Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems

, Volume 29, Issue 4, pp 621–657 | Cite as

Muon: designing multiagent communication protocols from interaction scenarios

Article

Abstract

Designing a suitable communication protocol is a key challenge in engineering a multiagent system. This paper proposes Muon, an approach that begins from representative samples of interactions or scenarios. Muon identifies key semantic structures and patterns based on (social) commitments to formally analyze the scenarios and offers a methodology for designing protocols that would meet stakeholder needs. Interestingly, Muon applies its formal representations to suggest ways to identify additional scenarios needed to address exceptions arising in the interactions. This paper contributes (1) a conceptual model of message types and causal relationships among them as a foundation for developing commitment-based communication protocols; (2) a robust, reusable characterization of semantic structures reflecting the above model; (3) a mapping from an annotated scenario to causally related interactions; and (4) a methodology to synthesize specifications of communication protocols. This paper reports on an empirical evaluation involving developers creating protocols from two real-life cases.

Keywords

Commitments Protocols Interactions Dooley graphs 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Special thanks to Ashok Mallya for early discussions that led to this work. Thanks to Amit Chopra, Nirmit Desai, Jon Doyle, Scott Gerard, Emerson Murphy-Hill, Pankaj Telang, and the anonymous reviewers for helpful comments. This work was partially supported by the NSF under Grant 0910868 and by the U.S. Army Research Office (ARO) under Grant W911NF-08-1-0105 managed by the NCSU Secure Open Systems Initiative.

References

  1. 1.
    Álvarez-Napagao, S., Cliffe, O., Padget, J. A., & Vázquez-Salceda, J. (2009). Norms, organisations and semantic web services: The ALIVE approach. In: Proceedings of the 2nd multi-agent logics, languages, and organisations (MALLOW) (Vol. 494 of CEUR). CEUR-WS.org, Torino.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Artikis, A., Sergot, M. J., & Pitt, J. V. (2009). Specifying norm-governed computational societies. ACM Transactions on Computational Logic, 10(1), 1:1–1:42.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    ASPE. (2010). The importance of radiology and pathology communication in the diagnosis and staging of cancer: Mammography as a case study. Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; available at http://aspe.hhs.gov/sp/reports/2010/PathRad/index.shtml
  4. 4.
    Baldoni, M., Baroglio, C., Marengo, E., Patti, V., & Capuzzimati, F. (2014). Engineering commitment-based business protocols with 2CL methodology. Journal of Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (JAAMAS), 28(4), 519–557.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Beck, K., & Cunningham, W. (1989). A laboratory for teaching object-oriented thinking. Proceedings of the 4th conference on object-oriented programming systems, languages, and applications (OOPSLA) (pp. 1–6). New Orleans: ACM.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Browne, S., & Kellett, M. (1999). Insurance (motor damage claims) scenario. Document D1.a, CrossFlow Consortium.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Carabelea, C., & Boissier, O. (2006). Coordinating agents in organizations using social commitments. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, 150(3), 73–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chesani, F., Mello, P., Montali, M., & Torroni, P. (2009). Commitment tracking via the reactive event calculus. Proceedings of the 21st international joint conference on artificial intelligence (IJCAI) (pp. 91–96). Pasadena, CA: IJCAI.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chopra, A., & Singh, M. P. (2004). Nonmonotonic commitment machines. In: Dignum, F. (Ed.), Advances in agent communication: Proceedings of the 2003 AAMAS workshop on agent communication languages (pp. 183–200, Vol. 2922 of LNAI). Springer.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chopra, A. K., & Singh, M. P. (2011). Specifying and applying commitment-based business patterns. Proceedings of the 10th international conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems (AAMAS) (pp. 475–482). Taipei: IFAAMAS.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Desai, N., Chopra, A. K., Arrott, M., Specht, B., & Singh, M. P. (2007a). Engineering foreign exchange processes via commitmentprotocols. Proceedings of the 4th IEEE international conferenceon services computing (SCC) (pp. 514–521). Salt Lake City: Application and Industry Track. IEEEComputer Society.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Desai, N., Chopra, A. K., & Singh, M. P. (2007b). Representing and reasoning about commitments in business processes. Proceedings of the 22nd conference on artificial intelligence (AAAI) (pp. 1328–1333). Vancouver: AAAI Press.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Desai, N., Chopra, A. K., & Singh, M. P. (2009). Amoeba: A methodology for modeling and evolving cross-organizational business processes. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology (TOSEM), 19(2), 6:1–6:45.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Desai, N., Mallya, A. U., Chopra, A. K., & Singh, M. P. (2005). Interaction protocols as design abstractions for business processes. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 31(12), 1015–1027.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dignum, V., Vázquez-Salceda, J., & Dignum, F. (2005). OMNI: Introducing social structure, norms and ontologies into agent organizations. In: Programming multi-agent systems (pp. 181–198, Vol. 3346 of, Lecture Notes in Computer Science).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    El Menshawy, M., Bentahar, J., Kholy, W. E., & Dssouli, R. (2013). Reducing model checking commitments for agent communication to model checking ARCTL and GCTL*. Journal of Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (JAAMAS), 27(3), 375–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Filippidou, D. (1998). Designing with scenarios: A critical review of current research and practice. Requirements Engineering, 2(1), 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Flores, R. A., Kremer, R. C. (2004). A principled modular approach to construct flexible conversation protocols. In: Proceedings of the 17th Canadian conference on artificial intelligence (pp. 1–15, Vol. 3060 of LNCS). London, ON: Springer.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Flores, R. A., Pasquier, P., & Chaib-draa, B. (2007). Conversational semantics sustained by commitments. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 14(2), 165–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Fornara, N., & Colombetti, M. (2003). Defining interaction protocols using a commitment-based agent communication language. Proceedings of the 2nd international joint conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems (AAMAS) (pp. 520–527). Melbourne: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Fornara, N., & Colombetti, M. (2009). Specifying and enforcing norms in artificial institutions. In: Declarative agent languages and technologies VI, revised selected and invited papers (pp. 1–17, Vol. 5397 of LNCS). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Gamma, E., Helm, R., Johnson, R., & Vlissides, J. (1995). Design patterns: Elements of reusable object-oriented software. Professional computing series. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Grosof, B. N., & Poon, T. C. (2003). SweetDeal: Representing agent contracts with exceptions using XML rules, ontologies, and process descriptions. In: Proceedings of the 12th international conference on the, World Wide Web (pp. 340–349).Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Günay, A., Winikoff, M., & Yolum, P. (2012). Commitment protocol generation. In: Proceedings of the 10th AAMAS workshop on declarative agent languages and technologies (DALT) (pp. 51–66).Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    ISO/HL7. (2009). Data exchange standards–Health Level Seven version 2.5: An application protocol for electronic data exchange in healthcare environments. TC 215’s ISO/HL7 27931 http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=44428
  26. 26.
    Kalia, A. K., Nezhad, H. R. M., Bartolini, C., & Singh, M. P. (2013). Monitoring commitments in people-driven service engagements. Proceedings of the 10th IEEE international conference on services computing (SCC) (pp. 160–167). Santa Clara, CA: IEEE Computer Society.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Malone, T. W., Crowston, K., & Herman, G. A. (Eds.). (2003). Organizing business knowledge: The MIT process handbook. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Object Management Group. (2004). UML 2.0 Superstructure specification. Framingham, Massachusetts, http://www.omg.org/spec/UML/2.0/Superstructure/PDF/.
  29. 29.
    Odell, J., Parunak, H. V. D., & Bauer, B. (2001). Representing agent interaction protocols in UML. In: Proceedings of the 1st international workshop on agent-oriented software engineering (AOSE 2000) (pp. 121–140, Vol. 1957 of LNCS). Toronto: Springer.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    OMG. (2010). Business process model and notation (BPMN), version 2.0 beta. Object Management Group. http://bpmn.org/
  31. 31.
    Oracle. (2009). Automating the Quote-to-Cash process. http://www.oracle.com/us/industries/045546.
  32. 32.
    Parunak, H. V. D. (1996). Visualizing agent conversations: Using enhanced Dooley graphs for agent design and analysis. Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on multiagent systems (pp. 275–282). Kyoto: AAAI Press.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Qumer, A., & Henderson-Sellers, B. (2008). An evaluation of the degree of agility in six agile methods and its applicability for method engineering. Information and Software Technology, 50(4), 280–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Robinson, W. N., & Purao, S. (2009). Specifying and monitoring interactions and commitments in open business processes. IEEE Software, 26(2), 72–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    RosettaNet. (2009). Home page. http://www.rosettanet.org
  36. 36.
    Serenko, A., & Turel, O. (2010). Rigor and relevance: The application of the critical incident technique to investigate email usage. Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce, 20(2), 182–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Singh, M. P. (1999). An ontology for commitments in multiagent systems: Toward a unification of normative concepts. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 7(1), 97–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Singh, M. P. (2000). Synthesizing coordination requirements for heterogeneous autonomous agents. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 3(2), 107–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Singh, M. P. (2008). Semantical considerations on dialectical and practical commitments. Proceedings of the 23rd conference on artificial intelligence (AAAI) (pp. 176–181). Chicago: AAAI Press.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Singh, M. P. (2012). Commitments in multiagent systems: Some history, some confusions, some controversies, some prospects. In: Paglieri, F., Tummolini, L., Falcone, R., Miceli, M. (Eds.), The goals of cognition: Essays in honor of cristiano castelfranchi (Ch. 32, pp. 613–638). London: College Publications. Available at http://www.csc.ncsu.edu/faculty/mpsingh/papers
  41. 41.
    Singh, M. P., Chopra, A. K., & Desai, N. (2009). Commitment-based service-oriented architecture. IEEE Computer, 42(11), 72–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    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. Appendix pages 1–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    TWIST. (2008). Transaction workflow innovation standards team. http://www.twiststandards.org
  44. 44.
    van der Aalst, W. M. P., ter Hofstede, A. H. M., Kiepuszewski, B., & Barros, A. P. (2003). Workflow patterns. Distributed and Parallel Databases, 14(1), 5–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Verdicchio, M., & Colombetti, M. (2003). A logical model of social commitment for agent communication. Proceedings of the 2nd international joint conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems (AAMAS) (pp. 528–535). Melbourne: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Wan, F., & Singh, M. P. (2003). Commitments and causality for multiagent design. Proceedings of the 2nd international joint conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems (AAMAS) (pp. 749–756). Melbourne: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Winikoff, M. (2006). Designing commitment-based agent interactions. In: ıProceedings of the IEEE/WIC/ACM international conference on intelligent agent technology (pp. 363–370). Hong Kong.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Yolum, P., & Singh, M. P. (2002a). Commitment machines. In: Proceedings of the 8th international workshop on agent theories, architectures, and languages (ATAL 2001) (pp. 235–247, Vol. 2333 of LNAI). Seattle: Springer.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Yolum, P., & Singh, M. P. (2002b). Flexible protocol specification and execution: Applying event calculus planning using commitments. Proceedings of the 1st international joint conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems (AAMAS) (pp. 527–534). Bologna: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Yolum, P., & Singh, M. P. (2004). 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.MATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.North Carolina State UniversityRaleighUSA

Personalised recommendations