臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

在現有的電子市集中，買方可以使用搜尋引擎搜尋完全符合需求的商品，但卻無法搜尋潛在有興趣的商品。本研究針對此問題而設計一個多重代理人電子市集，讓買賣雙方皆可在此委派分屬的代理人，並經由代理人之間的議論機制對商品特性從事議論行為。透過代理人間的議論，可幫助賣方說服買方考量其商品，也可幫助買方搜尋潛在有興趣的商品。為了實現這樣的理念，在此採用了語意網技術以表達代理人的知識本體，並使用資訊收集法與抽象議論架構以支援可推翻式推理。本研究以實驗室實驗法評估本議論機制的效益，實驗結果顯示本系統不僅可幫助買方搜尋完全符合需求的商品，也可以找到買方潛在有興趣之商品，並證實電子市集應提供機制以幫助買方搜尋潛在有興趣之商品。本研究提出的架構與方法可啟發現存與新創的電子市集去設計更加完善的商品搜尋與推薦機制。

In existing e-marketplaces, buyers can use search engines to find products that exactly match their demands, but some products those are potentially interesting to them cannot be found out. This research aims to design a multi-agent e-marketplace in which buyers and sellers can delegate their agents to argue over product attributes via an agent-to-agent argumentation mechanism. This mechanism enables sellers to persuade buyers into considering sellers’ products and helps buyers to search potentially interesting products. To make the idea possible, this research adopts the Semantic Web technology to express agents’ ontologies and uses an abstract argumentation framework with information gathering approach to support defeasible reasoning. A laboratory experiment is conducted to assess the performance of the argumentation mechanism. The experimental results show that the proposed system can help buyers to search both exactly and potentially interesting products, and e-marketplaces are supposed to help buyers to search potentially interesting products. The proposed architecture and approaches can inspire existing and initiative e-marketplaces to design their product searching and recommendation mechanisms.

Chapter 1.Introduction...........................................................................1
1.1.Research background and motivation..............................................1
1.2.Research objectives.........................................................................2
Chapter 2.Related Works.......................................................................4
2.1.Semantic Web..................................................................................4
2.1.1.RDF..............................................................................................4
2.1.2.OWL.............................................................................................5
2.1.3.SWRL...........................................................................................9
2.2.Former Researches on Semantic-based e-Marketplaces.................12
2.3.Argumentation Theory..................................................................15
2.3.1.Toulmin Argument Structure......................................................15
2.3.2.Abstract Argumentation Framework...........................................16
2.3.3.Defeasible Argumentation Systems.............................................17
Chapter 3.System Architecture.............................................................23
3.1.Demonstration of Agent-to-Agent Dialogues.................................29
Chapter 4.System Evaluation and Results............................................44
4.1.Experimental Procedure.................................................................44
4.2.Results of the Experiment..............................................................51
Chapter 5.Conclusions.........................................................................57
References...........................................................................................59
Appendix.............................................................................................65

Anderson, R. (1995) Essentials of Personal Selling: The New Professionalism, Prentice-Hall, inc., New Jersey.
Baader, F., Calvanese, D., Mc Guinness, D., Nardi, D. and Patel-Schneider, P. (2002). The Description Logic Handbook. Cambridge University Press.
Berners-Lee, T. (1999). Weaving the Web. San Francisco: Harper.
Berners-Lee, T., Hendler, J., and Lassila, (2001). The Semantic Web, Scientific American, pages 34-44.
Bondarenko, A., Dung, P. M., Kowalski, R. A., and Toni, F. (1997). An abstract, argumentation-theoretic approach to default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence, Vol.93, No.1-2, pages 63-101.
Brewka, G. (1994). A reconstruction of Rescher’s theory of formal disputation based on default logic. In Cohn, A. G., editor, Proceedings of the 11th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, ECAI’94, pages 366-370.
Colucci, S., Noia, T. D., Di Sciascio, E., Donini, F and Mongiello, M. (2004). Concept Abduction and Contraction for Semantic-based Discovery of Matches and Negotiation Spaces in an E-Marketplace. In Proceedings of the 6th Intl. Conf. on Electronic Commerce, ICEC’04, pages 41-50.
Colucci, S., Noia, T. D., Di Sciascio, E., Donini, F.and Pinto, A. (2005). Knowledge Elicitation for Query Refinement in a Semantic-Enabled E-Marketplace. ICEC’05, pages 685-691.
Carbogim, D., Robertson, D., Lee, J. (2000). Argument-based applications to Knowledge engineering. Knowledge Engineering Review, Vol.15, No.2, pages 119-149.
Dumas, M., Governatori, G., Hofstede, A.H.M., & Oaks, P. (2002). A Formal Approach to Negotiating Agents Development. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, Vol.1, No.2, pages 193-207.
Dung, P. M. (1995). On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence, Vol.77, No.2, pages 321-358.
Freeman, K. (1993). Toward formalizing dialectical argumentation. PhD thesis, Department of Computer and Information Science of the University of Oregon, USA.
Grosof, B. N. (2004), Representing e-commerce rules via situated courteous logic programs in RuleML, Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, Vol.3, No.1, pages 2-20.
Herman, I. and Hendler, J. (2006). Web Ontology Language (OWL). Retrieved from http://www.w3.org/2004/OWL/
Horridge, M., Knublauch H., Rector A., Stevens R., and Chris (2004). A Practical Guide To Building OWL Ontologies Using The Protege-OWL Plugin and CO-ODE Tools Edition 1.0. The University Of Manchester.
Horrocks, I., Patel-Schneider P. F., and van Harmelen F. (2003). From SHIQ and RDF to OWL: The making of a web ontology language. Journal of Web Semantics, Vol.1, No.1, pages 7-26.
Horrocks, L., Patel-Schneider, P. F., Boley, H., Tabet, S., Grosof, B., and Dean, M. (2004). SWRL: A Semantic Web Rule Language combining OWL and RuleML. Retrieved from http://www.w3.org/Submission/SWRL/
Huang, S.-L. and Lin, F.-R. (2007). The Design and Evaluation of Intelligent Sales Agent for Online Persuasion and Negotiation. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, Vol. 6, No. 3, pp. 285-296.
John, L. Y. and Andrew, S. (2006). The generic/actual argument model of practical reasoning. Decision Support Systems, Vol.41, No2, pages 358-379.
Kowalski, R. and Toni, F. (1994). Argument and reconciliation. In Proceedings of the Workshop of Applications of Logic Programming to Legal Reasoning at the International Symposium on Fifth Generation Computer Systems, ICOT’94, Tokyo.
Kowalski, R. and Toni, F. (1996). Abstract argumentation. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 275-296. Special Issue on Logical Models of Argumentation. H. Prakken and G. Sartor, editors.
Li, L. and Horrocks, I. (2004). A Software Framework for Matchmaking Based on Semantic Web Technology. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, Vol.8, No.4, pages 39-60.
Lin, F. and Shoham, Y. (1989). Argument systems: a uniform basis for nonmonotonic reasoning. In Proceedings of the First International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR89), pages245-255. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc.
Lin, F.-r., & Chang, K.-y. (2001). Enhancing the On-Line Automated Bargaining Process Using Bargaining Pattern and Dynamic Price Issuing Approaches. IEEE Intelligent Systems, special issue on intelligent e-business, pages 41-47.
Loui, R. P. (1987). Defeat among arguments: a system of defeasible inference. Computational Intelligence, Vol.3, No.1, pages 100-106.
Matwin, S., Szapiro, T., & Haigh, K. (1991). Genetic Algorithm Approach to A Negotiation Support System. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Vol.21, No.1, pages 102-114.
McGuinness, D. L. and van Harmelen, F. (2004). OWL Web Ontology Language overview. Retrieved from http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-features/
Natalya F. N. and Deborah L. M.(2001). Ontology Development 101: A guide to Creating Your First Ontology. Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
Noia, T.D., Sciascio, E.D., Donini, F.M., and Mongiello, M. (2003). A System for Principled Matchmaking in an Electronic Marketplace. In: Proceedings of the International WWW Conference, Budapest, Hungary, pages 321-330.
Noy, N. F., Sintek, M., Decker, S., Crubezy, M. R., Fergerson,W. and Musen, M. A.(2001). Creating Semantic Web contents with Protege-2000. IEEE Intelligent Systems, pages 60-71.
Nute, D. (1994). Defeasible logic. In Gabbay, D. M., Hogger, C. J., and Robinson, J. A., editors, Nonmonotonic Reasoning and Uncertain Reasoning, volume 3 of Handbook of Logic for Artificial Intelligence and Logic Programming, pages 353-395. Oxford University Press.
Nute, D. (1988). Defeasible reasoning and decision support systems. Decision Support Systems, Vol.4, No.1, pages 97-100.
Oberhaus, M.A., S. Ratliffe, and V. Stauble (1993) Professional Selling: A Relationship Process, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers, Orlando.
O’Connor, M., Knublauch, H., Tu, S., Grosof, B., Dean, M., Grosso, W., Musen, M. (2005). Supporting rule system interoperability on the Semantic Web with SWRL. In proceedings of the 4th international semantic web conference, Galway, Ireland, November 6-10, pages 974-986.
Oliver, J.R. (1997) “A Machine Learning Approach to Automated Negotiation and Prospects for Electronic Commerce,” Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol.13, No.3, pages 83-112.
Pollock, J. (1987). Defeasible reasoning. Cognitive Science, Vol.11, No.4, pages 481-518
Prakken, H. (1995). From logic to dialectics in legal argument. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, pages 165-174, Washington DC, USA. ACM Press.
Prakken, H. and Vreeswijk , G. (1999).Logics for defeasible argumentation. In Gabbay, D., editor, Handbook of Philosophical Logic (to appear). Kluwer Academic Publishers, second edition.
Prakken, H. (2001). Relating Protocols for Dynamic Dispute with Logics for Defeasible Argumentation. Synthese, Vol.127, No. 1-2, pages 187-219.
Shadbolt, N., Hall, W., and Berners-Lee, T. (2006). The Semantic Web Revisited, IEEE Intelligent Systems, Vol. 21, No. 3, pages 96-101.
Simari, G. R. and Loui, R. P. (1992). A mathematical treatment of defeasible reasoning and its implementation. Artificial Intelligence, Vol.53, pages 125-157.
Tomaz, R.F., Labidi, S., and Wanghon, B. (2003). A Semantic Matching Method for Clustering Traders in B2B Systems, In: Proceedings of the IEEE/LA-Web First Latin American Web Congress, Santiago, Chile.
Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.
Trastour, D., Bartolini, C., and Preist, C. (2002). Semantic Web support for the business-to-business e-commerce lifecycle. In D. Lassnor, D. De Rourre, and A. Iyengar (ed.), Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on World Wide Web. New York: ACM, pages 89-98.
Verheij, B. (2003). Artificial argument assistants for defeasible argumentation, Artificial Intelligence, Vol.150, No.1-2, pages 291-324.
Vreeswijk, G and H. Prakken (2000). Credulous and Sceptical Argument Games for Preferred Semantics. Proceedings of JELIA''2000, The 7th European Workshop on Logic for Artificial Intelligence, in: Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, Springer, Berlin, pages 239-253.
Wasfy, A.M., & Hosni, Y.A. (1998). Two-Party Negotiation Modeling: An Integrated Fuzzy Logic Approach. Group Decision and Negotiation, Vol.7, No.6, pages 491-518.
Wooldridge, M. (2002). Reaching Agreements. An Introduction to Multi-agent Systems. John Wiley & Sons.
Zeng, D., & Sycara, K. (1998). Bayesian Learning in Negotiation. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, pages 125-141.