Assessment of OWL and FIPA-SL as semantic language

S. Khalique, M. Jamshed, H. Suguri, H. F. Ahmad, A. Ali, M. S. Awan
{"title":"Assessment of OWL and FIPA-SL as semantic language","authors":"S. Khalique, M. Jamshed, H. Suguri, H. F. Ahmad, A. Ali, M. S. Awan","doi":"10.1109/ICET.2005.1558938","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Communication language is necessary for two parties to hold a meaningful conversation either between humans or agents. Explicit communication semantics are often considered essential for rich interaction between multi-agent systems. This paper describes the issues and trade-offs between OWL, (ontology Web language) and SL (semantic language) when used as semantic language for communication between agents. The comparison is done based on the factors of knowledge representation and expressive power. First part of the paper describes the expressiveness of communication between agents when SL is used as content language. Then the benefits of OWL are described before clarifying the pitfalls and issues in using it as content language for communication between agents. After the in-depth analysis of the two languages we emphasis that due to OWL compatibility and interoperability issues and lack of expressing modalities. OWL will not be a better option to be used as content language when compared with SL in agent communication language (ACL) message structure.","PeriodicalId":222828,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the IEEE Symposium on Emerging Technologies, 2005.","volume":"14 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2005-12-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the IEEE Symposium on Emerging Technologies, 2005.","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/ICET.2005.1558938","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

Communication language is necessary for two parties to hold a meaningful conversation either between humans or agents. Explicit communication semantics are often considered essential for rich interaction between multi-agent systems. This paper describes the issues and trade-offs between OWL, (ontology Web language) and SL (semantic language) when used as semantic language for communication between agents. The comparison is done based on the factors of knowledge representation and expressive power. First part of the paper describes the expressiveness of communication between agents when SL is used as content language. Then the benefits of OWL are described before clarifying the pitfalls and issues in using it as content language for communication between agents. After the in-depth analysis of the two languages we emphasis that due to OWL compatibility and interoperability issues and lack of expressing modalities. OWL will not be a better option to be used as content language when compared with SL in agent communication language (ACL) message structure.
OWL和FIPA-SL作为语义语言的评价
沟通语言是双方进行有意义的对话所必需的,无论是在人之间还是在代理之间。显式通信语义通常被认为是多智能体系统之间丰富交互的必要条件。本文描述了在使用OWL(本体Web语言)和SL(语义语言)作为代理间通信的语义语言时存在的问题和权衡。从知识表示和表达能力两个方面进行了比较。本文第一部分描述了使用SL作为内容语言时代理间通信的表达性。然后描述OWL的优点,然后澄清使用OWL作为代理之间通信的内容语言的缺陷和问题。经过对两种语言的深入分析,我们强调由于OWL的兼容性和互操作性问题以及表达方式的缺乏。与代理通信语言(ACL)消息结构中的SL相比,OWL并不是作为内容语言的更好选择。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信