Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Specifying Open Agent Systems: A Survey

  • Conference paper
Engineering Societies in the Agents World IX (ESAW 2008)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 5485))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

Electronic markets, dispute resolution and negotiation protocols are three types of application domain that can be viewed as open agent systems. Members of such systems are developed by different parties and have conflicting goals. Consequently, they may choose not to, or simply fail to, conform to the norms governing their interactions. It has been argued that many practical applications in the future will be realised in terms of open agent systems of this sort. Not surprisingly, recently there is a growing interest in open systems. In this paper we review and compare four approaches for the specification of open systems, pointing out the extent to which they satisfy a set of requirements identified in the literature.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. OWL Web Ontology Language: Overview. W3C Recommendation (2004), http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-features/

  2. Artikis, A., Sergot, M., Pitt, J.: Specifying norm-governed computational societies. ACM Transactions on Computational Logic 10(1) (2009) (retrieved July 6, 2008), http://www.acm.org/pubs/tocl/accepted/304artikis.pdf

  3. Bandara, A.: A Formal Approach to Analysis and Refinement of Policies. Ph.D thesis. Imperial College London (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Boella, G., van der Torre, L.: Security policies for sharing knowledge in virtual communities. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics 36(3), 439–450 (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Boella, G., van der Torre, L.W.N.: The ontological properties of social roles in multi-agent systems: Definitional dependence, powers and roles playing roles. Artificial Intelligence and Law 15(3), 201–221 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Bradshaw, J., Uszok, A., Jeffers, R., Suri, N., Hayes, P., Burstein, M., Acquisti, A., Benyo, B., Breedy, M., Carvalho, M., Diller, D., Johnson, M., Kulkarni, S., Lott, J., Sierhuis, M., Van Hoof, R.: Representation and reasoning about DAML-based policy and domain services in KAoS. In: Rosenschein, J., Sandholm, T., Wooldridge, M., Yoko, M. (eds.) Proceedings of Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi Agent Systems (AAMAS), pp. 835–842. ACM Press, New York (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Chopra, A., Singh, M.: Contextualizing commitment protocols. In: Proceedings of Conference on Autonous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (AAMAS), pp. 1345–1352. ACM, New York (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Dastani, M., Dignum, V., Dignum, F.: Role-assignment in open agent societies. In: Proceedings of Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, pp. 489–496. ACM, New York (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Desai, N., Mallya, A., Chopra, A., Singh, M.: Interaction protocols as design abstractions for business processes. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering (TSE) 31(12), 1015–1027 (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Desai, N., Mallya, A., Chopra, K., Singh, M.: OWL-P: A methodology for business process modeling and enactment. In: Kolp, M., Bresciani, P., Henderson-Sellers, B., Winikoff, M. (eds.) AOIS 2005. LNCS, vol. 3529, pp. 79–94. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Desai, N., Singh, M.: A modular action description language for protocol composition. In: Proceedings of Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Desai, N., Singh, M.: Checking correctness of business contracts via commitments. In: Proccedings of International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Esteva, M., de la Cruz, D., Sierra, C.: Islander: an electronic institutions editor. In: Castelfranchi, C., Johnson, L. (eds.) Proceedings of the First International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (AAMAS), pp. 1045–1052. ACM Press, New York (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Esteva, M., Padget, J., Sierra, C.: Formalizing a language for institutions and norms. In: Meyer, J.-J.C., Tambe, M. (eds.) ATAL 2001. LNCS, vol. 2333, pp. 348–366. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Esteva, M., Rodríguez-Aguilar, J., Sierra, C., Vasconcelos, W.: Verifying norm consistency in electronic institutions. In: Proceedings of the AAAI 2004 Workshop on Agent Organizations: Theory and Practice, pp. 8–14 (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Fitoussi, D., Tennenholtz, M.: Minimal social laws. In: Proceedings of Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI) and Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence (IAAI), pp. 26–31. AAAI Press/The MIT Press, Menlo Park (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Fitoussi, D., Tennenholtz, M.: Choosing social laws for multi-agent systems: minimality and simplicity. Artificial Intelligence 119(1-2), 61–101 (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Fornara, N., Colombetti, M.: Formal specification of artificial institutions using the event calculus. In: Multi-Agent Systems: Semantics and Dynamics of Organizational Models. IGI Global (2008) (to appear)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Fox, M., Barbuceanu, M., Grüninger, M., Lin, J.: An organizational ontology for enterprise modeling. In: Prietula, M., Carley, K., Gasser, L. (eds.) Simulating Organizations: Computational Models for Institutions and Groups, pp. 131–152. AAAI Press/The MIT Press (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  20. García-Camino, A., Noriega, P., Rodríguez-Aguilar, J.: Implementing norms in electronic institutions. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (AAMAS), pp. 667–673. ACM Press, New York (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Giunchiglia, E., Lee, J., Lifschitz, V., McCain, N., Turner, H.: Nonmonotonic causal theories. Artificial Intelligence 153(1–2), 49–104 (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Grossi, D., Dignum, F., Meyer, J.-J.C.: A formal road from institutional norms to organizational structures. In: Durfee, E., Yokoo, M., Huhns, M., Shehory, O. (eds.) Proceedings of Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, pp. 616–623 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Grüninger, M., Fox, M.: The role of competency questions in enterprise engineering. In: Proceedings of the IFIP WG5.7 Workshop on Benchmarking-Theory and Practice (1994)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Hewitt, C.: Open information systems semantics for distributed artificial intelligence. Artificial Intelligence 47, 79–106 (1991)

    Google Scholar 

  25. Horrrocks, I., Patel-Schneider, P., Boley, H., Tabet, S., Grosof, B., Dean, M.: SWRL: A semantic web rule language combining OWL and ruleML. W3C Submission (2004), http://www.w3.org/Submission/2004/SUBM-SWRL-20040521/

  26. Jones, A., Sergot, M.: On the characterisation of law and computer systems: the normative systems perspective. In: Deontic Logic in Computer Science: Normative System Specification, pp. 275–307. J. Wiley and Sons, Chichester (1993)

    Google Scholar 

  27. Jones, A., Sergot, M.: A formal characterisation of institutionalised power. Journal of the IGPL 4(3), 429–445 (1996)

    Google Scholar 

  28. Kagal, L., Finin, T.: Modeling communicative behavior using permissions and obligations. Journal of Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 14(2), 187–206 (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  29. Lomuscio, A., Sergot, M.: Deontic interpreted systems. Studia Logica 75(1), 63–92 (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  30. Makinson, D.: On the formal representation of rights relations. Journal of Philosophical Logic 15, 403–425 (1986)

    Google Scholar 

  31. McGinnis, J., Miller, T.: Amongst first-class protocols. In: Artikis, A., O’Hare, G.M.P., Stathis, K., Vouros, G. (eds.) ESAW 2007. LNCS, vol. 4995. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  32. Minsky, N., Ungureanu, V.: Law-governed interaction: a coordination and control mechanism for heterogeneous distributed systems. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology (TOSEM) 9(3), 273–305 (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  33. Moses, Y., Tennenholtz, M.: On computational aspects of artificial social systems. In: Proceedings of Workshop on Distributed Artificial Intelligence (DAI), pp. 267–284 (1992)

    Google Scholar 

  34. Moses, Y., Tennenholtz, M.: Artificial social systems. Computers and Artificial Intelligence 14(6), 533–562 (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  35. Mueller, E.: Commonsense Reasoning. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  36. Pinto, J., Reiter, R.: Temporal reasoning in logic programming: a case for the situation calculus. In: Warren, D. (ed.) Proceedings of Conference on Logic Programming, pp. 203–221. MIT Press, Cambridge (1993)

    Google Scholar 

  37. Rodriguez-Aguilar, J., Martin, F., Noriega, P., Garcia, P., Sierra, C.: Towards a test-bed for trading agents in electronic auction markets. AI Communications 11(1), 5–19 (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  38. Rosenschein, J., Zlotkin, G.: Rules of Encounter: Designing Conventions for Automated Negotiation among Computers. MIT Press, Cambridge (1994)

    Google Scholar 

  39. Searle, J.: What is a speech act? In A. Martinich, editor. In: Martinich, A. (ed.) Philosophy of Language, 3rd edn., pp. 130–140. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1996)

    Google Scholar 

  40. Serban, C., Chen, Y., Zhang, W., Minsky, M.N.: The concept of decentralised and secure electronic marketplace. Journal of Electronic Commerce Research (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  41. Sergot, M.: The representation of law in computer programs: a survey and comparison. In: Bench-Capon, T. (ed.) Knowledge Based Systems and Legal Applications. Academic Press, London (1990)

    Google Scholar 

  42. Sergot, M.: A computational theory of normative positions. ACM Transactions on Computational Logic 2(4), 522–581 (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  43. Sergot, M., Craven, R.: The deontic component of action language nC +. In: Goble, L., Meyer, J.-J.C. (eds.) DEON 2006. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4048, pp. 222–237. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  44. Shanahan, M.: The event calculus explained. In: Veloso, M.M., Wooldridge, M.J. (eds.) Artificial Intelligence Today. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1600, pp. 409–430. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  45. Shanahan, M.: An abductive event calculus planner. Journal of Logic Programming 44, 207–239 (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  46. Shoham, Y., Tennenholtz, M.: Emergent conventions in multi-agent systems. In: Proceedings of Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR), pp. 225–231 (1992)

    Google Scholar 

  47. Shoham, Y., Tennenholtz, M.: On the synthesis of useful social laws for artificial agent societies. In: Swartout, W. (ed.) Proceedings of Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI), pp. 276–281. The AAAI Press/ The MIT Press (1992)

    Google Scholar 

  48. Shoham, Y., Tennenholtz, M.: On social laws for artificial agent societies: off-line design. Artificial Intelligence 73(1-2), 231–252 (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  49. Shoham, Y., Tennenholtz, M.: On the emergence of social conventions: modeling, analysis and simulations. Artificial Intelligence 94(1-2), 139–166 (1997)

    Google Scholar 

  50. Singh, M.: Agent communication languages: rethinking the principles. IEEE Computer 31(12), 40–47 (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  51. Singh, M.: An ontology for commitments in multiagent systems: towards a unification of normative concepts. Artificial Intelligence and Law 7(1), 97–113 (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  52. Singh, M.: A social semantics for agent communication languages. In: Dignum, F., Greaves, M. (eds.) Issues in Agent Communication. LNCS, vol. 1916, pp. 31–45. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  53. Tennenholtz, M.: On computational social laws for dynamic non-homogeneous social structures. Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Artificial Intelligence 7, 379–390 (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  54. Uszok, A., Bradshaw, J., Lott, J., Breedy, M., Bunch, L., Feltovich, P., Johnson, M., Jung, H.: New developments in ontology-based policy management: Increasing the practicality and comprehensiveness of KAoS. In: Proceedings of Workshop on Policies for Distributed Systems and Networks, pp. 145–152. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  55. van Eijk, R., de Boer, F., van der Hoek, W., Meyer, J.-J.: Open multi-agent systems: agent communication and integration. In: Jennings, N., Lesperance, Y. (eds.) ATAL 1999. LNCS, vol. 1757, pp. 218–232. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  56. Venkatraman, M., Singh, M.: Verifying compliance with commitment protocols. Journal of Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 2(3), 217–236 (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  57. Yolum, P., Singh, M.: Commitment machines. In: Meyer, J.-J.C., Tambe, M. (eds.) ATAL 2001. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2333, pp. 235–247. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  58. Yolum, P., Singh, M.: Flexible protocol specification and execution: applying event calculus planning using commitments. In: Castelfranchi, C., Johnson, L. (eds.) Proceedings of Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS), pp. 527–535. ACM Press, New York (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  59. Yolum, P., Singh, M.: Reasoning about commitments in the event calculus: An approach for specifying and executing protocols. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 42(1-3), 227–253 (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  60. Zambonelli, F., Jennings, N., Wooldridge, M.: Organisational rules as an abstraction for the analysis and design of multi-agent systems. International Journal of Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering 11(3), 303–328 (2001)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Informatics and Telecommunications, National Centre for Scientific Research “Demokritos”, Athens, 15310, Greece

    Alexander Artikis

  2. Electrical & Electronic Engineering Department, Imperial College London, SW7 2BT, UK

    Alexander Artikis & Jeremy Pitt

Authors
  1. Alexander Artikis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jeremy Pitt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. National Centre for Scientific Research "Demokritos", Institute of Informatics & Telecommunications, Software & Knowledge Engineering Laboratory,, 15310, Athens, Greece

    Alexander Artikis

  2. Multi-Agent Systems Department, ENS Mines Saint-Etienne, 158 Cours Fauriel, 42023, Saint-Etienne Cedex 02, France

    Gauthier Picard  & Laurent Vercouter  & 

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2009 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Artikis, A., Pitt, J. (2009). Specifying Open Agent Systems: A Survey. In: Artikis, A., Picard, G., Vercouter, L. (eds) Engineering Societies in the Agents World IX. ESAW 2008. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 5485. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-02562-4_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-02562-4_2

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-02561-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-02562-4

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation