Common use of Summary and Outlook Clause in Contracts

Summary and Outlook. In this paper we have outlined a framework that provides a novel way for agents, who use different ontologies, to come to agreement on an alignment. This is achieved us- ing an argumentation process in which candidate correspondences are accepted or re- jected, based on the ontological knowledge and the agent’s preferences. Argumentation is based on the exchange of arguments, against or in favour of a correspondence, that interact with each other using an attack relation. Each argument instantiates an argu- mentation schema, and utilises domain knowledge, extracted from extensional and in- tensional ontology definitions. When the full set of arguments and counter-arguments has been produced, the agents consider which of them should be accepted. As we have seen, the acceptability of an argument depends on the ranking - represented by a par- ticular preference ordering on the type of arguments. Our approach is able to give a formal motivation for the selection of a correspondence, and enables consideration of an agent’s interests and preferences that may influence the selection of a correspon- dence. We believe that this approach will aim at reaching more sound and effective mutual understanding and communicative work in agents system. In the current state of the implementation, the ontology alignments is provided man- ually. The next step is to extend the developed prototype to utilize an ontology align- ment services in oder to obtain the alignment automatically. An empirical evaluation is planned. Moreover, in future work we intend to investigate the use of a negotiation process to enable agents to reach an agreement on a mapping when they differ in their ordering of argument types. Another interesting topic for future work would be to inves- tigate how to argue about the whole alignments, and not only the individual candidate mapping. These arguments could occur when a global similarity measure between the whole ontologies is applied. Acknowledgements The research has been partially supported by Knowledge Web (FP6- IST 2004-507482) and PIPS (FP6-IST 2004-507019). Special thanks to Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxx and Xxx Xxxxxx. References

Summary and Outlook. In this paper we have outlined a framework that provides a novel way for agents, who use different ontologies, to come to agreement on an alignment. This is achieved us- ing an argumentation process in which candidate correspondences are accepted or re- jected, based on the ontological knowledge and the agent’s preferences. Argumentation is based on the exchange of arguments, against or in favour of a correspondence, that interact with each other using an attack relation. Each argument instantiates an argu- mentation schema, and utilises domain knowledge, extracted from extensional and in- tensional ontology definitions. When the full set of arguments and counter-arguments has been produced, the agents consider which of them should be accepted. As we have seen, the acceptability of an argument depends on the ranking - represented by a par- ticular preference ordering on the type of arguments. Our approach is able to give a formal motivation for the selection of a correspondence, and enables consideration of an agent’s interests and preferences that may influence the selection of a correspon- dence. We believe that this approach will aim at reaching more sound and effective mutual understanding and communicative work in agents system. In the current state of the implementation, the ontology alignments is provided man- ually. The next step is to extend the developed prototype to utilize an ontology align- ment services in oder to obtain the alignment automatically. An empirical evaluation is planned. Moreover, in future work we intend to investigate the use of a negotiation process to enable agents to reach an agreement on a mapping when they differ in their ordering of argument types. Another interesting topic for future work would be to inves- tigate how to argue about the whole alignments, and not only the individual candidate mapping. These arguments could occur when a global similarity measure between the whole ontologies is applied. Acknowledgements The research has been partially supported by Knowledge Web (FP6- IST 2004-507482) and PIPS (FP6-IST 2004-507019). Special thanks to Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxx and Xxx Xxxxxx. References.