical, semantic and structural approaches to map terms of two
different ontologies. The distinct mapping results are shared, compared, chosen and agreed, and
a final mapping result is obtained. This approach aims to overcome the drawbacks of the using
individual ontology mapping approaches. First, we present the organization of the society of agents
and next we detail the negotiation process.

4.1 Organization of the Society of Agents
We describe our model according to a society of agents (Figure 1), using the Moise+ model [13]. This
model proposes three dimensions for the organizations of society of agents: structural, functional
and deontic. The structural dimension defines what agents could do in their environments (their
roles). The functional dimension defines how agents execute their goals. The deontic dimension
defines the permissions and obligations of a role in a goal. This paper focuses on the first dimension.
According to [13] and [12], structural specification has three main concepts, roles, role relations
and groups that are used to build, respectively, the individual, social and collective structural levels
of an organization. The individual level is composed by the roles of the organization. A role means
a set of constraints that an agent ought to follow when it accepts to play that role in a group. The
following roles are identified in the proposed organization:

• Mediator: this role is responsible for mediating the negotiation process, sending and receiving
messages to and from the mapping agents.
• Matcher: this role is responsible for giving an output between two ontology mappings (i.e.,
encapsulates the mapping algorithms). One matcher could assume the lexical, semantic or
structural role. On the lexical role, the matcher makes the mapping using algorithms based
on string similarity. On the semantic role, the agent searches by corresponding terms in
a semantic oriented linguistic database. On the structural role, the agent is based on the
intuition that if super-classes are the same, the compared classes are similar to each other. If
sub-classes are the same, the compared classes are also similar.

At the social level are defined the kinds of relations among roles that directly constrain the
agents. Some of the possible relations are:

• Acquaintance (acq): agents playing a source role are allowed to have a representation of the
agents playing the destination role. In Figure 1, this kind of relation is present between the
source role mediator and the destination role matcher.
• Communication (com): agents playing a source role are allowed to communicate with agents
that play the destination role. In Figure 1, this kind of relation is present between the source
role mediator and the destination role matcher (by heritage, lexical, semantic and structural).
• Authority (aut): agents playing a source role has authority upon agent playing destination
role. In Figure 1, this kind of relation is present between the source role semantic and the
destination roles lexical and structural.

The collective level specifies the group formation inside the organization. A group is composed
by the roles that the system could assume, the sub-groups that could be created inside a group,
the links (relations) valid for agent and by the cardinality. A group can have intra-groups links
and inter-groups links. The intra-group links state that an agent playing the link source role in a
group is linked to all agents playing the destination role in the same group or in its sub-groups.
The inter-group links state that an agent playing the source role is linked to all agents playing the
destination role despite the groups these agents belong to [13]. Links intra-group are represented by
a hatched line and links inter-groups are represented by a continue line. This specification defines
only a group called negotiation and all links are intra-group.
Based on the structural specification of the proposed organization, our society is composed by
one agent that assumes the mediator role and three agents that assume the matcher role. One
of the matcher agents is assuming the lexical role, one is assuming the semantic role, and one is
assuming the structural role.

4.2 Negotiation Process
Basically, the negotiation process involves two phases. First, the agents work in an independent
manner, applying a specific mapping approach and generating a set of negotiation objects. A
negotiation object is a triple O = (T1,T2,C), where T1 corresponds to a term in the ontology 1,
T2 corresponds to a term in the ontology 2, and C is the mapping category resulting from the
mapping for these two terms. Second, the set of negotiation objects, that compose the mapping is
negotiated among the agents. The negotiation process involves one mediator and several matcher
agents.
In order to facilitate the negotiation process (i.e, reduce the number of negotiation rules), we
define four mapping categories according to the output of the matcher agents. Table 1 shows the
categories and the corresponding mapping results.
The output of the lexical agents is a value from the interval [0,1], where 1 indicates high similarity
between two terms (i.e, the strings are identical). This way, if the output is 1, a “mapping with
certainty” is obtained. If the output is 0, the agent has a “not mapping with certainty”. A threshold
is used to classify the output in uncertain categories. The threshold value is specified by the user.
The semantic agents consider semantic relations between terms according to the WordNet data-
base. Relations such as synonym, antonym, holonym, meronym, hyponym, and hypernym can be
returned for a given pair of terms. Synonymous terms are considered as “mapping with certainty”;
terms related by holonym, meronym, hyponym, or hypernym are considered “mapping with un-
certainty”; when the terms can not be related by the WordNet (the terms are unknown for the
WordNet database), the terms are considered as not “mappings with uncertainty”.
The structural agent uses the super-classes intuition to verify if the terms can be considered
similar. First, it is verified if the super-classes are lexically similar. Otherwise, the semantic
similarity is used. If the super-classes are lexically or semantically similar, the terms are similar to
each other. The matching category corresponds the output of the lexical or semantic comparison
(e.g, if super-classes are not lexically similar, but they are considered synonymous, a “mapping
with certainty” is returned).

Table 1: Mapping categories.
Category Lexical Semantic
Mapping (certainty) 1 synonym
Mapping (uncertainty) 1>r>t related
Not mapping (uncertainty) 0 < r <= t unknown
Not mapping (certainty) 0
negotiation

Mediator Lexical Semantic Structural

start negotiation
askNumberMappings
askNumberMappings
askNumberMappings
numberMappings
numberMappings
numberMappings

getMaxNumberMappings
askProposal

getObjectNotEvaluated
proposal
proposal
proposal

evaluateProposal

evaluateProposal
counterProposal
counterProposal

evaluateCounterProposal

addObjectConsensus

Figure 2: AUML negotiation interaction.

Figure 2 shows an AUML interaction diagram with the messages changed between the agents
during a negotiation round. We use an extension of AUML-2 standard to represent agents’ actions
(the actions are placed centered over the lifeline of the named agent). The interaction diagram
refers to negotiation of the mapping between the classes “personal computer ” and “pc” (Figures 3
and 4)2 .
The negotiation process starts with the mediator agent asking to the matcher agents for its
number of “mappings with certainty”. The first matcher agent to generate a proposal is one that
has the greatest number of “mappings with certainty” (lexical agent, in the specific example).
The proposal contains the first negotiation object that still wasn’t evaluated by the agent.
This proposal is then sent to the mediator agent, which sends it to other agents (in the specific
example, the lexical agent proposes a “not mapping with certainty” to the mapping between the
classes “personal computer” and “pc”). Each agent then evaluates the proposal, searching for an
equivalent negotiation object. One negotiation object is equivalent to another when both refers to
equals terms which are being compared in the two ontologies.
If an equivalent negotiation object has the same category, the agent accepts the proposal.
Otherwise, if the agent has a different category for the compared terms in the negotiation object,
its object negotiation is sent as a counter-proposal to the mediator agent, which evaluates the several
counter-proposals received (several agents can send a counter-proposal). In the example, semantic
and structural agents have generated counter-proposals, indicating a “mapping with certainty”
between the compared terms. The semantic agent identifies that the terms are synonymous in
WordNet, and structural agent identifies terms having the same super-class (“electronics”).
The mediator selects one counter-proposal that has the greater number of vote. If two categories
receive the same number of votes, the category indicated by the semantic agent is considered a
consensus. When a proposal is accepted by all agents or a counter-proposal consensus is obtained,
the mediator adds the corresponding negotiation object in a consensus negotiation set and the
matcher agents mark its equivalent one as evaluated. The negotiation ends when all negotiation
2 Ontologies available in http://dit.unitn.it/∼accord/Experimentaldesign.html(Test 4)
Figure 3: Ontology 1. Figure 4: Ontology 2.

objects are evaluated.
At moment we have implemented a negotiation mechanism based on voting and used it to
validate our proposal on composite ontology matching approaches. However, we are working on
argument-based negotiation, in order to improve this model (see [15] for related work).

5 Experiments
We applied the proposed negotiation model to link corresponding class names in two different
ontologies. The results produced by our negotiation model were compared with manual matches3
(expert mappings).
The lexical agent was implemented using the edit distance measure (Levenshtein measure).
We used the algorithm available in the API for ontology alignment (INRIA)4 (EditDistNameAlign-
ment). The semantic agent uses the JWordNet API5 , which is an interface to the WordNet database.
For each WordNet synset, we retrieved the synonymous terms and considered the hypernym, hy-
ponym, member-holonym, member-meronym, part-holonym, and part-meronym as related terms.
The structural agent is based on super-classes similarity.
The threshold used to classify the matcher agents output was 0.6. This value was defined based
on previous analysis of the edit distance values between the terms of the ontologies used in the
experiments. The terms with edit distance values greater than 0.6 have presented lexical similarity.
A pre-processing step was made, where special characters (e.g., ) and stop words (e.g., “and”,
“or”, “of”) were removed.
We have used four groups of ontologies: parts of Google and Yahoo web directories6 , product
schemas7 , course university catalogs8 , and company profiles9 . We considered the “mappings with
certainty” and the “mappings with uncertainty” as examples of the positive classes. As a mapping
quality measure, the well-know measures of precision, recall and F–measure were used.
First, we compared the results obtained from our negotiation model with the results from expert
mapping (Table 2 – the column “Others” contains mappings identified as correct by our model, but
which were not identified by the experts). We also indicated the number of possible mappings for
each group of ontologies (numbers in brackets).
The consensus identified correctly all mappings defined by the expert, for all groups – all map-
pings defined by the expert were returned as “mappings with certainty” by our model. When con-
sidering the other mappings (“Others”), for the “Google and Yahoo”, 3 “mappings with certainty”
3 Obtained from http://dit.unitn.it/∼accord/Experimentaldesign.html
4 http://alignapi.gforce.inria.fr
5 http://jwn.sourceforge.net (using WordNet 2.1)
6 http://dit.unitn.it/∼accord/Experimentaldesign.html (Test 3)
7 http://dit.unitn.it/∼accord/Experimentaldesign.html (Test 4)
8 http://dit.unitn.it/∼accord/Experimentaldesign.html (Test 7)
9 http://dit.unitn.it/∼accord/Experimentaldesign.html (Test 8)
Table 2: Expert mapping and consensus results.
Consensus
Ontology Expert mapping Correct Others
Google and Yahoo directories (54) 4 4 8
Product schemas (30) 4 4 1
Course catalogs (48) 6 6 3
Company profiles (9) 3 3 0

Table 3: Mapping results.
Consensus Lexical Semantic Structural
Ontology P R F P R F P R F P R F
Google-Yahoo dir. (54) 0.33 1.0 0.49 0.50 0.25 0.33 0.28 1.0 0.43 1.0 0.50 0.66
Product schemas (30) 0.80 1.0 0.88 0.40 0.50 0.44 0.80 1.0 0.88 0.60 0.75 0.66
Course catalogs (48) 0.66 1.0 0.79 1.0 0.83 0.90 0.66 1.0 0.79 0.60 0.50 0.54
Company profiles (9) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Average 0.69 1.0 0.79 0.72 0.64 0.67 0.68 1.0 0.78 0.80 0.68 0.71

and 5 “mappings with uncertainty” have been returned. For instance, a “mapping with uncertainty”
between the terms “Arts/Visual Arts” (where “Arts” is the super-class of “Visual Arts”) and
“Arts Humanities/Design Art” has seen identified. This mapping was not defined by expert, how-
ever it could be considered as correct. This kind of “mapping with uncertainty” has been observed
in the other examples. In “Product schemas”, only one new mapping has been returned, being
a “mapping with certainty”, but incorrectly (i.e., “Electronics/Personal Computers/Accessories”
and “Electronic/Cameras and Photos/Accessories”). Finally, for the “Course catalogs”, 3 new
mappings were categorized as “mappings with uncertainty” (e.g., “Courses/College of engineering”
and “Courses/College of Arts and Sciences”).
Second, we compared the output of all agents (Table 3) (where P = precision; R = recall; and F
= F-measure). Using lexical or structural individual agents was not sufficient to obtain all correct
mappings. These agents did not classify correctly all positive classes (0.64 and 0.68, respectively, for
recall, and 0.67 and 0.71, for F–measure), although having good precision measures. The consensus
resulting from negotiation is better than the individual results obtained by these agents, having
output correctly all positive classes (recall equals 1 for all groups of ontologies). The semantic agent
had better performance than lexical and structural agents (recall equals 1 and F–measure equals
0.78), and it produces similar results when compared with the consensus. For ontologies which are
lexically and structurally simple (e.g., “Company profiles”), all agents produce equivalent results.
The similar results between semantic agent and negotiation consensus occurs because all la-
bels mapped by experts have strong semantic correspondence (more than structural), identified as
“mappings with certainty” by the semantic agent. In these cases, the structural agent returned
“mappings with uncertainty”, while the lexical agent returned “not mappings with certainty” (e.g.,
the correct mapping between “Arts/Arts History” and “Architecture/History” terms). Then, the
semantic agent decides the final category. However, for the “Google and Yahoo” ontologies, which
have greater number of terms (54) when compared with the other groups of ontologies, the consensus
returned better precision (0.33) than semantic agent (0.28). As a concluding result, the consensus
had better behavior than lexical, semantic and structural individual agents, with F–measure value
equals 0.79 against 0.67, 0.78 and 0.71, respectively.
We also identified cases where conflicts occur, which are not resolved by our model and the
semantic agent is not sufficient to identify them. Considering the terms “Music/History” and
“Architecture/History” (“Google and Yahoo” ontologies), the semantic and lexical agents returned
“mappings with certainty”, differently of the structural agent. However, this is not a correct
mapping. We are working on argument-based negotiation, in order to solve this kind of conflict.
An argument for accepting the mapping may be that the terms are synonymous and an argument
against may be that some of their super-concepts are not mapped.
Finally, we compared our negotiation model with three state of the art matching systems: Cupid
[14], COMA [6], and S-Match [9]. The comparative results among these three systems are available
in [9]. These results consider the mappings between attributes of the ontologies in order to compute
the precision and recall measures. Then, we have added to our ontologies such attributes, which are
viewed as specific sub-classes by our agents. Table 4 shows the comparative results. Considering
Table 4: Comparative mapping results – matching systems and negotiation model.
Consensus Cupid COMA S-Match
Ontology P R F P R F P R F P R F
Company profiles (160) 1 0.63 0.77 0.50 0.60 0.54 0.80 0.70 0.74 1.0 0.65 0.78

the attributes of the ontologies, the number of terms to be compared is 160 (i.e., 10 terms in the
first ontology and 16 terms in the second ontology).
As shown in Table 4, our model returned better precision than Cupid and COMA, and similar
precision when compared to the S-Match, having returned as “mapping with certainty” only the
correct expert mappings (precision equals to 1). When comparing the F-measure values, our model
had similar result than COMA and S-Match and better result than Cupid.

6 Related Work
In the field of ontology negotiation we find distinct proposals. [25] presents an ontology to serve
as the basis for agent negotiation, the ontology itself is not the object being negotiated. A similar
approach is proposed by [5], where ontologies are integrated to support the communication among
heterogeneous agents. [1] presents an ontology negotiation model which aims to arrive at a common
ontology which the agents can use in their particular interaction. We, on the other hand, are
concerned with delivering alignment pairs found by a group of agents through a negotiation process.
The links between related concepts are the result of the negotiation, instead of an integrated
ontology upon which the agents will be able to communicate for a specific purpose. We do not
consider negotiation steps such as the ones presented in [1], namely clarification and explanation.
But we consider different alignment methods negotiating through voting on the best solution for
the alignment problem. [22] describes an approach for ontology mapping negotiation, where the
mapping is composed by a set of semantic bridges and their inter-relations, as proposed in [18]. The
agents are able to achieve a consensus about the mapping through the evaluation of a confidence
value that is obtained by utility functions. According to the confidence value the mapping rule
is accepted, rejected or negotiated. Differently from [22], we do not use utility functions. Our
negotiation mechanism is based on voting, where the semantic agent is responsible for making a
decision when a conflict arises between the matchers (i.e., there exist an equal number of votes to
distinct mapping categories).

7 Final Remarks
This paper presented an approach on ontology mapping negotiation, in which agents are able
to achieve consensus about their individual mapping results. These agents encapsulate different
mapping approaches (lexical, semantic and structural) and consensus results from cooperative ne-
gotiation of these agents. We compared our results with expert mappings, for four ontologies in
different domains. We also compared our negotiation model with three state of the art matching
systems.
Our proposal of a negotiation model is due to the belief that using single matching approaches
is not sufficient to obtain a satisfactory mapping. Several approaches must be combined, as ex-
emplified by our initial experiments. The negotiation result was better than lexical and structural
agents and it returned better F-measure value than then semantic agent. When comparing our
model with the three state of the art matching systems, our model obtained better F-measure than
Cupid and COMA and similar results if compared with the S-Match system. The results, although
preliminary, are promising especially for what concerns F-measure values.
In the future, we intend to use argumentation-based negotiation; compare the initial results
with that obtained from larger ontologies; add to our model structural agents based on sub-classes
similarity; consider agents using constraint-based approaches; and use the ontology’s application
context in our matching approach. Next, we also plan to use the mapping result as input to an
ontology merge process in the question answering domain.
Acknowledgments
The first author is supported by the Programme Alban, the European Union Programme of High
Level Scholarships for Latin America, scholarship number E05D059374BR.

References
[1] Sidney Bailin and Walt Truszkowski. Ontology negotiation between intelligent information
agents. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 17(1):7–19, 2002.
[2] M. Beer, M. d’Inverno, M. Luck, N. Jennings, C. Preist, and M. Schroeder. Negotiation in
multi-agent systems. In Workshop of the UK Special Interest Group on Multi-Agent Systems,
1998.
[3] J. Bigham and L. Du. Cooperative negotiation in a multi-agent system for real-time load
balancing of a mobile cellular network. In Proceedings of the Second International Joint Con-
ference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, pages 568–575. ACM Press, 2003.
[4] Marcirio Chaves. Mapeamento e comparacao de similaridade entre estruturas ontologicas.
Master’s thesis, Pontificia Universidade Catolica do Rio Grande do Sul, 2002.
[5] J. van Diggelen, R.J. Beun, F. Dignum, van R.M. Eijk, and J. Ch. Meyer. Anemone: An
effective minimal ontology negotiation environment. In Proceedings of the V International
Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, pages 899–906, 2006.
[6] Hong Hai Do and Erhard Rahm. Coma - a system for flexible combination of schema matching
approaches. In Proceedings of the 28th Conference on Very Large Databases (VLDB), 2002.
[7] J. Euzenat, T. Le Bach, J. Barrasa, P. Bouquet, J. De Bo, R. Dieng-Kuntz, M. Ehrig,
M. Hauswirth, M. Jarrar, R. Lara, D. Maynard, A. Napoli, G. Stamou, H. Stuckenschmidt,
P. Shvaiko, S. Tessaris, S. Van Acker, and I. Zaihrayeu. State of the art on ontology alignment.
Technical report, 2004.

[8] N. Gatti and F. Amigoni. A cooperative negotiation protocol for physiological model combi-
nation. In Proceedings of the Third Internation Joint Conference on Automomous Agents and
Multi-Agent Systems, pages 655–662, 2004.
[9] F. Giunchiglia, P. Shvaiko, and M. Yatskevich. S-match: An algorithm and an implementation
of semantic matching. In First European Semantic Web Symposium, pages 61–75, 2004.
[10] S. Green, L. Hurst, B. Nangle, P. Cunningham, F. Somers, and R. Evans. Software agents: A
review. Technical report, Trinity College, 1997.
[11] Farshad Hakimpour and Andreas Geppert. Resolving semantic heterogeneity in schema in-
tegration: an ontology approach. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Formal
Ontology in Informational Systems, pages 297–308, 2001.
[12] Jomi Hubner. Um Modelo de Reorganização de Sistemas Multiagentes. PhD thesis, Escola
Politécnica da Universidades de São Paulo, Departamento de Engenharia da Computação e
Sistemas Digitais, 2003.
[13] Jomi Hubner, Jaime Sichman, and Olivier Boisser. A model for structural, functional, and
deontic specification of organizations in multiagent systems. In Advances in Artificial Intelli-
gence, 2002.
[14] P. Bernstein J. Madhavan and E. Rahm. Generic schema matching with cupid. In Proceedings
of the Very Large Data Bases Conference (VLDB), pages 49–58, 2001.
[15] L. Laera, V. Tamma, J. Euzenat, T. Bench-Capon, and T. R. Payne. Reaching agreement over
ontology alignments. In Proceedings of 5th International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC
2006).
[16] S. Lander and V. Lesser. Understanding the role of negotiation in distributed search among
heterogeneous agents. In Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intel-
ligence, January 1993.
[17] I. Levenshtein. Binary codes capable of correcting deletions, insertions an reversals. In Cyber-
netics and Control Theory, 1966.

[18] A. Maedche, B. Motik, N. Silva, and R. Volz. Mafra - a mapping framework for distrib-
uted ontologies. In 13th International Conference on Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge
Management, pages 235–250, 2002.
[19] A. Maedche and Steffen Staab. Measuring similarity between ontologies. In Proceedings of the
European Conference on Knowledge Acquisition and Management, pages 251–263, 2002.
[20] M. Mailler, V. Lesser, and B. Horling. Cooperative negotiation for soft real-time distributed
resource allocation. In Proceedings of the second international joint conference on Autonomous
agents and multiagent systems, pages 576–583. ACM Press, 2003.
[21] Andrea Rodriguez and Max Egenhofer. Determining semantic similarity among entity classes
from different ontologies. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 15(2):442–
456, 2003.
[22] Nuno Silva, Paulo Maio, and Joao Rocha. An approach to ontology mapping negotiation. In
Proceedings of the K-CAP Workshop on Integrating Ontologies.
[23] T.F. Smith and M.S. Waterman. Identification of common molecular subsequences. Journal
of Molecular Biology, 147:195–197, 1981.
[24] G. Stoilos, G. Stamou, and S. Kollias. A string metric for ontology alignment. In ISWC, pages
624–637. 4th International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC 2005), Galway, 2005, 2005.
[25] Valentina Tamma, Michael Wooldridge, Ian Blacoe, and Ian Dickinson. An ontology based
approach to automated negotiation. In Proceedings of the IV Workshop on Agent Mediated
Electronic Commerce, pages 219–237, 2002.
[26] M. Wooldridge. An Introduction to Multiagent Systems. John Wiley and Sons, 2002.
[27] X. Zhang, V. Lesser, and R. Podorozhny. Multi-dimensional, multistep negoriation for task
allocation in a cooperative system. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 10:5–40,
2005.