The interoperability of devices from distinct brands on the Internet of Things (IoT) domain is still an open issue. The main reason is that pioneer companies always deliberately neglected to deploy devices able to interoperate with competitors products. The key factors that may invert such a trend derive, on one hand, from the abstraction of communication protocols that facilitates the migration from vertical to horizontal paradigms and, on the other hand, from the introduction of common and shared ontologies encoding devices specifications. The Semantic Web, with all its layers, can be considered the main framework for delivering ontologies, and by virtue of its features, it is surely the ideal means for providing shared knowledge. In this paper we present a framework that instantiates cognitive agents operating in IoT context, endowed with meta-reasoning in the Semantic Web. The framework, called SW-Caspar, is also provided with a module that performs semi-automatic ontology learning from sentences expressed in natural language; such a learning process generates a conceptual space reflecting the domain of discourse with an instance of a novel foundational ontology called Linguistic Oriented Davidsonian Ontology (LODO), whose main feature is to increase the deepness of reasoning without compromising linguistic-related features. LODO is inspired by the First-Order Logic Davidsonian notation and is serialized in OWL 2. Well-known examples derived from the theory of logical reasoning and a case-study applied to automation on health scenarios are also provided.
LongoC.F., SantoroC., CantoneD., SantamariaD.F., Nicolosi AsmundoM., SW-CASPAR: Reactive-Cognitive Architecture based on Natural Language Processing for the task of Decision-Making in the Open World Assumption, in: Proc. of the 22nd Workshop “From Objects to Agents” (WOA 2021), Bologna, Italy, Setember 1-3, 2021, R. Calegari, G. Ciatto, E. Denti, A. Omicini and G. Sartor, eds, CEURWorkshop Proceedings, Vol. 2963, 2021, pp. 178–193.
2.
LongoC.F., LongoF. and SantoroC., A Reactive Cognitive Architecture based on Natural Language Processing for the task of Decision-Making using a Rich Semantic, in: 21st Workshop “From Objects to Agents”(WOA 2020), 2020.
OberleD., GuarinoN. and StaabS., What is an ontology? Handbook on Ontologies, 2nd edition, Springer, 2009.
5.
BrowarnikA. and MaimonO., Ontology Learning from Text, in: The First International Conference on Big Data, Small Data, Linked Data and Open Data, 2015.
van InwagenP., Ontology, Identity, and Modality: Essays in Metaphysics, Cambridge University Press, 2001.
8.
PinkerS., The Language Instinct, William Morrow and Company, 1994. ISBN ISBN 0-688-12141-1.
9.
Finkelstein-LandauM. and MorinE., Extracting semantic relationships between terms: supervised vs. unsupervised methods, in: International Workshop on Ontological Engineering on the Global Information Infrastructure, Dagstuhl Castle, Germany, 1999.
10.
AbneyS., Part-of-Speech Tagging and Partial Parsing,, Young S., Bloothooft G. (eds) Corpus-Based Methods in Language and Speech Processing. Text, Speech and Language Technology, Springer, Dordrecht vol 2 (1997), 501–518. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-1183-8_4.
11.
GamalloP., GonzalezM., AgustiniA., LopesG. and de LimaV.S., Mapping Syntactic Dependencies onto Semantic Relations, in: Proceedings of the ECAI Workshop on Machine Learning and Natural Language Processing for Ontology Engineering,
2002.
12.
FaureD. and NedellecC., Knowledge acquisition of predicate argument structures from technical texts using machine leraning: The system ASIUM, Knowledge Acquisition, Modelling and Management (1999), 329–334.
13.
NavigliR. and VelardiP., Learning Domain Ontologies from Document Wharehouses and Dedicated websites, Computational Linguistics30(2), MIT Press (2004), 151–179.
14.
MillerG.A., WordNet: A Lexical Database for English, in: Communications of the ACM38(11) (1995), 39–41.
15.
Mehrnoush ShamsfardA.A.B., Learning ontologies from natural language texts, Int J Human-Computer Studies 60 vol 60 (2004), 17–63.
16.
MaedcheA. and StaabS., The text-to-onto ontology learning environment, in: Software Demonstration at ICCS-2000-Eight International Conference on Conceptual Structures, 2000.
17.
GillaniS., KőA. (2016), 28917–5ProMine: A Text Mining Solution for Concept Extraction and Filtering, in: Corporate Knowledge Discovery and Organizational Learning: The Role, Importance, and Application of Semantic Business Process Management, A. Gabor and A. Kő, eds, Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2016, pp. 59–82. ISBN ISBN 978-3-319-28917-5. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-28917-5_3.
18.
HahnM.R.U. and SchulzS., MediSynDiKATe–design considerations for an ontology-based medical text understanding system, in: Proceedings of the AMIA Symposium (p. 330), American Medical Informatics Association, 2000.
19.
DrymonasK.Z.E. and PetrakisE., Unsupervised ontology acquisition from plain text: The OntoGain system, Natural Language Processing and Information System (2010), 277–287.
20.
Al-AswadiH.Y., Fatima N. Chan and K.H. Gan, Automatic ontology construction from text: a review from shallow to deep learning trend, Artificial Intelligence Review (2020).
21.
RaoA.S., GeorgeffM.P., BDI agents: From theory to practice, in: Proceedings of the first international conference on multi-agent systems (ICMAS-95), San Francisco, CA, 1995, pp. 312–319 .
22.
D’UrsoF., LongoC.F. and SantoroC., Programming Intelligent IoT Systems with a Python-based Declarative Tool, in: TheWorkshops of the 18th International Conference of the Italian Association for Artificial Intelligence, 2019.
23.
SchacterD.L., Implicit memory: history and current status, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition13 (1987), 501–518.
24.
MatthewH., spaCy: Industrial-Strength Natural Language Processing, 2017.
25.
DavidsonD., The logical form of action sentences, The logic of decision and action, University of Pittsburg Press, 1967, pp. 81–95.
26.
AnthonyS. and PatrickJ., Dependency Based Logical Form Transformations, in: SENSEVAL-3: Third International Workshop on the Evaluation of Systems for the Semantic Analysis of Text, 2015.
27.
ParsonsT., Events in the Semantics of English: A Study in Subatomic Semantics, MIT Press, 1990.
28.
ParteeB.H., Lexical Semantics and Compositionality, Lila R. Gleitman and Mark Liberman editors, 1995, pp. 311–360.
29.
LongoC.F., SantoroC. and SantoroF.F., Meaning Extraction in a Domotic Assistant Agent Interacting by means of Natural Language, in: 28th IEEE International Conference on Enabling Technologies: Infrastructure for Collaborative Enterprises, IEEE, 2019.
30.
FicheraL., MessinaF., PappalardoG. and SantoroC., A Python Framework for Programming Autonomous RobotsUsing a Declarative Approach, Sci Comput Program139 (2017), 36–55. doi: 10.1016/j.scico.2017.01.003.
31.
SirinE., ParsiaB., GrauB.C., KalyanpurA. and KatzY., Pellet: A practical OWL-DL reasoner, Web Semantics5(2) (2007), 51–53.
BormannC., CastellaniA.P. and ShelbyZ., CoAP: An Application Protocol for Billions of Tiny Internet Nodes, IEEE Internet Computing16(2) (2012), 62–67. doi: 10.1109/MIC.2012.29.
38.
PautassoC., RESTful Web Services: Principles, Patterns, Emerging Technologies, in: Web Services Foundations, A. Bouguettaya, Q.Z. Sheng and F. Daniel, eds, Springer New York, New York, NY, 2014, pp. 31–51. ISBN ISBN 978-1-4614-7518-7. doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-7518-7_2.
39.
YasseinM.B., ShatnawiM.Q., AljwarnehS., Al-HatmiR., Internet of Things: Survey and open issues of MQTT protocol, in: 2017 International Conference on Engineering MIS (ICEMIS), 2017, pp. 1–6. doi: 10.1109/ICEMIS.2017.8273112.
40.
CantoneD., LongoC.F., Nicolosi-AsmundoM., SantamariaD.F., SantoroS., Towards an Ontology-Based Framework for a Behavior-Oriented Integration of the IoT, in: Proceedings of the 20th Workshop From Objects to Agents, 26-28 June, 2019, Parma, Italy, CEUR Workshop Proceeding Vol. 2404, 2019, pp. 119–126.
