Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems

, Volume 28, Issue 4, pp 519–557 | Cite as

Engineering commitment-based business protocols with the 2CL methodology

  • Matteo BaldoniEmail author
  • Cristina Baroglio
  • Elisa Marengo
  • Viviana Patti
  • Federico Capuzzimati


Enterprises must respect a number of regulations, with multilevel nature and which change along time. They must not only adapt their business interactions to the regulations and their changes but also evaluate the risks of violation of the new rules and to account for responsibilities. This work proposes a methodological framework for modeling and engineering business protocols, which gives primary position to the notions of commitment and responsibility, and supports the analysis of risks of violation when a new regulation is issued. We build on 2CL commitment-based protocols and introduce 2CL Methodology, a software engineering methodology for such protocols, which includes guidelines for specifying 2CL business protocols, for specialising them, and for composing a new 2CL protocol based on a set of given 2CL protocols. We developed a set of integrated software tools for the design and the analysis of 2CL protocols, with the aim of concretely supporting, on the one hand, designers in the task of identifying exposure to risks of violation, and, on the other hand, the management in the task of reasoning about accountability and of decision making. The proposal is evaluated by using a real-world case study from the banking sector.


Commitment-based business protocols Regulations Methodologies  Risks of violations Accountability 



This research was partially funded by “Regione Piemonte” through the project ICT4LAW. The authors would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for the valuable comments, which helped improving the quality of this paper.


  1. 1.
    Baldoni, M., Baroglio, C., & Marengo, E. (2010). Behavior-oriented commitment-based protocols. In Proceedings of ECAI, Vol. 215 of Frontiers in artificial intelligence and applications (pp. 137–142). Amsterdam: IOS Press.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baldoni, M., Baroglio, C., Brunkhorst, I., Henze, N., Marengo, E., & Patti, V. (2011). Constraint modeling for curriculum planning and validation. International Journal of Interactive Learning Environments, 19(1), 83–123.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baldoni, M., Baroglio, C., Marengo, E., & Patti, V. (2011). Grafting regulations into business protocols: Supporting the analysis of risks of violation. In Forth international workshop on requirements engineering and law (RELAW 2011), held in conjunction with the 19th IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference (pp. 50–59). Trento: IEEE Xplore.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Baldoni, M., Baroglio, C., Patti, V., & Marengo. E. (2012). Supporting the analysis of risks of violation in business protocols: The MiFID case study. In Information systems: Crossroads for organization, management, accounting and engineering (pp. 545–553). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Baldoni, M., Baroglio, C., & Capuzzimati, F. (2013). 2COMM: A commitment-based MAS architecture. In M. Cossentino, A. El Fallah Seghrouchni, & M. Winikoff (Eds.), Proceedings of the 1st international workshop on engineering multi-agent systems, EMAS 2013, held in conjuction with AAMAS 2013, pp. 17–32, St. Paul, Minnesota.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Baldoni, M., Baroglio, C., Capuzzimati, F., Marengo, E., & Patti, V. (2013). A generalized commitment machine for 2CL protocols and its implementation. In Post-proceedings of the 10th international workshop on declarative agent languages and technologies X, DALT 2012. Revised selected and invited papers, No. 7784 in LNAI (pp. 96–115). Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Baldoni, M., Baroglio, C., Marengo, E., & Patti, V. (2013). Constitutive and regulative specifications of commitment protocols: A decoupled approach. ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology, 4(2), 22:1–22:25.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bentahar, J., El-Menshawy, M., Qu, H., & Dssouli, R. (2012). Communicative commitments: Model checking and complexity analysis. Knowledge-Based Systems, 35, 21–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chesani, F., Mello, P., Montali, M., & Torroni, P. (2013). Representing and monitoring social commitments using the event calculus. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 27(1), 85–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chopra, A. (2009). Commitment alignment: Semantics, patterns, and decision procedures for distributed computing. PhD thesis, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chopra A. K., & Singh M. P. (2008). Constitutive interoperability. In L. Padgham, D. C. Parkes, J. P. Müller, & S. Parsons (Eds.), AAMAS (2) (pp. 797–804). IFAAMAS.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chopra, A. K., & Singh, M. P. (2011). Specifying and applying commitment-based business patterns. In Proceedings of AAMAS. IFAAMAS.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Chopra, A. K., Artikis, A., Bentahar, J., Colombetti, M., Dignum, F., Fornara, N., Jones, A. J. I., Singh, M. P., & Yolum, P. (2013). Research directions in agent communication. ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology, 4(2), 20:1–20:23.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dam, K. H. (2003). Evaluating and comparing agent-oriented software engineering methodologies. PhD thesis, Applied Science in Information Technology, School of Computer Science and Information Technology, RMIT University, Australia.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dam, K. H., & Winikoff, M. (2003). Comparing agent-oriented methodologies. In AOIS. Lecture notes in computer science (Vol. 3030, pp. 78–93). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    D’Aprile, D., Giordano, L., Martelli, A., Pozzato, G., Rognone, D., & Theseider Duprè, D. (2012). Business process compliance verification: An annotation based approach with commitments. In Information systems: Crossroads for organization, management, accounting and engineering (pp 563–570).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Desai, N., Mallya, A. U., Chopra, A. K., & Singh, M. P. (2005). Interaction protocols as design abstractions for business processes. IEEE Transactiions on Software Engineering, 31(12), 1015–1027.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Desai, N. V., Chopra, A. K., Arrott, M., Specht, B., & Singh, M. P. (2007). Engineering foreign exchange processes via commitment protocols. In IEEE international conference on SCC (pp. 514–521).Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Desai, N., Chopra, A. K., & Singh, M. P. (2009). Amoeba: A methodology for modelling and evolving cross-organizational business processes. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology, 19(2), Article 6.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Directive 2004/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on markets in financial instruments.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Dunin-Keplicz, B., & Verbrugge, R. (2003). Evolution of collective commitment during teamwork. Fundamenta Informaticae, 56(4), 329–371.zbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    El-Menshawy, M., Bentahar, J., Qu, H., & Dssouli, R. (2011). On the verification of social commitments and time. In 10th international conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems (AAMAS 2011), Taipei, Taiwan, May 2–6, 2011, pp. 483–490. IFAAMAS.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    El Menshawy, M., Bentahar, J., El Kholy, W., & Dssouli, R. (2012). Reducing model checking commitments for agent communication to model checking ARCTL and GCTL*. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 27(3), 375–418.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    El-Menshawy, M., Bentahar, J., El Kholy, W., & Dssouli, R. (2013). Verifying conformance of multi-agent commitment-based protocols. Expert Systems with Applications, 40(1), 122–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Fornara, N., & Colombetti, M. (2004). A commitment-based approach to agent communication. Applied Artificial Intelligence, 18(9–10), 853–866.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Fornara, N., & Colombetti, M. (2010). Representation and monitoring of commitments and norms using OWL. AI Communications, 23(4), 341–356.zbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Fornara, N., & Colombetti, M. (2012). Specifying and enforcing norms in artificial institutions: A retrospective review. In Declarative agent languages and technologies IX—9th international workshop, DALT 2011. Revised selected and invited papers, Vol. 7169 of Lecture notes in computer science (pp. 117–119). Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Gerard, S. N., & Singh, M. P. (2013). Formalizing and verifying protocol refinements. ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology (TIST), 4(2).Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Gibilaro, G. (2007). Cassazione Civile Sentenza, Sez. SS.UU., 19/12/2007, n. 26724 e 26725. Intermediazione finanziaria, nullità del contratto e risarcimento del danno.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Jones, A. J. I., & Sergot, M. (1994). On the characterization of law and computer systems: The normative systems perspective. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kammer, P. J., Bolcer, G. A., Taylor, R. N., Hitomi, A. S., & Bergman, M. (2000). Techniques for Supporting Dynamic and Adaptive Workflow. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 9(3/4), 269–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Mallya, A., & Singh, M. P. (2007). An algebra for commitment protocols. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 14(2), 143–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Marengo, E. (2012). 2CL protocols: Interaction patterns specification in commitment protocols. PhD thesis, Università degli Studi di Torino, Research Doctorate in Science and High Technology, Specialization in Computer Science.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Miller, T., & McGinnis, J. (2008). Amongst first-class protocols. In Proceedings of enginerring societies in the agents world VIII. LNCS (Vol. 4995, pp. 208–223). Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Montali, M. (2010). Specification and verification of declarative open interaction models: A logic-based approach. (Vol. 56). LNBIP. Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Montali, M., Pesic, M., van der Aalst, W. M. P., Chesani, F., Mello, P., & Storari, S. (2010). Declarative specification and verification of service choreographies. ACM Transactions on the Web (TWEB), 4(1), 1–62.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (1980). OECD guidelines on the protection of privacy and transborder flows of personal data. Available online.
  38. 38.
    Pesic, M. (2008). Constraint-based workflow management systems: Shifting control to users. PhD thesis, Eindhoven University of Technology.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Pesic, M., & van der Aalst, W. M. P. (2006). A declarative approach for flexible business processes management. In Business process management workshops (BPM 2006). LNCS (Vol. 4103, pp. 169–180). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Pesic, M., Schonenberg, H., & van der Aalst, W. (2007). DECLARE: Full support for loosely-structured processes. In Proceedings of the 11th IEEE international enterprise distributed object computing conference. Washington, DC: IEEE Computer Society.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Regev, G., Bider, I., & Wegmann, A. (2007). Defining business process flexibility with the help of invariants. Software Process: Improvement and Practice, 12(1), 65–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Reichert, M., & Dadam, P. (1998). \(\text{ ADEPT }_{{\rm flex}}\)-Supporting dynamic changes of workflows without losing control. Journal of Intelligent Information Systems, 10(2), 93–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Searle, J. (1995). The construction of social reality. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Singh, M. P. (1999). An ontology for commitments in multiagent systems. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 7(1), 97–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Singh, M. P. (2007). Formalizing communication protocols for multiagent systems. In Proceedings of the 20th international joint conference on artificial intelligence (IJCAI 2007) (pp. 1519–1524). Hyderabad: AAAI Press.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Singh, M. P., Chopra, A. K., & Desai, N. V. (2008). Commitment-based service-oriented architecture. IEEE Computer, 42(11), 72–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Telang, P. R., & Singh, M. P. (2010). Abstracting business modeling patterns from RosettaNet. In Service-oriented computing: Agents, semantics, and engineering. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Telang, P. R., & Singh, M. P. (2012). Comma: A commitment-based business modeling methodology and its empirical evaluation. In Proceedings of international conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems, AAMAS 2012 (pp. 1073–1080). IFAAMAS.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Telang, P. R., & Singh, M. P. (2012). Specifying and verifying cross-organizational business models: An agent-oriented approach. IEEE Transactions on Services Computing, 5(3), 305–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    van der Aalst, W. M. P., & van Hee, K. M. (2012). Workflow management: Models, methods, and systems. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    van der Aalst, W. M. P., Weske, M., & Grünbauer, D. (2005). Case handling: A new paradigm for business process support. Data and Knowledge Engineering, 53(2), 129–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    van der Aalst, W., Pesic, M., & Schonenberg, H. (2009). Declarative workflows: Balancing between flexibility and support. Computer Science—Research and Development, 23, 99–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Winikoff, M., Liu, W., & Harland, J. (2004). Enhancing commitment machines. In Proceedings of DALT 2004. LNCS (Vol. 3476, pp. 198–220). Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Wooldridge, M. J. (2002). An introduction to multiagent systems. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Yolum, P. (2007). Design time analysis of multiagent protocols. Data and Knowledge Engineering, 63(1), 137–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Yolum, P., & Singh, M. P. (2001). Commitment machines. In Intelligent agents VIII, Proceedings of ATAL. LNCS (Vol. 2333, pp. 235–247). Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Yolum, P., & Singh, M. P. (2001). Designing and executing protocols using the event calculus. In Proceedings of the 5th international conference on autonomous agents (pp. 27–28).Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Yolum, P., & Singh, M. P. (2002). Flexible protocol specification and execution: applying event calculus planning using commitments. In Proceedings of AAMAS.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Matteo Baldoni
    • 1
    Email author
  • Cristina Baroglio
    • 1
  • Elisa Marengo
    • 1
  • Viviana Patti
    • 1
  • Federico Capuzzimati
    • 1
  1. 1.Dipartimento di InformaticaUniversità degli Studi di TorinoTorinoItaly

Personalised recommendations