1 / 17

Phosphorus: Ontology-Based Matchmaking

Phosphorus: Ontology-Based Matchmaking. Hans Chalupsky Yolanda Gil Tom Russ Surya Ramachandran Information Sciences Institute. Ontology-based Matchmaking. Research goals Description-based advertisements and requests EXPECT’s goal and capability descriptions

buzz
Download Presentation

Phosphorus: Ontology-Based Matchmaking

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Phosphorus:Ontology-Based Matchmaking Hans Chalupsky Yolanda Gil Tom Russ Surya Ramachandran Information Sciences Institute

  2. Ontology-based Matchmaking • Research goals • Description-based advertisements and requests • EXPECT’s goal and capability descriptions • Vocabulary within descriptions derived from • Performative/Action Ontology • Domain ontologies • Broad coverage ontology (e.g., SENSUS) • Classifier match and partial match • PowerLoom classifier • Chameleon partial matcher (combines deduction and neural nets) • Adaptive (trainable) matching • Multilingual descriptions

  3. Classifier Match and Partial Match Calculate round-trip time (RTT) for aircraft Find route from location1 to location2 Calculate RTT for combat aircraft Calculate RTT for transport aircraft Find egress route from Ryad to Kuwait city A) Subsumption-based match: the request is subsumed by an agent’s capability B) Reformulation-based match: the request can be satisfied by combining the capabilities of two or more agents Find route from location1 to location2 Find phone numbers of US citizens in Kuwait Find addresses of US citizens in Kuwait Find route from city1 to city2 C) Reverse subsumption-based match: an agent can satisfy some aspect of the request D) Partial match: an agent has a capability that is similar/related to the original request

  4. Agent Matching • Problem I: topic matching(e.g., interests matcher; e.g., roses) • Given: - thousands/millions of agent descriptions - a request • Find: a set of agents that can fulfill the request (and/or something similar to the request) (and/or can understand some of the request) (and/or could help reformulate the request) • Problem II: task-based matching(e.g., activities matcher) • Given: - a few dozens/hundreds agent descriptions - a request • Find: the few agents that can fulfill the request (and refinements of it with additional requirements)

  5. Matcher Architecture Term(s) (e.g. CoABS) Task description (e.g. give demo of TC) Topic-Based Matcher Requests Task-Based Matcher ml Topic Ontology (e.g., research interests) Ontology-Based Matching Shell Activities Ontology (e.g., research activities) subsumption reformulation abstraction Agent Descriptions aa rn qo rs tv ps sc ai vs aa information gathering agent scheduling agent printer agent researcher Agents

  6. MatchingTask-Based Capabilities and Requests • Represent task descriptions more declaratively (give (obj (spec-of demonstration)) (of Teamcore)) (process (obj (spec-of reimbursement)) (for (set-of receipt))) (demo (obj Teamcore)) • Reformulations of requests: class partition & sets (setup (obj (equipment))) (setup (obj (lcd))) (setup (obj (vcr))) (demo (obj (Ariadne Teamcore))) (demo (obj (Ariadne))) (demo (obj (Teamcore))) • task qualification parameter • matches concept in goal • further specifies task to be done (i.e., how action is done) • allows same method to be used for variety of tasks exploits definitions during matching (demo (obj sw)) = (give (obj (spec-of demonstration)) (of sw))

  7. Benefits • Loose coupling • Flexible invocation: requests do not have to mirror the agent descriptions as originally stated • Semantics of the task and its arguments are at the core of the matching process through subsumption and reformulations • Declarative representation of task descriptions • Not only data parameters but also task qualification parameters • Automatic organization of agent capabilities • Object and task taxonomies are basis for indexing agents • Can support partial matching • Suggests alternative formulations of requests when requests do not match exactly the capabilities of available agents

  8. Topic Matching with PowerLoom • Express advertisements and requests as logical descriptions • Domain ontologies provide term definitions • Representation language is KIF (use XML-rendering to embed advertisements on Web pages) • Use standard PowerLoom inference and classification mechanism to support matchmaking • Use subsumption hierarchy and KILTER partial match technology to support relaxed matching

  9. Example PowerLoom Advertisement • Advertisement:(advertises Yolanda-Gil (kappa (?i) (exists (?p) (and (research-interest ?p ?i)(subset-of ?i Knowledge-Acquisition))) • Example Query: ”Who is interested in knowledge-based systems?”(retrieve ?p (and (Person ?p) (exists (?ad) (advertises ?p ?ad) (subset-of ?ad (kappa (?i)(exists (?p) (and (research-interest ?p ?i)(subset-of ?i Knowledge-Based-Systems))))))))

  10. Future Work Extend descriptions of agent capabilities: • Tasks agents can perform (including results returned) • Agent invocation guidelines (including inputs to be provided) • Ontological commitments made by the agent • Additional agents involved • Agents consulted or invoked to get additional information • Subtasks delegated to other agents • Qualifications of the agent • Reliability, efficiency, resources available,… • Model of how tasks are performed by the agent • Differential properties (comparisons with other agents)

  11. Description of Task-Based Capabilities: Related Work • Agent capability languages • LARKS • Describing Problem-Solving Methods (e.g., a scheduler) • HPKB PSM Jumpstart • UPML • EXPECT • Process Descriptions • NIST PSL • EO • Workflow • Process handbook • Software reuse

  12. Issues in Task-Based Matching (I) • A single agent can perform a wide range of tasks • Currently, agents can do at most a handful (i.e., one) • Nominate alternative agents • Flexible invocation • A request to “Register for local conference” is treated by a PA as “Arrange travel to a meeting” • Invocations of other agents • Advertise delegation to other agents, consultations to get additional information • Describing people’s capabilities • Project assistants as “everything agents” (information agents, matching services, proxies of travel agents, etc.)

  13. Issues in Task-Based Matching (II) • Requesters will not provide exact description of required capability e.g.: find route to San Diego • Missing input data: from where? • Imprecise specs: surface route? air route? • Qualification of results expected: 3ft segments? major points? • Third parties may need to be invoked to help specify all inputs needed e.g.: find route from LA to San Diego • Route planner agent needs a map as an input • Route planner agent takes lat/long as input, not city names

  14. Research Topics • Description of agent capabilities • Using ontologies • Which ones • What makes a good ontology • Partial match • Learning from experience • Refining agent descriptions over time • Negotiation • Refining a request based on available agents

  15. Sample KB Sizes CC + Cyc’s IKB ‘99 0.1521 sec with rep req WG + uc WG + Cyc’s IKB ‘98 0.1671 sec no rep req 0.5036 sec no rep req

  16. Task-Based Matchmaking Yolanda Gil Surya Ramachandran Hans Chalupsky Tom Russ Information Sciences Institute

More Related