<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Archiving and Interchange DTD v1.0 20120330//EN" "JATS-archivearticle1.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">
  <front>
    <journal-meta />
    <article-meta>
      <title-group>
        <article-title>Combining FIPA ACL With DAML+OIL - A Case Study</article-title>
      </title-group>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Michael Schalk</string-name>
          <email>michael.schalk@informatik.uni-ulm.de</email>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff0">0</xref>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Thorsten Liebig</string-name>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff0">0</xref>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Torsten Illmann</string-name>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff0">0</xref>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Frank Kargl</string-name>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff0">0</xref>
        </contrib>
        <aff id="aff0">
          <label>0</label>
          <institution>University of Ulm James-Franck-Ring D-89069 Ulm</institution>
          ,
          <country country="DE">Germany</country>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <abstract>
        <p>The Collaboration and Coordination Infrastructure for personal Agents (CIA) is a Java-based multi-agent framework for personal assistance. Until now, inter-agent communication in CIA is done via topic-based communication channels with Java-based event classes. Information within these events is represented in proprietary classes, which are serialized for transfer. As a result, agent communication is limited to an a priori de ned domain of information chunks to which collaborating agents have to be tailored. In order to achieve wider inter-operability we are currently evaluating the combination of two techniques. For standardized communication between heterogeneous agents we will use the FIPA Agent Communication Language (ACL). The DARPA Agent Communication Language / Ontology Inference Layer (DAML+OIL1) will serve as content language for the ACL. This architecture seems to be a promising combination because of two reasons. First, agents of this kind are able to collaborate with other heterogenous agents in an ad hoc manner because of the standardized FIPA communication interface. Second, they do not have to be tailored to proprietary content vocabularies in advance, because they can use ontology-based Semantic Web techniques as a mechanism for identi cation of the meaning of the terms they communicate. However, it has to be gured out if these two techniques t seamlessly into a given agent architecture like CIA. Potential problems include the semantic compatibility of DAML and ACL for example. These and other questions have to be considered with respect to the highly dynamic infrastructure of a CIA system.</p>
      </abstract>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
  <body>
    <sec id="sec-1">
      <title>LIMITATIONS OF CURRENT AGENT AR</title>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-2">
      <title>CHITECTURES</title>
      <p>It is commonly believed that personalized software agents
will make daily work more e cient by collaboration with
other available agents relying on distributed information on
the Web. Achieving this will require a exible agent
architecture, a standardized communication protocol and an
adequate link-up with knowledge representation technologies
1In the following we will use the term DAML for short.
of the next generation Web.</p>
      <p>Looking at current agent systems, the following
limitations can be discovered:</p>
      <p>If agent communication is restricted to speci c and
proprietary protocols, ad hoc communication of
unacquainted agents is mostly not possible. Therefore
the usage of standardized communication languages is
highly desirable.</p>
      <p>Agent systems need many resources for reasoning and
interference mechanisms. In a more and more global
and connected world with constantly upcoming smaller
computers (e.g. wearables, handhelds and cellulars)
being an ideal environment for personal agent
systems, the need for small-sized agent systems
supporting these heavyweight mechanisms is obvious.</p>
      <p>Using isolated and pre-de ned terminologies for
interagent communication leads to agents which are
tailored to speci c vocabularies. In a global world where
even general terms (e. g. time, location) are represented
in di erent manners, mechanisms for identi cation of
shared meanings are needed. Otherwise, totally
unacquainted agents will mostly not be able to
communicate successfully.
2.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-3">
      <title>COMBINING NEW TECHNOLOGIES</title>
      <p>In order to redress these restrictions we suggest to
combine three technologies addressing di erent levels of agent
communication. We will describe them shortly and argue
their reasonable combination.
2.1</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-4">
      <title>The CIA Multi-Agent Framework</title>
      <p>
        CIA is a multi-agent framework for personal assistance [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref5">5</xref>
        ]
in highly dynamic environments. The main idea is to
provide an infrastructure for personal agents with various basic
services like hardware- and location-independent
communication, persistence, security, mobility and user interaction.
By using these services, an agent programmer is able to
concentrate on implementing the actual application logic.
Personal agents of one user are combined in a so-called agent
cluster which may be split over several physical hosts. CIA
allows the integration of agents from external agent clusters
and even from di erent agent systems. Agents
communicate with events via topic-based channels using the
asynchronous publish/subscriber event model [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref6">6</xref>
        ]. The
underlying implementation of the communication infrastructure is
exchangeable in order to support any physical network
connection and therefore enables the integration of CIA systems
in highly dynamic networks and in special on small devices.
Event types are pre-de ned serializable Java classes
consisting of a type, a set of pre-de ned headers and a body. The
pre-de ned headers are internally used for technical
information (e. g. routing or quality-of-service) in order to deliver
events accurately and reliably. The body contains instances
of any serializable Java class. It is used in combination with
the event type to de ne application speci c information or
queries. Communication partners must have the same
information about these class de nitions and consequently, later
extensions are impossible. Moreover, for every application
the conversation procedure must be implemented again.
2.2
      </p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-5">
      <title>The FIPA Agent Communication Language</title>
      <p>
        The intention of FIPA ACL [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref3">3</xref>
        ] is to provide conversational
logic to agents, thus raising the semantic level of agent
communication to a higher level than existing technologies, e. g.
event-based communication in CIA. In order to achieve this,
each of the FIPA ACL communication primitives, called
Communicative Acts, is given a precise semantics by
providing pre- and postconditions expressed in a rst order modal
logic. With this semantics, the agent is able to express his
personal attitude (e. g. belief, uncertainty, choice, intention)
towards his achieved knowledge rather than the semantics
of the knowledge itself. Based on this underlying semantic
model, the agent can compile sensible options for his next
action. An alternative approach for setting up intelligent
conversations is to identify certain repeatedly used
conversation patterns called Interaction Protocols (IPs) by
examining typical agent application areas, e. g. an auction. Agents
can communicate by agreeing to an FIPA IP and engage in
a meaningful conversation simply by following a path within
this IP. FIPA ACL merely places few constraints on the
content language (CL) itself (how the content of a message is
expressed). It only provides the conversation envelope for
the actual information being exchanged.
2.3
      </p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-6">
      <title>Ontology Languages and the Semantic Web</title>
      <p>
        The vision of the Semantic Web is to bring meaning and
structure into information stored in Web sites or exchanged
between Web-enabled agents [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref1">1</xref>
        ]. Information on the Web
will then migrate to knowledge due to annotated or inherent
terms which are interconnected with terms of other sites,
plus a set of explicit assumptions expressing the intended
meaning of those terms. In the Semantic Web terminology
such a set of knowledge terms is commonly called an
ontology. A promising candidate for a Web-based ontology
modeling language is DAML [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref4">4</xref>
        ]. DAML provides a shared
vocabulary of terms with formal semantics and is
therefore suitable for inter-agent knowledge exchange. A
necessary precondition is that agents relate the terms of their
own knowledge base with corresponding terms of ontologies
somewhere in the Semantic Web. Mutual understanding of
agents can be accomplished if a semantic interconnection
between the terminologies of the communicating agents can be
found. DAML-enabled inference engines will help to make
these semantic relationships automatically explicit.
Appropriate reasoning systems for this purpose are currently
developed utilizing research results from the established eld
of knowledge representation.
      </p>
      <p>
        We believe that the previously mentioned technologies t
perfectly together in order to build a framework for
communication between heterogeneous agents (other related work
relies on similar assumptions, see [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref2">2</xref>
        ] for example). CIA
provides a robust architecture for multi-agent communication
in highly dynamic environments. FIPA ACL is well suited
to serve as conversational logic on top of the technical
framework CIA. An ontology language like DAML enables agents
to negotiate about arbitrary domains without narrowing on
speci c terms in advance.
3.
      </p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-7">
      <title>PROBLEMS TO BE SOLVED</title>
      <p>As explained above these three technologies are well
suitable for sophisticated inter-agent communication systems.
However, we still have to cope with the problem of
combining them in a reasonable and e cient way. Integration of
FIPA ACL within CIA can take place by embedding ACL
messages as text-based XML into CIA event bodies.
Involving the complete FIPA standard requires additional
examinations since the user-centered agent cluster in CIA di ers
from FIPA's view of an agent platform. The combination
of FIPA ACL with DAML leads to some interesting open
questions we are currently working on:</p>
      <p>Does the CL have to represent modal operators,
objects, proposition or actions of the FIPA ACL
semantics? If so, which is the minimal set of elements a CL
has to cover, esp. w.r.t. the desired expressiveness for
CIA applications?
Do the semantics of both languages have to be disjoint
in any case?
What are the additional requirements for CLs? Does
every CL have to provide a possibility for querying in
order to be a candidate for a FIPA CL?
The subject of our investigation will be how DAML can meet
the requirements that FIPA imposes on CLs.</p>
      <p>Concerning CIA and DAML the challenge is to provide heavy
weight reasoning services for agents running on small portable
devices using remote reasoning service invocation. We
intend to make this service available through a special
reasoning agent running on a powerful host within the pertaining
agent cluster.</p>
    </sec>
  </body>
  <back>
    <ref-list>
      <ref id="ref1">
        <mixed-citation>
          [1]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>T.</given-names>
            <surname>Berners-Lee</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>J.</given-names>
            <surname>Hendler</surname>
          </string-name>
          , and
          <string-name>
            <surname>O. Lassila.</surname>
          </string-name>
          <article-title>The Semantic Web</article-title>
          . Scienti c American, May
          <year>2001</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref2">
        <mixed-citation>
          [2]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>R. S.</given-names>
            <surname>Cost</surname>
          </string-name>
          et al.
          <source>ITtalks: A Case Study in the Semantic Web and DAML+OIL. IEEE Intelligent Systems</source>
          ,
          <volume>17</volume>
          (
          <issue>1</issue>
          ):
          <volume>40</volume>
          {
          <fpage>46</fpage>
          ,
          <year>2002</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref3">
        <mixed-citation>
          <article-title>[3] Foundation for Intelligent Physical Agents. FIPA Communicative Act Library Speci cation</article-title>
          , Version H. http://www.fipa.org/specs/fipa00037/.
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref4">
        <mixed-citation>
          [4]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>J.</given-names>
            <surname>Hendler</surname>
          </string-name>
          and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>D.</given-names>
            <surname>McGuinness</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <source>The DARPA Agent Markup Language. IEEE Intelligent Systems</source>
          ,
          <volume>15</volume>
          (
          <issue>5</issue>
          ):
          <volume>34</volume>
          {
          <fpage>43</fpage>
          , May
          <year>2000</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref5">
        <mixed-citation>
          [5]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>F.</given-names>
            <surname>Kargl</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>T.</given-names>
            <surname>Illmann</surname>
          </string-name>
          , and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
            <surname>Weber. CIA -</surname>
          </string-name>
          <article-title>a Collaboration and Coordination Infrastructure for Personal Agents</article-title>
          .
          <source>In Proc. of DAIS'99</source>
          . Kluwer Academic Publishers,
          <year>1999</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref6">
        <mixed-citation>
          [6]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>F.</given-names>
            <surname>Kargl</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>T.</given-names>
            <surname>Illmann</surname>
          </string-name>
          , and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
            <surname>Weber</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>Evaluation of Java Messaging Middleware as a Platform for Software Agent Communication</article-title>
          .
          <source>In Proc. of JIT 99</source>
          . Springer,
          <year>1999</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
    </ref-list>
  </back>
</article>